WaPo: Obama 'punts' on Gitmo detainees

Well, that's one way to put it - if you want to downplay the fact that President Obama is carrying out exactly the same policy on Guantanamo detainees as his predecessor.

But give the Post some credit for this editorial, as Ed Lasky points out:

I actually approve of this about-face by the two-faced man over the issue of holding detainees in Gitmo. But the post chides him for "punting" on the issue by following the Bush policy rather than abiding by his own promise to change the policy. The paper faults civil liberty groups for their lack of outrage. Not for us-we know much of their outrage was faux outrage was just partisan rage, but nice to see a major , liberal media organ to take note of the hypocrisy of the left and the promise-breaking by "Mr. Obama"-not President Obama.

Indeed, as the editorial explains, the hypocrisy on the left over this issue is disgusting:

If the administration's abdication is irresponsible, the reaction of the civil liberties community has been breathtakingly hypocritical. The American Civil Liberties Union has consistently opposed any indefinite detention regime and pushed for detainees to be charged in federal or military courts or released. So we wouldn't expect them to join us in criticizing Mr. Obama for failing to seek a new legal regime. But it is odd that the same policy which, when pursued by the Bush administration, constituted "thumbing its nose at the Constitution" and putting a "stain on America's name at home and abroad" now elicits nothing but a few measured tsk-tsks.

Which proves that opposition to Bush by these groups over the detention issue was purely partisan politics being practiced by these "holier than thou" supposedly non-partisan groups.

It's all well and good that the Post recognizes the double standard but perhaps instead of paying so much attention to whether these detainee's "rights" are being respected, we figure out a way to determine just how much of a danger they are to us and others.

After all, isn't that the point of holding them in the first place?

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky




Well, that's one way to put it - if you want to downplay the fact that President Obama is carrying out exactly the same policy on Guantanamo detainees as his predecessor.

But give the Post some credit for this editorial, as Ed Lasky points out:

I actually approve of this about-face by the two-faced man over the issue of holding detainees in Gitmo. But the post chides him for "punting" on the issue by following the Bush policy rather than abiding by his own promise to change the policy. The paper faults civil liberty groups for their lack of outrage. Not for us-we know much of their outrage was faux outrage was just partisan rage, but nice to see a major , liberal media organ to take note of the hypocrisy of the left and the promise-breaking by "Mr. Obama"-not President Obama.

Indeed, as the editorial explains, the hypocrisy on the left over this issue is disgusting:

If the administration's abdication is irresponsible, the reaction of the civil liberties community has been breathtakingly hypocritical. The American Civil Liberties Union has consistently opposed any indefinite detention regime and pushed for detainees to be charged in federal or military courts or released. So we wouldn't expect them to join us in criticizing Mr. Obama for failing to seek a new legal regime. But it is odd that the same policy which, when pursued by the Bush administration, constituted "thumbing its nose at the Constitution" and putting a "stain on America's name at home and abroad" now elicits nothing but a few measured tsk-tsks.

Which proves that opposition to Bush by these groups over the detention issue was purely partisan politics being practiced by these "holier than thou" supposedly non-partisan groups.

It's all well and good that the Post recognizes the double standard but perhaps instead of paying so much attention to whether these detainee's "rights" are being respected, we figure out a way to determine just how much of a danger they are to us and others.

After all, isn't that the point of holding them in the first place?

Hat Tip: Ed Lasky