Obama in der Guantanamo-Falle

Guanatanmo zu schließen hört sich simpel an, ist es aber nicht. Das Grunddilemma: in dem völkerrechtswidrigen Gefangenenlager auf Kuba sitzen neben vielen offenbar Unschluldigen auch einige echte Terroristen - und vielleicht viele, die es nach ihrer Freilassung werden könnten. Eine Verurteilung vor einem ordentlichen Gericht ist jedoch nicht möglich - weil viele Aussagen durch Folter-ähnliche Methoden erpresst wurden und von keinem Richter anerkannt würden. Eine Freilassung ist aber auch nicht möglich - weil zu gefährlich.

Also muss eine Kompromisslösung her, die die Sicherheitsinteressen der USA (und auch des Rests der westlichen Welt) gewährleistet, aber auch völker- und menschenrechtlich akzeptabel sind.

• im Orginal als Transkript
• in deutscher Übersetzung
• als Video mit englischen Untertiteln

Amerikas erste Priorität bleibt die Sicherheit

Barack Obama hat das Problem in seiner Rede im National Archive ausführlich dargestellt und die Sicherheit des Landes als erste Priorität dargestellt (hier die ganze Rede im Original):

"In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night. (...) We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it. (..."

Dieses Sicherheitsbedürfnis kontert der Präsident aber mit der Notwendigkeit, Amerikas Werte wieder herzustellen - und zwar nicht nur aus humanitären, gar idealistischen Gründen:

"But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. (...) My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheavel."

Harsche Kritik an der Bush-Administration

Obama weist darauf hin, dass das Militär nur drei Verdächtige in Gunatanmo als Terroristen verurteilte, aber mehr als 525 bereits unter Bush als unschuldig freigelassen wurden - das System also nicht nur illegal, sondern auch ineffektiv war. Obama spart nicht an Kritik an seinem Vorgänger George W. Bush und weist vor allem Dick Cheney Verteidigung der Foltermethoden (Waterboarding) harsch zurück, wobei er sich geschickt auf John McCain beruft:

"I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What's more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts - they undermined them."

Obama rekapituliert, was bereits geschehen ist (Folterverbot, Veröffentlichung von Verhörprotokoll), wozu er nicht bereit ist (Veröffentlichung weiterer Folterfotos) und erklärt dann sehr ausführlich, welche Probleme zur Bewältigung des Guantanamo-Desasters ("the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained") noch zu lösen sind:

"I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo.(...) The legal challenges that have sparked so much debate in recent weeks in Washington would be taking place whether or not I decided to close Guantanamo. For example, the court order to release seventeen Uighur detainees took place last fall - when George Bush was President. The Supreme Court that invalidated the system of prosecution at Guantanamo in 2006 was overwhelmingly appointed by Republican Presidents. In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place.

There are no neat or easy answers here. But I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo."

Let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: we are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people. Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. (...) We are currently in the process of reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo to determine the appropriate policy for dealing with them. As we do so, we are acutely aware that under the last Administration, detainees were released only to return to the battlefield. That is why we are doing away with the poorly planned, haphazard approach that let those detainees go in the past."

Das Konzept des Juristen

Sehr detailliert beschreibt der Präsident (und frühere Dozent für öffentliches Recht), wie seine Regierung mit fünf verschiedenen Kategorien von Guantanamo-Fällen umgehen will:

• "First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution. (...)
• The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts. Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They are wrong. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process and rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal. I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making. Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law. (...) 
• 
  The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Twenty of these findings took place before I came into office. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings.
  
  
• The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved fifty detainees for transfer. And my Administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.
  
  
• Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.
  
  I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. (...) However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. We must have fair procedures so that we don't make mistakes. We must have a thorough process of periodic review, so that any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified."
  
