By Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:52 AM
BEIJING -- President Obama directly acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay will not close by the January deadline he set, but he said he hoped to still achieve that goal sometime next year.
Obama refused, however, to set a new deadline.
In an interview in the Chinese capital with Major Garrett of Fox News, Obama said he was "not disappointed" that the Guantanamo deadline had slipped, saying he "knew this was going to be hard."
"People, I think understandably, are fearful after a lot of years where they were told that Guantanamo was critical to keep terrorists out," Obama said. Closing the facility, he added, is "also just technically hard."
Obama came to office pledging to shut a detainee facility that had become a symbol for prisoner abuse at the hands of American officials. He signed orders to shut the military prison by January 2010, but White House officials quickly encountered resistance from members of Congress opposed to moving prisoners to U.S. soil and from other countries they had hoped would accept detainees.
There was also a tangle of legal issues involving what to do with suspected terrorists who had been tortured in prison in a way that jeopardized the integrity of the evidence against them, or who for other reasons could not stand trial.
Last week, the administration announced that it will try five Guantanamo prisoners -- including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-declared mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- in federal court in New York. The fate of dozens of other detainees remains in limbo.
Guantanamo is a sensitive subject in China, where Obama conducted the television interview shortly before wrapping up a two-day visit. The United States has refused to release some ethnic minorities, known as Uighurs, back to Chinese officials for fear that they will be tortured. Several Uighurs who had been detained at Guantanamo have been sent instead to Bermuda and Palau after being cleared as non-combatants.
Despite the slow trickle of prisoners out of the facility, Obama insisted in the interview that the facility will be shuttered eventually.
"We are on a path and a process where I would anticipate that Guantanamo will be closed next year," he said. "I'm not going to set an exact date because a lot of this is also going to depend on cooperation from Congress."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Trying KSM In Civilian Court Could Cost Obama the Presidency
Is America at war, or not?
Posted: November 16, 2009
6:50 pm Eastern
© 2009
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
A jaw-dropping expose on the six-month undercover operation that revealed the true terror-supporting nature of CAIR: "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." It's also available in electronic form at reduced price through Scribd.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration
aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?
Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but told that his family would be killed and he would be waterboarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?
There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.
If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be needed to protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a mighty blow struck against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest, the trial should be held on Governors Island, would that not make the United States look like a nation under siege?
What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.
China Holds Firm on Major Issues in Obama’s Visit
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Obama toured the historic Forbidden City in Beijing on Tuesday during a break from meetings with Chinese leadersBEIJING — In six hours of meetings, at two dinners and during a stilted 30-minute news conference in which President Hu Jintao did not allow questions, President Obama was confronted, on his first visit, with a fast-rising China more willing to say no to the United States.
With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said.
“China effectively stage-managed President Obama’s public appearances, got him to make statements endorsing Chinese positions of political importance to them and effectively squelched discussions of contentious issues such as human rights and China’s currency policy,” said Eswar S. Prasad, a China specialist at Cornell University. “In a masterstroke, they shifted the public discussion from the global risks posed by Chinese currency policy to the dangers of loose monetary policy and protectionist tendencies in the U.S.”
White House officials maintained that they got what they came for — the beginning of a needed give-and-take with a surging economic giant. With a civilization as ancient as China’s, they argued, it would be counterproductive — and reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s style — for Mr. Obama to confront Beijing with loud chest-beating that might alienate the Chinese. Mr. Obama, the officials insisted, had made his points during private meetings and one-on-one sessions.
“I do not expect, and I can speak authoritatively for the president on this, that we thought the waters would part and everything would change over the course of our almost two-and-a-half-day trip to China,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. “We understand there’s a lot of work to do and that we’ll continue to work hard at making more progress.”
Several China experts noted that Mr. Obama was not leaving Beijing empty-handed. The two countries put out a five-point joint statement pledging to work together on a variety of issues. The statement calls for regular exchanges between Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu, and asks that each side pay more attention to the strategic concerns of the other. The statement also pledges that they will work as partners on economic issues, Iran and climate change.
