Changing the World's Perception of the United States: The Obama Way

It is no secret that Barack Obama's desired perception of the United States among the rest of the world is that of a kinder, gentler America, one who listens to everyone on the world stage before making decisions. He wants to distance himself, and America's image, from that of former President George W. Bush. The "cowboy" from Texas had a far different way of doing things, and while the rest of the world may have not liked him very much, he got things done and placed America's interests above all.

This article from NPR details some of the things Mr. Obama has done since taking office to distance himself from his predecessor and "restore America's standing" with the rest of the world. Among the steps he's taken (see article) were ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, prohibiting any kind of torture (i.e. waterboarding), eliminating secret prisons for detainees, and directing that all detainees be handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

Of course, I must pick apart those decisions. First, by closing Guantanamo Bay and giving the detainees (terrorists) the ability to to challenge their detainments in U.S. courts, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that these creatures should be given the same legal rights I have. They are not citizens of the United States, they follow no government at all, and they have professed the desire to kill as many Americans as possible. So we're going to give them a push towards freedom to help them do just that? Ludicrous.

Next, eliminating "torture" of detainees. "It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines." Well, what do the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines actually say?

"Enemy Combatant: In general, a person engaged in hostilities against theUnited States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term“enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.” All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status,shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program”, and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.
–
Lawful Enemy Combatant: Lawful enemy combatants, who are entitled toprotections under the Geneva Conventions, include members of the regulararmed forces of a State Party to the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a State Party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws ofwar; and members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.
–
Unlawful Enemy Combatant: Unlawful enemy combatants are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict. For the purposes of the war on terrorism, the term “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, orassociated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."

Taking that into account, and after reading through the DOD directive and Detainee Treatment Act, as well as this DOD document, I have found that the powers that be don't actually know the extent or legality of the interrogations, because there were no set directives; it was basically a free-for-all, with the interrogators relying on their immediate commanders and the Army Field Manual techniques for guidance. Another issue is that of waterboarding, and if it actually falls under the established definitions of torture. I recommend that you review Army Field Manual 34-52, the descriptions of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the memo from the DOJ, and see what conclusions you can draw for yourself.

The elimination of secret CIA prisons for detainees looks good to the rest of the world, but doesn't really help our cause. I see no reason why the CIA couldn't have continued to whisk away enemy combatants to isolated places where they would be more likely to crack and divulge important information. Instead, with Guantanamo Bay being closed (where many of the CIA detainees went) as well as the secret prisons being closed, the detainees will now likely be housed in regular old prisons, possibly even in the United States, where they will be able to invoke their newly given rights of habeas corpus and avoid any intensive questioning. That will do wonders for our intelligence gathering, I'm sure.

Lastly, terrorists have no ruling government, wear no uniform, and don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. Among the provisions of said Conventions, namely in the Third Convention (which covers the treatment of POWs), are:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

By those definitions, terrorists do not fall into the category of "POW." Thus, there is no reason to follow the Geneva Conventions when it comes to their treatment. This is not to say we should practice wanton harsh interrogation, but rather to say we should not handicap ourselves and our ability to fight the war correctly simply to appease global opinions.

I'm sure President Obama had good intentions when he made these decisions. Taking into account that he is not a military strategist, however, I doubt he was able to foresee the issues that will stem from them. While the world may like us more now than when President Bush was in office, what solace will that be should another attack occur against the United States?