Earlier this evening, the Huffington Post ran an editorial by former Republican Governor of New York George Pataki, entitled "The Obama Administration's Systemic Failure on Terrorism." Pataki's outraged by President Obama's policies to combat terrorism, and it wasn't just the failed plane bombing attempt on Christmas Day that irked him so much -- apparently, he's been outraged since Day 1.
Virtually every decision this Administration has made has placed American security at greater risk, since refusing from the very beginning to even acknowledge the existence of a War on Terror, or to call enemy combatants terrorists.
It is time for the Administration to wake up and smell the explosives.
I suppose I could spend all day wondering why a supposedly liberal outlet like the Huffington Post would so easily grant a platform to a Republican who writes such blatant, baseless, fear-mongering tripe to scare its readers like "It is time for the Administration to wake up and smell the explosives," but leaving that puzzling issue aside, let's review a few of Pataki's areas of concern about Obama's counter-terrorism policies.
First, the decision to return six terrorists to Yemen last month was a mistake that should not be repeated. The Pentagon reported this week that one in five terrorists released from Guantanamo are either suspected or confirmed to have returned to the battlefield in places like Afghanistan. The president should suspend his effort to shut Guantanamo until we are certain of a secure alternative facility to hold all detainees.
Yes, what a horrible decision it was to release six Yemeni detainees on the grounds that a federal court declared that there was no sufficient evidence to justify their detention. And how awful that an Obama Administration task force declare that up to 40 Yemeni prisoners be "cleared for release" because they were deemed to be held unfairly, indefinitely, and without charges for any crime. After all, George Pataki knows that the only right thing to do is declare prisoners who haven't been charged with a crime as "terrorists," and use that as justification for holding them indefinitely without trial. I mean, since when do we provide prisoners with due process and civil liberties of any kind? What sort of nation is this, a nation of laws?
Second, end the wrong-headed investigation of our own CIA officials. Against the strong recommendation of CIA Director Leon Panetta, the Obama Administration has begun an investigation into CIA agents who interrogated terrorists, even though this action was rejected time and again by prior Justice Department officials. The September 11th attacks were largely the result of a weak intelligence apparatus, and this Christmas Day near-disaster again was again a failure to appropriately share intelligence. The decision to investigate those devoting their lives to protecting us is an example of left-leaning political correctness run amok and greatly hurts morale at that agency at a time when we need a strong CIA more than ever.
For now, I'll leave aside my concern that I don't believe the Justice Department is doing enough to investigate former officials of the Bush Administration. But apparently, any possible investigation into officials who may have authorized the torture of detainees is "wrong-headed," because as Pataki points out, torture is just a form of "interrogation." That's another way of saying that the CIA -- like any and all government bodies who have "devoted their lives to protecting us" -- should be immune to criticism and accountability for criminal wrongdoing, because they're in the business of "keeping us safe," and thus the actions of their officials should never be questioned.
I also find it funny how Pataki would use September 11 as evidence for his point that the Obama Administration is somehow failing to combat terrorism effectively, given that -- well, you know -- another guy by the name of George Bush was President when that happened. Oh, and as I recall, it was the Bush Administration which, in radical response to 9/11, did the following: Started a war in Iraq based on fear and false intelligence, illegally wiretapped American citizens, grossly intruded onto Americans' civil liberties and personal privacy, and trampled over human rights and the Constitution when it came to protecting the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens and the rights of prisoners awaiting trial.
Oh, and it's been documented again and again that officials did a lot more than merely "interrogate" detainees. As McClatchy notes:
American soldiers herded the detainees into holding pens of razor-sharp concertina wire, as if they were corralling livestock.
The guards kicked, kneed and punched many of the men until they collapsed in pain. U.S. troops shackled and dragged other detainees to small isolation rooms, then hung them by their wrists from chains dangling from the wire mesh ceiling.
Not that I expect Pataki would know or care about such information. But getting back to his screed:
Fourth, reverse the decision to treat Khalid Sheik Mohammad as a criminal defendant instead of a terrorist. He was captured while continuing to fight a war against us that he acknowledges, even if the Obama Administration refuses to acknowledge the same. As the mastermind of the September 11th attacks, he does not belong in our civilian court system and should be prosecuted under the military tribunal system created for this purpose. To give this butcher and his followers a global media forum to act like victims and spew their hate defies logic. It will inflame anti-American actions across the globe. To show the world such a weak, politically correct response to terrorists makes America and Americans less safe. This is an unprecedented, dangerous mistake and I implore President Obama to reverse this horrible decision before it is too late.
I have a couple of questions for Mr. Pataki, as well as anyone who would oppose the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other suspected terrorists to the U.S. for a criminal trial:
- We have given criminal trials to other suspected terrorists in our nation's past. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was given one. Jose Padilla was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. They both faced criminal trials during the Bush Administration's reign. When that happened, did you complain that the Bush Administration was "making us less safe"? Where is the evidence that a criminal trial for both of these men resulted in the weakening of our country's national security?
- What do you honestly think inflames anti-American actions more: Using our system of law on which we have relied for more than 200 years to try prisoners and convict criminals -- or denying prisoners the right to a trial, holding them indefinitely, and in some cases, brutalizing them while in detainment?
Out of respect for fair use, I'm not going to quote the rest of Pataki's article. You can read the rest of it at the link above. So, the last point I'll make is one for the Huffington Post. As a news and opinion organization, I can understand that you might be interested in occasionally presenting a contrasting point of view -- but publishing a piece by someone whose work is riddled with so many obvious, blatant falsehoods gives your organization neither credence nor credibility.