Two Thoughts on the Death of bin Laden

1. I used to wonder how bin Laden could send young men off to their deaths and not be expected to make a similar commitment himself. What heroism was there in running to save his own skin after we invaded Afghanistan? But I realized that al-Qaeda leadership could always have argued that somebody needed to be in charge. Maybe they could've even portrayed hiding in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan/Pakistan as some heroic sacrifice.

Now we know that that would've been a lie. Osama wasn't hiding in caves, but in an expensive compound in Pakistan. He didn't die a martyr; he used his wife as a human shield, trying desperately to prolong his life that much further. Bin Laden wasn't a leader; he was a hypocrite and a coward.

2. Some are jumping on the fact that the tip originated from torturing a Gitmo detainee to argue for resuscitating enhanced interrogation and keeping Guantanamo open. But that assumes we couldn't have gleaned this information otherwise and ignores the other effects of torture. What's more, as I've said before, effectiveness is irrelevant; torture is immoral and illegal. Period.

Why Building the Mosque is Important

"Try to learn instead of burn, hear what I say." ~Jimi Hendrix

The "war on terror" has been compared to the Cold War, and while I think historical comparisons can obscure important nuances, the comparison makes sense in at least two ways. First, invading a country and imposing a government on it is going to be seen as imperialist, even if it's well-intentioned. And second, both wars are fundamentally wars of ideas.

Al-Qaeda's idea is obvious: Western liberal democracy is incompatible with Islam and must be fought. Looking at our history, our idea is also obvious: Islam and liberal democracy are compatible.

There are those who would cede the first point to al-Qaeda, who believe that our idea should be, 'Yes, democracy and Islam are incompatible, but it is Islam that must be fought.' But a war of ideas can not be won by force; it can only be won by persuasion. And the more we act like we are at war with Islam, the more Muslims will be at war with us.

A war on Islam is not a war that we can win, nor should it be a war that we want to fight. No, we win the war on terror by encouraging moderate Muslims to say and say it loudly, "Al-Qaeda, you are wrong. We do not need to fight democracy but to foster it. We reject your ideas, and you are not the true face of Islam." But if we continue to lump in our moderate friends with our extremist enemies, we undermine our allies and we lose the war.

Reactions to the Times Square Plot

Four days ago, an amateur car bomb failed to go off in New York City's Times Square. A T-shirt vendor noticed smoke coming out of an awkwardly parked Nissan Pathfinder and alerted a nearby police officer. The authorities responded swiftly, evacuating the area and defusing the bomb.

Reactions have been oddly muted, nowhere near the frenzy after the underwear bomber Omar Abdulmutallab failed to blow up a plane above Detroit. My rationale is that the difference in reaction is due to the difference in terrorist methods. There is so much security around airplanes that the fact that Abdulmutallab got as far as he did represents a failure somewhere in the system. But there seems to be no good way to stop someone from parking a car bomb in Times Square. In this case, the system worked as well as it could.

Meanwhile, Adam Serwer at Tapped had been pushing the line that conservatives have been quiet because the suspect at the time was "a middle-aged white guy" instead of a radical Muslim. But now that a Pakistani-American has been arrested and has reportedly confessed, Republicans are still fairly silent.

Still, even though I'm not quite as cynical as Serwer--"If the attack was carried out by Muslim extremists, the conservative response will be that this would never have happened if Obama were still torturing people. If it turns out to be a domestic right-wing extremist, well, it'll be a tragic but understandable response to government tyranny."--I have to admit he has a point. Would Scott Brown have said, "No one likes paying taxes obviously," if a Muslim had flown a plane into a building with IRS offices instead of Andrew Joseph Stack III?

Also, Andrew Sullivan rounds up more reactions, and Megan McArdle opines on why terrorist attacks are so infrequent.

The Problem with Bagram

"The Obama Administration is inheriting not so much a shrinking Guantánamo as an expanding Bagram."     ~Tina Foster, executive director of the International Justice Network

Bagram Air Force Base lies 40 miles north of Kabul, Afghanistan. It currently holds 670 detainees, more than 2.5 times the amount currently at Guantánamo Bay. And these detainees are being held without a trial, without any charges, and without an end.

The Bush Justice Department, in response to human rights groups bringing the case to the Federal District Court, said this in a filing for the court:

Federal courts should not thrust themselves into the extraordinary role of reviewing the military's conduct of active hostilities overseas, second-guessing the military's determination as to which captured aliens as part of such hostilities should be detained, and in practical effect, superintending the Executive's conduct in waging a war...

Given the ongoing war, there is every reason to believe that our military mission in Afghanistan would be compromised if the writ [of habeas corpus] is extended to Bagram. To provide alien enemy combatants detained in a theater of war the privilege of access to our civil courts is unthinkable both legally and practically.

Maybe the Bagram detainees don't legally have access to civilian courts, but the military mission in Afghanistan would hardly be compromised by providing them basic rights. We cannot win the "war on terror" by abandoning our democratic principles. Imagine the fear and anger we would be instilling into the very "hearts and minds" that we are supposed to be winning if we could just disappear innocent people in such an Orwellian fashion.

