First, what it reflects (assuming it is accurate), is a mix of incompetence, and weakness on serious issues of principle and campaign promises on the part of the Obama Administration and Obama himself. But given all that, the tone of the article reads somewhat sympathetically. It highlights all the political difficulties and traps inherent in any War on Terror issue, and almost seems to paint this issue as one where Obama could've been more organized, sure, but man it was tough, and public opinion polls were all against him, then one congressman wrote one angry letter, and then there was that trial where the guy got convicted, so that was (somehow) bad news...
Indeed, the article fails to seize on a rather critical point and just reports it very matter-of-factly:
The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials.
Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.
The president seemed peeved that the number was so small, in contrast with the optimistic predictions during his election campaign that nearly all of the remaining detainees could face trial or be transferred.
"Could be prosecuted" is really just a funny way to say "there's significant evidence of their guilt." We use another funny phrase to describe people we can't say that about: Not Guilty.
In other words, the President was apparently "peeved" that sometimes you think people are guilty but can't prove it. I'm sure that's tough and all, but something he probably should've considered before signing up to be the leader of America. It's also something that Washington Post should've highlighted, that that attitude by itself, let alone all of the electoral/political/opinion poll calculations over legal questions, is completely improper.
No comments:
Post a Comment