  

Dick Cheney rechtfertig - alles

Cheney Rede

• im Original
• als Video

Unmittelbar nach Obamas Auftritt setze der frühere Vizepräsident Dick Cheney zu einer Verteidigungsrede an (hier die . Zunächst stellt er auf die besonderen Umstände ab, der sich die Bush-Adminstration nach den Terroranschlägen vom 11.9.2001 stellen musste:

"Nine-eleven caused everyone to take a serious second look at threats that had been gathering for a while, and enemies whose plans were getting bolder and more sophisticated. Throughout the 90s, America had responded to these attacks, if at all, on an ad hoc basis. The first attack on the World Trade Center was treated as a law enforcement problem. , with everything handled after the fact – crime scene, arrests, indictments, convictions, prison sentences, case closed.That’s how it seemed from a law enforcement perspective, at least – but for the terrorists the case was not closed. For them, it was another offensive strike in their ongoing war against the United States. And it turned their minds to even harder strikes with higher casualties. Nine-eleven made necessary a shift of policy, aimed at a clear strategic threat. From that moment forward, instead of merely preparing to round up the suspects and count up the victims after the next attack, we were determined to prevent attacks in the first place. (...)

Everyone expected a follow-on attack, and our job was to stop it. We didn’t know what was coming next, but everything we did know in that autumn of 2001 looked bad. This was the world in which al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear technology, and A. Q. Khan was selling nuclear technology on the black market. We had the anthrax attack from an unknown source. We had the training camps of Afghanistan, and dictators like Saddam Hussein with known ties to Mideast terrorists. These are just a few of the problems we had on our hands. And foremost on our minds was the prospect of the very worst coming to pass – a 9/11 with nuclear weapons. (...)"

Die Herausforderung war gewaltig, und die Bush-Administration habe reagiert: schnell, angemessen und erfolgreich:

"To make certain our nation country never again faced such a day of horror, we developed a comprehensive strategy, beginning with far greater homeland security to make the United States a harder target. But since wars cannot be won on the defensive, we moved decisively against the terrorists in their hideouts and sanctuaries, and committed to using every asset to take down their networks. We decided, as well, to confront the regimes that sponsored terrorists, and to go after those who provide sanctuary, funding, and weapons to enemies of the United States. We turned special attention to regimes that had the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, and might transfer such weapons to terrorists. (...)

It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations … the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network … and the dismantling of Libya’s nuclear program. It’s required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. (...)"

Das Ziel rechtfertigt die Mittel

Um all diese Erfolge erreichen zu können seien Informationen notwendig gewesen, "zutreffende Informationen" und "geschulte Profis, die diese Informationen rechtzeitig beschaffen", formuliert Cheney. Dafür habe die Regierung ihnen das Mandat erteilt - womit er die Verantwortung auf sich und Ex-Präsident Bush nimmt:

"The key to any strategy is accurate intelligence, and skilled professionals to get that information in time to use it. In seeking to guard this nation against the threat of catastrophic violence, our Administration gave intelligence officers the tools and lawful authority they needed to gain vital information. We didn’t invent that authority. It is drawn from Article Two of the Constitution. And it was given specificity by the Congress after 9/11, in a Joint Resolution authorizing “all necessary and appropriate force” to protect the American people.
Our government prevented attacks and saved lives through the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which let us intercept calls and track contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and persons inside the United States. (...)"

In anderen Teilen der Rede beschwert sich Cheney zwar immer wieder über die Schönrednerei der politischen Gegner, aber auch er ist ein Freund des Euphemismus ("tough/enhanced  interrogations"). Und immerhin sei damit das Leben von hundertausenden Menschen gerettet worden.

"In the years after 9/11, our government also understood that the
safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. And in a few cases, that information could be
gained only through tough interrogations. In top secret meetings about enhanced interrogations, I made my own beliefs clear. I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of
their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people. I would advise the administration to think very carefully about the course ahead. All the zeal that has been directed at interrogations is utterly misplaced. And staying on that path will only lead our government further away from its duty to protect the American people."

"Obama riskiert Amerikas Sicherheit"

Cheney verwendet einige Zeit darauf, mit seinen politischen Gegnern abzurechnen, die die Verdienste der Bush-Regierung verzerrten und das Land in Gefahr brächten - bevor er auf Guantanamo zu sprechen, und Obamas Planlosigkeit:

"On his second day in office, President Obama announced that he
was closing the detention facility at Guantanamo. This step came with little deliberation and no plan. Now the President says some of these terrorists should be brought to American soil for trial in our court system. Others, he says, will be shipped to third countries. But so far, the United States has had little luck getting other countries to take hardened terrorists.