But despite a conciliatory tone that began weeks ago when Mr. Obama declined to meet the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, before visiting China to avoid offending China’s leaders, it remains unclear whether Mr. Obama made progress on the most pressing policy matters on the American agenda in China or elsewhere in Asia.
The president has had to fend off criticism from American conservatives that he appeared to soften the American stance on the positioning of troops on the Japanese island of Okinawa, and for bowing to Japan’s emperor.
At a regional conference in Singapore, Mr. Obama announced a setback on another top foreign policy priority, climate change, acknowledging that comprehensive agreement to fight global warming was no longer within reach this year.
Past American presidents have usually insisted in advance on some concrete achievements from their trips overseas. President Bush received vigorous endorsements of his top foreign policy priority, the global war on terrorism, during his visits to Beijing, and President Bill Clinton guided China toward joining the World Trade Organization after prolonged negotiations. When either of those presidents visited the country, China often made a modest concession on human rights as well.
This time, Mr. Hu declined to follow the lead of President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia, who, after months of massaging by the Obama administration, now says that he is open to tougher sanctions against Iran if negotiations fail to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The administration needs China’s support if tougher sanctions are to be approved by the United Nations Security Council. But during the joint appearance in Beijing on Tuesday, Mr. Hu made no mention of sanctions.
Rather, he said, it was “very important” to “appropriately resolve the Iranian nuclear regime through dialogue and negotiations.” And then, as if to drive home that point, Mr. Hu added, “During the talks, I underlined to President Obama that given our differences in national conditions, it is only normal that our two sides may disagree on some issues.”
White House officials acknowledged that they did not get what they wanted from Mr. Hu on Iran but said that Mr. Obama’s method would yield more in the long term. “We’re not looking for them to lead or change course, we’re looking for them to not be obstructionist,” one administration official said.
Mr. Obama did not appear to move the Chinese on currency issues, either. China has come under heavy pressure, not only from the United States but also from Europe and several Asian countries, to revise its policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, pegged at an artificially low value against the dollar to help promote its exports. Some economists say China must take that step to prevent the return of large trade and financial imbalances that may have contributed to the recent financial crisis.
Mr. Obama on Tuesday could only cite China’s “past statements” in support of shifting toward market-oriented exchange rates, implying that he had not extracted a fresh commitment from Beijing to move in that direction soon.
There are many reasons the White House may have heeded China’s clear desire for a visit free of the polemics that often accompany meetings between leaders of the two countries. Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is rooted in recasting the United States as a thoughtful listener to friends and rivals alike.
“No we haven’t made China a democracy in three days — maybe if we pounded our chest a lot that would work,” Mr. Gibbs said in an e-mail message on Tuesday night. “But it hasn’t in the last 16 years.”
Kenneth Lieberthal, a Brookings Institution scholar who oversaw China issues in President Clinton’s White House, agreed. “The United States actually has enormous influence on popular thinking in China, but it is primarily by example,” he said. “If you go to the next step and say, ‘You guys ought to be like us,’ you lose the impact of who you are.”
The National Security Council’s spokesman, Michael A. Hammer, added, “What we did come to do is speak bluntly about the issues which are important to us, not in an unnecessarily offensive manner, but rather in the Obama style of showing respect.”
Mr. Obama, even as he projected a softer image, did nudge the Chinese on some delicate issues.
On Tuesday, standing next to Mr. Hu, Mr. Obama brought up Tibet, where Beijing-backed authorities have clamped down on religious freedom. “While we recognize that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China, the United States supports the early resumption of dialogue between the Chinese government and representatives of the Dalai Lama to resolve any concerns and differences that the two sides may have,” he said.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
China and the American Jobs Machine
China's export policy is really a social policy, designed to maintain order.
By ROBERT B. REICH
President Barack Obama says he wants to "rebalance" the economic relationship between China and the U.S. as part of his plan to restart the American jobs machine. "We cannot go back," he said in September, "to an era where the Chinese . . . just are selling everything to us, we're taking out a bunch of credit-card debt or home equity loans, but we're not selling anything to them." He hopes that hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers will make up for the inability of American consumers to return to debt-binge spending.This is wishful thinking. True, the Chinese market is huge and growing fast. By 2009, China was second only to the U.S. in computer sales, with a larger proportion of first-time buyers. It already had more cell-phone users. And excluding SUVs, last year Chinese consumers bought as many cars as Americans (as recently as 2006, Americans bought twice as many).
