"Prolonged detention" is un-American

President Obama has really been impressive in reversing some major Bush-era blunders of this country's approach to fighting the scourge of terrorism: his insistent commitment to close down the Gitmo concentration camp, his ban of torture and the re-institution of the Army Field Manual in guiding interrogation methods, and his genuine desire to bring back the rule of law to the US' fight against terrorism. He has consistently tried, often bending over backwards, to resolve the mess inherited from the Bush-Cheney regime. But while I do not doubt that he is a genuinely decent, thoughtful, and honest man, I do think President Obama has disappointed many of his hardcore supporters, such as myself, in completely reversing the Bush course. I have written about his intention to revive the illegal military tribunals. His proposal for the so-called "prolonged detentions," however, represents the most gut-wrenching disappointment.

President Obama vowed during his campaign to revive the rule of law that had been so mercilessly stamped upon by the Bush-Cheney regime. Now he is arguing that at Gitmo there are about 100 prisoners who are so dangerous that they could never be released, but also cannot be tried. Why? How is it that we know that they are dangerous if that cannot be proved in a court of law? Obama has never made this case persuasively and has instead, asked us to trust the government when it tells us that these people are dangerous. The main difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime is the fact that in a democracy people do not blindly trust the government's arguments--particularly in incarcerating people--but that the government has to PROVE its case. This is why we have the court of law. In a totalitarian regime, the people are either terrified to question the government's motives or are blinded by the leader's charisma and the national security interests to question these motives. As a result, many innocent people inevitably end up on the receiving end of these policies. What guarantees can President Obama give us that his successor(s) will not apply/extend the policy of "prolonged detention" to US citizens? What if a few years from now, a different group of people--say, Bosnians--become isolated as a security threat. I am screwed! While this hypothetical case might seem ridiculous to us now who would have thought ten years ago that our President would be arguing that he had the right to incarcerate people indefinitely on the basis of some secret evidence that he/she cannot reveal to the US citizens?! This after the previous administration authorized torture in order to sell an unpopular war to the American public!

If we are indeed holding people who are dangerous to be released, the government has a constitutional duty to prove this! If so, put them in a max-security prison for the rest of their lives. If they cannot prove, you have to let them go. You can track them and make sure they do not pose a threat, but you cannot hold them indefinitely.

While I have complete confidence in this President and have no doubt that he would not misuse this power, I strongly object to him making the policy of "prolonged detention" the bedrock of American justice. It is actually a betrayal of the American ideal of justice.