So what happens then? Attorney General Holder and others have admitted that the United States will be compelled to accept a number of the terrorists here, in the homeland, and it has even been suggested US taxpayer dollars will be used to support them. On this one, I find myself in complete agreement with many in the President’s own party. Unsure how to explain to their constituents why terrorists might soon be relocating into their states, these Democrats chose instead to strip funding for such a move out of the most recent war supplemental. The administration has found that it’s easy to receive applause in Europe for closing Guantanamo. But it’s tricky to come up with an
alternative that will serve the interests of justice and America’s national security.

Keep in mind that these are hardened terrorists picked up overseas since 9/11. The ones that were considered lowrisk were released a long time ago. And among these, we learned yesterday, many were treated too leniently, because 1 in 7 cut a straight path back to their prior line of work and have conducted murderous attacks in the Middle East. I think the President will find, upon reflection, that to bring the worst of the worst terrorists inside the United States would be cause for great danger and regret in the years to come."

"Wir haben Amerikas Werte nicht verletzt, sondern verteidigt"

Zum Schluss beschäftigt sich der Ex-Vizepräsident mit dem Argument, dass die Verhörmethoden und Guantanamo den Terroristen neuen Nachwuchs zugetrieben haben - was völliger Unsinn sei:

"Another term out there that slipped into the discussion is the notion that American interrogation practices were a “recruitment tool” for the enemy. On this theory, by the tough questioning of killers, we have
supposedly fallen short of our own values. This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately, including from the President himself. And after a familiar fashion, it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do. It’s another version of that same old refrain from the Left, “We brought it on ourselves.” It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so. Nor are terrorists or those who see them as victims exactly the best judges of America’s moral standards, one way or the other.

Critics of our policies are given to lecturing on the theme of being consistent with American values. But no moral value held dear by the American people obliges public servants ever to sacrifice innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things. And when an entire population is targeted by a terror network, nothing is more consistent with American values than to stop them."

Bislang, so Cheney, sei Amerika den Terroristen stark und einig entgegen getreten, nun biete die Obama-Regierung den Gegnern des Landes neue Angriffsmöglichkeiten:

"The United States of America was a good country before 9/11, just as we are today. List all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences – and what you end up with is a list of the
reasons why the terrorists hate America. If fine speech-making, appeals to reason, or pleas for compassion had the power to move them, the terrorists would long ago have abandoned the field. And when they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don’t stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for – our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity."

Cheney wiederholt das Argument, dass die Ergebnisse der Verhöre die Anwendung von Waterboarding und anderem gerechtfertig hätten, weil dadurch gewaltige Terroranschläge verhindert werden konnten. Welche Anschläge das sind kann der nicht sagen, weil Obama die Offenlegung dieser Dokumente verboten habe. Aber immerhin habe Obamas eigener Sicherheitsberater den Wert der Verhörergebnisse eingeräumt. Cheney:

"As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won’t let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I’ve formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the
intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It’s worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists.

Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials. 14 I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations – and I am not alone. President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and
provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration – the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth."

Immerhin - Cheny versteckt sich nicht, sondern stellt sich den Vorwürfen und der Debatte (Ganz im Gegensatz zu seinem Ex-Chef Bush, der konzentriert sich darauf, in Austin, Texas, den Müll rauszubringen). Damit wird ausgerechnet der frühere Vize-Präsident zur Stimme der Republikaner, die derzeit so verzweifelt nach einem Neuanfang suchen. Doch auch wenn Cheneys Argumente in Europa auf wenig Veständnis stoßen würden, in Teilen der amerikanischen Gesellschaft findet er dafür durchaus Rückhalt.

Cheney - kalt, aber gefährlich

So warnt Jeffrey Toobin im New Yorker:

"At a minimum, Obama seemed alive to the moral and legal ambiguities implied by the issue. Not so the former Vice-President, who chose to speak in a chilling code, in which methods of torture such as waterboarding became “enhanced interrogation,” in the way that death might be called “enhanced sleep.” (...)

But the popularity of the messengers should not be confused with the popularity of their messages. (...) Cheney’s political acumen is not to be underestimated, notwithstanding his image problems. Last week’s lopsided Senate vote suggests that Republican mastery of the politics of national security remains intact. During the campaign, the majority of voters came to support Obama’s contention that a tradeoff between our values and our security is a false choice. But the quick flight of most congressional Democrats from their President suggests just how difficult a political assignment Obama has given himself. Cheney, in proclaiming that another attack will prove that his policies were correct, is trying to undermine confidence in the new team in the White House."