We must try to improve the lives, the economies, and the governments of the Middle East if we are to prevent the root causes of terrorism. We should either charge or release the detainees. Those who are charged should be tried in local courts. If there is a problem with the local courts, we should attempt to improve them or try them in military courts, preferably both.

And now, I leave you with a quote:

"Sometimes a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back. Nevertheless, it has the upper hand."     ~Aharon Barak, former President of the Israeli Supreme Court

New Precedent Could Lead to Release of More Prisoners from Gitmo

A new precedent could release more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, and it only took 7 years to realize that you actually can't carry out a racially and prejudiced policy of holding people indefinitely and without charges, torturing them in the meanwhile. Please check out the article in its entirety from the Associated Press below.

Judge: Let Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo into US

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal judge ordered the Bush administration Tuesday to immediately free 17 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo Bay into the United States, rebuking the government in a landmark decision that could set the stage for the release of dozens other prisoners in Cuba.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina said it would be wrong for the government to continue holding the detainees, known as Uighurs (WEE'-gurz), who have been jailed for nearly seven years, since they are no longer considered enemy combatants. Over the objections of government lawyers who called them a security risk, Urbina ordered their release in Washington D.C. by Friday.

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detentions without cause, the continued detention is unlawful," Urbina said in a ruling that brought cheers and applause from a standing-room only courtroom filled with dozens of Uighurs and human rights activists.

He also ordered a hearing for next week to decide where the Uighurs should be permanently settled. Until then, members of the Uighur community in the D.C. area have offered to take them in and will help care for them.

Justice Department attorney John C. O'Quinn said the government would consider whether to appeal the decision. O'Quinn's request to delay the decision pending a possible appeal was denied Tuesday by Urbina, who said the detainees had waited long enough.

At issue is the scope of a federal judge's power to order the release of a Guantanamo prisoner, who was unlawfully detained by the U.S. but who cannot be sent back to his homeland. The Uighurs, who are Turkic-speaking Muslims in western China, have been cleared for release from Guantanamo since 2004 and ordinarily they would be sent home.

But the Uighurs cannot be sent back to China where they are considered terrorists and could be tortured, and the Bush administration says no country is willing to accept them. Albania accepted five Uighur detainees in 2006 but has since balked on taking others due partly to fears of repercussions with China.

Urbina's decision also has broader implications for the future of the Guantanamo prison, which the Bush administration has said it would like to shut down after "working with other countries to take people back under the right circumstances." A federal judge is set later this month to hold hearings on other Guantanamo prisoners challenging their detention as so-called enemy combatants.

About 20 percent of about 250 detainees who remain at the military prison fear torture or persecution if they return to their home countries, according to the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, raising similar questions as to where they should go if other countries refuse to take them. The U.S. has long maintained they should stay at Guantanamo.

"How many times does the Bush administration need to be told that detainees are entitled to essential rights? All the remaining detainees in Guantanamo Bay must be either charged and tried or released immediately," said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA.

On Tuesday, the Bush administration argued a federal judge did not have the power to order the release of a foreign-born detainee into the U.S., saying would undercut immigration laws that dictate how foreigners are brought into the country. Until a country accepts the Uighurs, they would stay in special housing that includes TVs, air-conditioning and recreational activities such as soccer, tennis and volleyball, government attorneys said.

O'Quinn also said federal judges had no power to order the detainees' release and should defer to the executive branch, who he said would be in a better position in light of the delicate relations with China. In Beijing Tuesday, before Urbina's ruling, the government demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantanamo be repatriated to China.

"The court should be circumspect because of the potential for interference with foreign relations," O'Quinn said.

Sabin Willett, an attorney for the Uighurs, countered: "I've never heard anyone argue our relations with other nations are a basis for holding someone."

The Uighurs have been at Guantanamo Bay, a naval prison in Cuba, since the U.S. military took custody of them in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 2001.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said before Tuesday's court hearing that the Uighurs are suspected of being members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which the United States lists as a terrorist organization.

"China has urged the U.S. to repatriate these Chinese terrorist suspects to China on many occasions. We hope the U.S. will take our position seriously and repatriate these persons to China sooner rather than later," he said.

A spokesman at the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Urbina's order.

Uighurs are from Xinjiang — an isolated region that borders Afghanistan, Pakistan and six Central Asian nations — and say they have been repressed by the Chinese government. China has long said that insurgents are leading an Islamic separatist movement in Xinjiang.

Rebia Kadeer, president of the World Uighur Congress, called the decision a victory for oppressed Uighurs in China.

"This is our destiny. This our people's win. This concerns our freedom. China accuses us of being terrorists, but we are not," she said through a translator as other Uighurs in the courtroom cried for joy.

____________________

As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. All in all a great ruling by the federal judge and hopefully, the United States can work out an arrangement where the detainees will no longer face the daily threat and reality of torture at the hands of any country.