The Constitution has a Great Day thanks to President Obama

Today, on President Obama's second day in office, and on what appears to be the first really full working day, he signed the executive order he promised during the campaign - the order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In his inauguration speech, President Obama said "we reject as false the choice between safety and our ideals." In fact, our greatest strength lies in the belief in the power of our ideals; in the firm commitment to our deepest values when times are hard, not just when times are easy. President Obama knows this and today was yet another day that I was glad I voted for him.

So of course I'm almost pleased beyond words. It's a great day for the constitution and the principles of our government. It would be a sad thing if our nation could long be be persuaded to sacrifice essential democratic principles of liberty simply because we've been frightened by the work of madmen.

In the immortal words of Ben Franklin: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Comments

nkoletic said…

While it might be nice in a symbolic sense, Gitmo as a detention center was the least of the constitutional problems with how Bush handled detainees - from the physical treatment of prisoners to how that administration countenanced their right to habeas petitions. And it seems like the Supreme Court closed the case on the habeas issue with the recent Boumedienne decision (the wiki entry is actually pretty good). This decision came at the end of a long cat and mouse game between the Court and the Bush administration/Congress. The Rasul case led to the Detainee Treatment Act which led to the Hamdan case which led to the Military Commissions Act and it all seemingly ended with Boumedienne. I'd hate for Gitmo's closure to be a historical red herring - the problem was never in the place, but in the interpretation of a set of rules that the Bush administration wished applied or wished didn't apply there. Plus I hear its a nice piece of real estate.

January 22, 2009 at 10:15 PM

Katie said…

Hello MJG - what kind of "coercive questioning" do you tolerate if it could save thousands of lives?

January 22, 2009 at 11:25 PM

Michael James Gwaltney said…

Nick - you're right of course, in one way the closing of Guantanamo is simply a symbolic gesture. But I'd be careful in rejecting it as trivial - I think the symbolism is very important. The proof of that importance will play out in subsequent months as we should see an opening for international cooperation that was being blocked by the angst over American intransigence on human rights. That the move to close Guantanamo will invigorate the left in this country is also a wise political strategy for President Obama who seemingly plans to govern from the middle. I'm not suggesting that the move is simply a "bone" to the left, but the political value of the move can't be dismissed.

Still, my post is about a move that respects and aids in the enforcement of the constitution. I believe that is the case. It doesn't go all the way toward that, as you've pointed out, but it goes far. As part of the order, the government will reconsider detention as a whole and the means for extracting information from detainees. I'm certain that President Obama will hold this process to constitutional scrutiny, and that makes me happy.

I read the Hamdan book - have you read it? - and wrote a paper on Jose Padilla for my PhD program. I've been offended by Bush detention policies. I couldn't resist posting today.

Thanks for the read. Hope you are well.

January 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Katie - may I humbly reject the premise of your question? Though life may seem to many to be fairly reflected the the television series "24", I don't believe it does. John McCain, members of the Republican Party, and members of the Intelligence community have spoken eloquently of the problems with torture and that it simply isn't necessary. I take their word for it.

Moreover, a civilized society must learn to live by its principles. We live by those criminal rights contained in the 4th - 8th amendments to the constitution, and by the rulings of our federal courts. The military seeks to follow the rules of the Geneva Convention. And lefties like me would like to see the U.S. adopt the principles of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights. All these principles are in fact NOT principles if they get thrown out when situations are difficult.

I respect your thoughtful disagreement with me on this issue. But I would say that those people, like McCain, who have undergone detention and who work in the policy world are credible enough for me.

I welcome your thoughts. Thanks always for reading, and I hope you are well. :-)

January 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I'm not trying to roil anyone's blood here - I'm really just curious what "lefties" think is ok for getting answers out of suspects. I need to be educated. And I love 24, don't mess with Jack. :P

January 23, 2009 at 11:28 PM