Even as the U.S. government was bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, the two firms' sales in China were soaring; GM's sales there are almost 50% higher this year than last. Proctor & Gamble is so well-established in China that many Chinese think its products (such as green-tea-flavored Crest toothpaste) are Chinese brands. If the Chinese economy continues to grow at or near its current rate and the benefits of that growth trickle down to 1.3 billion Chinese consumers, the country would become the largest shopping bazaar in the history of the world. They'll be driving over a billion cars and will be the world's biggest purchasers of household electronics, clothing, appliances and almost everything else produced on the planet.
But in fact China is heading in the opposite direction of "rebalancing." Its productive capacity keeps soaring, but Chinese consumers are taking home a shrinking proportion of the total economy. Last year, personal consumption in China amounted to only 35% of the Chinese economy; 10 years ago consumption was almost 50%. Capital investment, by contrast, rose to 44% from 35% over the decade.
David Gothard
China's capital spending is on the way to exceeding that of the U.S., but its consumer spending is barely a sixth as large. Chinese companies are plowing their rising profits back into more productive capacity—additional factories, more equipment, new technologies. China's massive $600 billion stimulus package has been directed at further enlarging China's productive capacity rather than consumption. So where will this productive capacity go if not to Chinese consumers? Net exports to other nations, especially the U.S. and Europe.
But the larger explanation for Chinese frugality is that the nation is oriented to production, not consumption. China wants to become the world's pre-eminent producer nation. It also wants to take the lead in the production of advanced technologies. The U.S. would like to retain the lead, but our economy is oriented to consumption rather than production.
Deep down inside the cerebral cortex of our national consciousness we assume that the basic purpose of an economy is to provide more opportunities to consume. We grudgingly support government efforts to rebuild our infrastructure. We want our companies to invest in new equipment and technologies but also want them to pay generous dividends. We approve of government investments in basic research and development, but mainly for the purpose of making the nation more secure through advanced military technologies. (We regard spillovers to the private sector as incidental.)
China's industrial and technological policy is unapologetically direct. It especially wants America's know-how, and the best way to capture knowhow is to get it firsthand. So China continues to condition many sales by U.S. and foreign companies on production in China—often in joint ventures with Chinese companies.
American firms are now helping China build a "smart" infrastructure, tackle pollution with clean technologies, develop a new generation of photovoltaics and wind turbines, find new applications for nanotechologies, and build commercial jets and jet engines. GM recently announced it was planning to make a new subcompact in China designed and developed primarily by the Pan-Asia Technical Automotive Center, a joint venture between GM and SAIC Motor in Shanghai. General Electric is producing wind turbine components in China. Earlier this month, Massachusetts-based Evergreen Solar announced it will be moving its solar panel production to China.
The Chinese government also wants to create more jobs in China, and it will continue to rely on exports. Each year, tens of millions of poor Chinese pour into large cities from the countryside in pursuit of better-paying work. If they don't find it, China risks riots and other upheaval. Massive disorder is one of the greatest risks facing China's governing elite. That elite would much rather create export jobs, even at the cost of subsidizing foreign buyers, than allow the yuan to rise and thereby risk job shortages at home.
To this extent, China's export policy is really a social policy, designed to maintain order. Despite the Obama administration's entreaties, China will continue to peg the yuan to the dollar—when the dollar drops, selling yuan in the foreign-exchange market and adding to its pile of foreign assets in order to maintain the yuan's fixed relation to the dollar. This is costly to China, of course, but for the purposes of industrial and social policy, China figures the cost is worth it.
Both America and China are capable of producing far more than their own consumers are capable of buying. In the U.S., the root of the problem is a growing share of total income going to the richest Americans, leaving the middle class with relatively less purchasing power unless they go deep into debt. Inequality is also widening in China, but the problem there is a declining share of the fruits of economic growth going to average Chinese and an increasing share going to capital investment.
