Will Obama Miss His Own Guantanamo Deadline?

In the heady afterglow of Obama's inauguration, I accepted a bet from Ann Althouse. She bet that the president, in the end, would not fulfill his promise to close Guantanamo within a year, by next January. Testing my hope that Obama could be counted on, I bet that he'd come through. Now I'd say Ann is looking more prescient than I am.

How is Obama going to close Guantanamo in eight months when his lawyers just asked for a four-month extension (the second one) in the legal proceedings against the detainees? It's hard to square the promise with the developing facts. Nor is it a happy sign that the president is decorating Bush's military tribunals with more detainee rights rather than swearing them off in favor of federal court. As a New York Times editorial argued on Sunday, tribunals have a place, but it's for trying prisoners of war captured on the battlefield, not anyone we picked up after 9/11 who we don't know what to do with, which describes the detainees.

Congress refused to give Obama the $80 billion he asked for to relocate the Gitmo detainees because he has laid out no plan for which of them are going where. It's time to make that plan. Try as few of the detainees as possible in the Bush-Obama tribunals and get the rest either into the federal criminal system or on a plane home, like the Supreme Court litigant Lakhdar Boumediene, who flew to France last week. When you set your own deadline, it matters much more that you meet it. No one forced Obama to promise, by executive order, to close Guantanamo by next January. But he did, and he got a lot of mileage out of it. Don't blow past this one, Mr. President.

Tags: Ann Althouse, detainees, Guantanamo, Lakhdar Boumediene, Obama

Emily Bazelon is a founding editor of Double X, and a writer and editor at Slate.

Comments

Uh oh

By: abby | Wed, 05/20/2009 - 18:17

Today’s news on this topic makes Emily’s bet look even harder to win: the closure is unfunded, and the administration says it won't have a comprehensive plan until July. But even if the closure happens later than Jan, what I really hope is that this issue doesn't just devolve into fingerpointing - with congressional Dems and the White House faulting each other and the GOP demagoguing the issue - but unfortunately, it looks like that is where it's headed.

Too soon to tell

By: abby | Mon, 05/18/2009 - 16:14

I don't want to get prematurely cynical about this because there's still time for the closure to happen. But I do worry that the act of closing by executive order offered the perfect early (first week of office even?!) political win with a built-in measure of plausible deniability if it doesn't happen on time. Many of the reasons it might not are well beyond his control, not least the issue of where the detainees should go and the general unwillingness (here and abroad) to take them. And - despite the symbolic importance of and commitment reflected in those executive orders, is there any real (or legal) remedy for the executive branch's failure to comply with its own orders?

Duh!

By: phpeter | Tue, 05/19/2009 - 08:34

"Many of the reasons it might not are well beyond his control, not least the issue of where the detainees should go and the general unwillingness (here and abroad) to take them."

Not to be mocking, but this is one of the the main reasons a Gitmo was setup and maintained as a prisonor facility in the first place. A rational understanding that these people were bad, were terrorists and had to be dealt with in non-traditional way. Obama either did not understand this or knew he could fudge the truth based on the voters inability to understand it...you can choose which it most accurate.