For those who are wondering how we should deal with the hunger
strikers at Gitmo, Max Boot reminds us of the Margaret Thatcher approach:
In
1981, when IRA terrorist Bobby Sands was starving himself to death while in a
British prison, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher did not order him force fed,
she did not give in to his political demands (to be recognized as a political
prisoner, not a common criminal)–and she did not mourn his passing. She
declared on the floor of the House of Commons: “Mr. Sands was a convicted
criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice that his organization
did not allow to many of its victims.” With statements like that, Thatcher
established her reputation as the Iron Lady–a leader not to be trifled with.
In contrast, Boot says, President Obama is trying to find
out what he can do to appease the terrorists:
The
notion that we’re going to continue to keep over a hundred individuals in a
no-man’s land in perpetuity, even at a time when we’ve wound down the war in
Iraq, we’re winding down the war in Afghanistan, we’re having success defeating
al Qaeda core, we’ve kept the pressure up on all these transnational terrorist
networks, when we’ve transferred detention authority in Afghanistan — the idea
that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been
tried, that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it
needs to stop…. I don’t want these individuals to die. Obviously, the Pentagon
is trying to manage the situation as best as they can. But I think all of us
should reflect on why exactly are we doing this? Why are we doing this?
A strange locution, to say the least. Is Obama tormenting
himself over why “we” are keeping Gitmo open? Is he wondering why he has done
nothing to keep his promise to close it down?
He seems to be saying that the hunger strike is a legitimate
response to the injustice being visited on these poor terrorists by the big, bad
USA.
People like Andrew Sullivan will surely think that this places Obama on the moral high ground. In truth, it is squeamish and weak. And it causes more hunger
strikes than it ends.
They have a choice. It's either Gitmo or a drone. Either way, Obama is not losing any sleep over their strike.
ReplyDeleteThat said, release them into Mexico. We have a de facto agreement with Mexicans to receive their unwanted citizens, and they receive the Federal government's "unwanted" Arms. It would be a dysfunctional convergence!
Let's see Obama Campaigned in 2008 to close Gitmo, and now 5 years later minimal progress. So what's a president to do?
ReplyDeleteAct "squeamish and weak" by asking for action on what he believes need action in a DO-NOTHING congress.
Force feeding I don't believe in, but I believe its possible to make promises to the prisons - this will be dealt with, you have my word, and then start working the system to get it done!
HECK, if I was president I might take a stand too - and starve myself for as many days as it took, until Congress acts to END this legal limbo land.
And if the president of the most powerful nation is allowed to starve himself under a do-nothing congress, then at least the rest of the world will know we are a shamed nation that doesn't deserve respect either.
Benghazi Barry is the guy who says he will do by Executive Order what needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteUmmmmm hmmmmm.