Both societies are threatened by the disconnect between production and consumption. In China, the threat is civil unrest. In the U.S., it's a prolonged jobs and earnings recession that, when combined with widening inequality, could create political backlash.
Mr. Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and former secretary of labor under President Clinton, is the author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life" (Alfred A. Knopf, 2007).
CNN Poll: Americans want KSM tried in military court
Posted: November 16th, 2009 04:06 PM ET
Washington (CNN) – Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.
The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.
"The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular - even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S."
Mohammed is one of five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 attacks that will be tried in civilian court in New York.
"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday.
Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi will all be transferred to the Southern District of New York - a few blocks from where the World Trade Center towers stood prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
What should happen if Mohammed is found guilty?
"Nearly eight in 10 favor the death penalty if that happens - including one in five who say they normally oppose the death penalty, but would support it in this case," adds Holland.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted November 13-15, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall sample.
Full results (pdf)
Monday, November 16, 2009
Put Osama bin Laden on trial
November 13, 2009 5:53 p.m. EST
Editor's note: Paul Cruickshank, a Fellow at the NYU Center on Law and Security, regularly contributes to CNN's coverage of al Qaeda terrorism.
New York (CNN) -- The announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men accused of the 9/11 attacks will soon be moved to New York to face trial in a federal court will be welcomed by some Americans as finally starting the process of bringing the perpetrators of these attacks to justice. To date, not one person has been convicted for the attacks. But it also will be a reminder that their boss, the man most responsible for killing 3,000 civilians -- the majority of them Americans but many from all around the world -- is still at large.
President Obama has stated that it is vitally important for the country to put some of the controversial policies of the last eight years behind it. While the forthcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several figures allegedly involved in plotting the 9/11 attacks in New York will be helpful, nothing would help more than if Osama bin Laden were captured, afforded full due process and put on trial.
It would be nothing short of a watershed moment, doing much to restore the public's confidence in American institutions and the rule of law after years of being told that they were too quaint for the challenges of a new era. And it would go a long way, too, in restoring the moral high ground for the United States in the court of global opinion.
An indictment dating back to 1998 awaits al Qaeda's leader in the Southern District Federal Court of New York, which can be easily updated by a grand jury to include his crimes since. This is where Mohammed and four others accused of the 9/11 attacks are also expected to be tried.
Less than a mile from ground zero, there could be no more appropriate place to try bin Laden. There is virtually no chance that bin Laden would walk free from a U.S. courtroom as there are at least three separate video recordings of him acknowledging responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.
What's more, the U.S. government, thanks to cooperation agreements struck at the end of previous trials, already has at least three former al Qaeda insiders lined up, including the former Egyptian al Qaeda operative Ali Mohammed, to provide testimony about bin Laden's hands-on involvement in the 1998 African Embassy Bombings.
There is virtually no chance that bin Laden would walk free from a U.S. courtroom.
--Paul Cruickshank
--Paul Cruickshank
RELATED TOPICS
Capturing bin Laden will, of course, not be easy. There has been no meaningful intelligence on his location since he escaped from Tora Bora in December 2001. And bin Laden, believed now to be somewhere in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, will likely do everything he can to avoid being taken into custody.
"According to our security arrangements, if enemy forces surrounded Sheikh Osama and there was a possibility that he would escape, I was to kill him before they could catch him alive. ... I constantly stood behind his back around the clock," Abu Jandal, bin Laden's chief bodyguard until 2000, later revealed.
Despite this, the Obama administration would be well advised to put its emphasis on capturing bin Laden alive, such would be the benefits of a public trial.
The Obama administration will feel obliged to target al Qaeda's leader with a Predator strike if there is a narrow window of opportunity -- no other individual inspires and unifies al Qaeda like he does, and few have been as slippery -- but if intelligence suggests bin Laden has been living for some time in a particular location, real consideration should be given to sending in a Special Forces team to take him alive.
The Bush administration, while often repeating the mantra of needing to "capture or kill" al Qaeda's leader, in practice leaned heavily toward the latter. The leader of the Delta Force team charged with tracking down bin Laden at Tora Bora later recalled, "We knew the writing on the wall was really to kill him. No one wanted to bring Osama bin Laden back to stand trial in the United States somewhere."
