Barack Obama has decided to hang on to a revised system of military tribunals for some terrorism suspects:
President Obama revived the Bush-era system of military tribunals for trials of suspected terrorists held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp yesterday.
Although the White House emphasised that Mr Obama had never promised to scrap the bitterly criticised system of military commissions, his decision yesterday was markedly different to his rhetoric during the election campaign, when he suggested that detainees held at Guantánamo Bay should be dealt with through the federal courts...
.....
The President tried to navigate a middle way through a highly partisan atmosphere by emphasising that he would reform the tribunals to make them fairer. "This is the best way to protect our country while upholding our deeply held values," he said.
To present this decision as if it involved no backtracking on Obama's part is unconvincing.
White House officials insisted Thursday that Obama was not overturning a campaign pledge. The president "never promised to abolish" military commissions, an administration official said.
That, however, is not the point - or not the only point. What is the reason for the decision? From the first of the above-linked columns:
Other detainees [than those who can be settled abroad], against whom there is overwhelming case for prosecution, will face trial in civilian courts. Mr Obama's advisers, however, have concluded that this is not feasible for about 20 inmates, and it is these who will face revised versions of the military tribunals.
The advantages of such a system are that it helps prosecutors use classified information without compromising intelligence sources and convictions are less subject to lengthy appeals.
From the second of those columns:
[O]fficials concluded that a small number can be tried only in military commissions, said one U.S. official familiar with the decision, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of today's announcement.
Whatever Obama's campaign pledges regarding military tribunals, this amounts to a concession to the logic he followed his election victory by denying: namely, that of having to choose between security and upholding America's ideals. These ideals must surely include due process and the normal rule of law. Obama and his administration now reckon that there are suspects being held by the US who cannot safely be afforded the full benefits of them. It would be better to acknowledge this openly. (See these two earlier posts.)