Bill Clinton Joins the Defeatists

Bill Clinton has joined the defeatists joining the chorus criticizing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

In an interview with the Financial Times, Clinton called for the terrorist holding facility to “be closed down or cleaned up.”

According to the Financial Times, Clinton offered a test to determine whether treatment of "terrorists suspects" is justified:

Mr Clinton said the test for judging whether harsh treatment of terrorist suspects was justified was whether it challenged the “fundamental nature” of American society. If the answer is Yes, you have already given the terrorists a profound victory.”

That's really helpful. Haven't we been arguing about what is the fundamental nature of America for years?

During the interview Clinton admitted that when he was President terrorists suspects were held "beyond the normal length of time" without trial:

. . . I dealt with this, I'm not blameless on the second issue. We had a law on the books when I was President, that was enforced from time to time, which permitted the Justice department to hold suspected terrorists beyond the normal length of time they could them without trial, if, bringing the indictment and the trial would require the presentation of evidence which would reveal the identity of the intelligence source, compromise the life of the intelligence source, maybe risk the life of the intelligence source, but more importantly dry up what we thought we were finding out about terror networks.

[. . .]

And I've already admitted to you, I'm not blameless in this because when I was there not on the torture front but on extended detention, we had a few people, but we fixed it in some of the cases but not in every case, we still have three or four controversial cases, when I left office and I don't know what the answer to that is. It's a very difficult problem.

The entire 3850 word transcript of the "interview" is available here. Reading the interview I was struck by the fact that the Financial Times was only able to get in four questions. I have posted the portion of the interview dealing with Gitmo in the extended post.

Roger L. Simon wonders whether Clinton's attack on Gitmo is designed as a distraction from rumors that Clinton has had more extra-marital affairs behind the back of his senator wife.

FT: "Obviously, if this is a success, it would do wonders for America's image around the world: Do you think, Mr. President, that it's time that we close Gitmo?"

BC: "Well it either needs to be closed down or cleaned up. It's time that there are no more stories coming out of there about people being abused.

"And then the second issue is a tougher one, I dealt with this, I'm not blameless on the second issue. We had a law on the books when I was President, that was enforced from time to time, which permitted the Justice department to hold suspected terrorists beyond the normal length of time they could them without trial, if, bringing the indictment and the trial would require the presentation of evidence which would reveal the identity of the intelligence source, compromise the life of the intelligence source, maybe risk the life of the intelligence source, but more importantly dry up what we thought we were finding out about terror networks.

"It sounds so reasonable but if you're the guy who's in prison and you're not guilty, you could be held there three, four, five years and there has to be come limit to that.

"But the more important thing and I want to make some explicit statement here because I think people in the West who feel threatened by terror may be tempted to become more tolerant of the need to be tougher with suspected terrorists.

"But once you've got people in custody if you start really roughing them up, there are two huge problems with that quite apart from the morality of it.

"There are two huge practical problems. Practical problem number one. If American or British troops get the reputation for abusing people in their prisons then when they get captured you know, then who do they send for, every time there is a problem in the world? When I left the White House, I was more criticised for where I didn't intervene then where I did, except among the Republican in Congress who said I went everywhere and did everything.

"You can't pull a lot of these operations if first the Americans and then the UK don't participate. So we're everywhere. S if we get a reputation for abusing people, it puts are own soldiers much more at risk.

"The second problem is, if you rough somebody up bad enough they'll eventually tell you, most of them, whatever you want to hear to get you to stop doing it.

"And if you run a dictatorship, maybe all you want is for somebody to say they are guilty. If you are trying to preserve and expand freedom you want to convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. If people are abused and they confess, or the finger other people, and you gather up those who are not guilty, then as a practical matter you've let the guilty go free and you are vulnerable to whatever they are going to do to you.

"So in addition to the ethical problem of the violation of human rights, there are those two practical problems that we ought to be mindful of. That's why you see so many, I don't know if you know this but quite a number of uniformed military personnel have been very outspoken about opposing the abuses that have been reported at Gitmo and elsewhere.

"That's one thing I'd like international leaders to know about America, the vast majority of our military personnel, are opposed to the abusive practices on moral ground because it makes the people serving under them more vulnerable and because you can get anyone to say anything if you beat them up badly enough.

"And I've already admitted to you, I'm not blameless in this because when I was there not on the torture front but on extended detention, we had a few people, but we fixed it in some of the cases but not in every case, we still have three or four controversial cases, when I left office and I don't know what the answer to that is. It's a very difficult problem.

"If you're absolutely sure somebody is a terrorist, and you're absolutely sure you can put them on trial and convicting them out of a terrorist intelligence network which would put the country at risk, it's quite a dilemma.

"But I still don't think you can just hold these people forever. I think sooner or later you've got to move or let them go, you can't say, 'we know' because its all secret. It is just inimical to a free society.

" I ask all Americans and all free people always to think about this, when you ask yourself, 'Should we do this or not?' Because you can always say, if I put the clamps down harder I'll be more secure - on any issue.

"Here's the question you should ask yourself, 'If we do this thing, whatever it is, will it change the fundamental character of my country?' If the answer is yes, you've already given the terrorists a profound victory, so at all costs we should try to say 'No. We will not do anything that changes the fundamental character of our country."

"Then all the hard questions should be around the edges because when a few people working in secret can kill a lot on innocent people, you want to be able to be a little tougher than you would normally be. That is not to no hard questions, but if they get you to change the character of your country then you've compromised the future of your children and you've given them a victory anywhere. That's where you've got to be careful.

Comments

[Fundamental Man]

you say he's one of us, eh?

we piddle on the likes of Clinton. he is not a true defeatist.

we will see about this.