Those in favor of quietly killing al Qaeda's leader have argued that a public trial would be dangerous because it would provide bin Laden with a global platform for his views and unleash a wave of terrorist attacks and kidnappings by his comrades in efforts to release him.
These are concerns that cannot be dismissed lightly. In a federal trial, bin Laden would have the right to defend himself and the media frenzy over proceedings would likely dwarf even that of the O.J. Simpson trial. In the past there has been a link to the imprisonment of individuals beloved of al Qaeda and terrorist violence.
As CNN analyst Peter Bergen documented in "The Osama bin Laden I Know," the 1993 arrest, trial and imprisonment in the United States of Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the Blind Sheikh), was a central motivating factor for al Qaeda's terrorist campaign thereafter.
In deciding to try Mohammed in New York, the Obama administration has clearly decided that the benefits of public trials for high profile terrorism suspects outweigh such dangers. Joshua Dratel, a defense lawyer who has represented clients in several of the most high profile terrorism trials in the United States, says, "So what if bin Laden were to articulate his views in court?" Says Dratel, "He already has a global audience every time he puts out his recordings, but this time the platform would in reality belong to the United States."
Those familiar with those recordings (which have rarely been aired in full by mainstream media outlets) can attest to the fact that bin Laden's rambling speaking style, his shallow knowledge of Islam and his often twisted logic are unlikely to make his courtroom pronouncements resonate with those who are not already fervent admirers.
That will particularly be the case if his public defense follows a full documenting by the prosecution of the human suffering he has orchestrated over the years, evidence which should prove devastating to those who still deny bin Laden's culpability. "The vast majority of people in the Muslim world have rejected bin Laden's calls for attacks on civilians," says Yosri Fouda, a leading Egyptian television presenter, "and nothing bin Laden could say during a trial could change that."
Would bin Laden's capture lead to a spike of attacks against American interests? This is possible to some degree but al Qaeda can hardly be accused of having shown any restraint whatsoever in targeting Americans since it declared global jihad in 1998. Conversely, convicting bin Laden could -- in the medium term -- lead to a steep drop in al Qaeda violence. While martyrdom would seal bin Laden's status in the jihadist movement, capture would seriously deflate it.
Abu Jandal, bin Laden's bodyguard put it this way: "In the case of his death, I think he will be a symbol for all those who follow him.... His death will be a great force for stirring up everybody's emotions and enthusiasm to follow him on the path to martyrdom. In the case of his arrest, the situation might be a bit different. It might lead to a strong psychological defeat for the group's members."
A trial for bin Laden, undertaken with due process, would not only help the United States take back the moral high ground in the court of global opinion, it would also serve as a powerful counterpoint to the indiscriminate barbarism of bin Laden's terrorist campaign. The affording of due process, even of the worst of enemies is line with the best instincts of the American people.
A month after 9/11, when emotions were at their most raw, an Ipsos poll showed that nearly as many Americans said they wanted bin Laden tried (42 percent) as said they wanted him instead killed (49 percent). There has been no comparable poll since, but given Americans voted overwhelmingly for a president who vowed to shut down Guantanamo, it would not be farfetched to suggest that the number favoring a trial for bin Laden has substantially increased.
At the National Archives in May, President Obama made a keynote speech on national security and detention. "Wherever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts --- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trial of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists," he said.
A trial for bin Laden, if he can be captured, is not just feasible, but at this juncture in American history would be invaluable.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul Cruickshank.
Will Obama Apologize for Hiroshima & Nagazaki?
By Richard Halloran
Within a couple of hours of landing in Japan on Friday, President Barack Obama walked into a political minefield by implicitly promising someday to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the targets of American atomic bombs in 1945.
After meeting with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Mr. Obama was asked by a Japanese reporter in an evening press conference whether he would go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where no US president has ever been. "What is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" the Japanese asked. "Do you think that it was the right decision?"
"I certainly would be honored," the president replied. "It would be meaningful for me to visit those two cities in the future."
The Japanese reporter persisted, asking again whether the US was right in dropping the atomic bombs. Mr. Obama slid off the question, turning to the charged issue of North Korea's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
A presidential journey to the only cities to have experienced a nuclear assault would underscore Mr. Obama's intent to rid the world of nuclear arms. If not handled with sensitivity, however, the visit could trigger emotional outbursts from Japanese victims of the bombings and from Japanese who experience a "nuclear allergy."
Many Japanese, particularly left-wing organizations, would most likely demand that the US apologize for dropping the bombs, which would stir up rancor in the US. That would call into question the judgment of President Harry Truman, who made the decision to drop the bombs. In turn, that would put President Obama in a politically difficult position.
Among Americans, veterans of World War II, especially survivors of Japan's surprise attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, would be vigilant for any sign of remorse for an action that many believe ended World War II with Japan's surrender, sparing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans poised to invade Japan.
In addition, many American private citizens, whether they lived through the war or not, would insist that a US presidential visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki be preceded by the visit of a Japanese prime minister to Pearl Harbor. That has not happened so far.
In April, the president set a lofty goal, saying in Prague that "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act." Mr. Obama continued: "Today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
The president followed up in Tokyo on Saturday with a wide-ranging address on American policy in Asia that included a passage on nuclear arms. Americans and Japanese, the president said, must "redouble our efforts to meet a threat to our security that is the legacy of the 20th century - the danger posed by nuclear weapons."
"Indeed," Mr. Obama said, "Japan serves as an example to the world that true peace and power can be achieved by taking this path. For decades, Japan has enjoyed the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, while rejecting nuclear arms development - and by any measure, this has increased Japan's security, and enhanced its position."
The president, however, emphasized: "Let me be clear: so long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrent that guarantees the defense of our allies - including South Korea and Japan." Leaders in both nations have expressed concern that the US would withdraw that extended deterrence, also known as the "nuclear umbrella."
From Japan, Mr. Obama's itinerary will take him to Singapore for meetings with leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations, thence to China and South Korea.
After meeting with Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Mr. Obama was asked by a Japanese reporter in an evening press conference whether he would go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where no US president has ever been. "What is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?" the Japanese asked. "Do you think that it was the right decision?"
The Japanese reporter persisted, asking again whether the US was right in dropping the atomic bombs. Mr. Obama slid off the question, turning to the charged issue of North Korea's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
A presidential journey to the only cities to have experienced a nuclear assault would underscore Mr. Obama's intent to rid the world of nuclear arms. If not handled with sensitivity, however, the visit could trigger emotional outbursts from Japanese victims of the bombings and from Japanese who experience a "nuclear allergy."
Many Japanese, particularly left-wing organizations, would most likely demand that the US apologize for dropping the bombs, which would stir up rancor in the US. That would call into question the judgment of President Harry Truman, who made the decision to drop the bombs. In turn, that would put President Obama in a politically difficult position.
Among Americans, veterans of World War II, especially survivors of Japan's surprise attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941, would be vigilant for any sign of remorse for an action that many believe ended World War II with Japan's surrender, sparing the lives of tens of thousands of Americans poised to invade Japan.
In addition, many American private citizens, whether they lived through the war or not, would insist that a US presidential visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki be preceded by the visit of a Japanese prime minister to Pearl Harbor. That has not happened so far.
In April, the president set a lofty goal, saying in Prague that "as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act." Mr. Obama continued: "Today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
The president followed up in Tokyo on Saturday with a wide-ranging address on American policy in Asia that included a passage on nuclear arms. Americans and Japanese, the president said, must "redouble our efforts to meet a threat to our security that is the legacy of the 20th century - the danger posed by nuclear weapons."
"Indeed," Mr. Obama said, "Japan serves as an example to the world that true peace and power can be achieved by taking this path. For decades, Japan has enjoyed the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy, while rejecting nuclear arms development - and by any measure, this has increased Japan's security, and enhanced its position."
The president, however, emphasized: "Let me be clear: so long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a strong and effective nuclear deterrent that guarantees the defense of our allies - including South Korea and Japan." Leaders in both nations have expressed concern that the US would withdraw that extended deterrence, also known as the "nuclear umbrella."
From Japan, Mr. Obama's itinerary will take him to Singapore for meetings with leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations, thence to China and South Korea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)