U.S. editorial roundup: Saturday, Aug. 17, 2024

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

The Washington Post

Aug. 7

Biden's team and Guantanamo Bay

The United States had an opportunity to close a chapter on a sad, decades-long saga when the government reached a plea deal with three men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Then, within days, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin squandered that chance.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi all agreed last week to admit their guilt before the military commission tasked with determining their fates, surrendering any chance to appeal, in exchange for the removal of the death penalty as a possible punishment. Getting to that point took 16 years. That's counting from the initial hearing in the case (the men were in custody for five years before that), when the defendants also wanted to plead guilty but with execution still on the table. What happened instead, after they withdrew those pleas, looked worse for the United States: Justice remained unserved, and Guantánamo Bay remained open, letting the whole world look for a while longer at a symbol of this country's hypocrisy on human rights.

Mr. Austin's decision to revoke the plea deal is, on a gut level, understandable. The prisoners are accused of engineering the deaths of 2,977 people at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania - some of whose families have said the terrorists deserve "no mercy." Obviously, offenders in the United States have been and still are executed for far less. The United States killed Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri outright when the U.S. military found them. Yet, on closer examination, the choice is mystifying: How could the secretary of defense himself not have known about an agreement so painstakingly negotiated, over so long a period, by an official whom he tasked with overseeing the process? And how can President Joe Biden's administration fulfill its stated objective of shutting down the prison if it can't close cases?

It's unlikely the government will manage to secure the death penalty for these accused terrorists - if it manages to secure any sentence at all without a plea deal. The delays that have characterized the case so far will continue to define it, largely because the military commissions created under President George W. Bush exist outside established military or civilian legal process. (That was, after all, the whole point of detaining and trying accused terrorists as unlawful combatants at Guantánamo Bay.) There was some legitimate rationale for trying unlawful combatants in unique forums. But there are few clear rules for their operation, and every question about how to conduct a trial has required extensive consideration - and expensive consideration, considering lawyers, judges and more have to fly to the naval base for each hearing. The cost, according to the New York Times, has totaled around $13 million per prisoner throughout the facility's existence.

Imagine that a trial does start, against the odds. The testimony would probably feature extensive descriptions of the torture to which these men were subjected at CIA black sites, including confinement in coffin-size boxes and, for ringleader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as many as 183 instances of waterboarding. That would both remind the world of disgraceful U.S. conduct - and, crucially, render much of the evidence tainted for the purposes of securing a harsh sentence. The only way out was a plea deal. Now, the United States is right back where it started.

Only 30 inmates remain at Guantánamo Bay - the rest of the 780 brought to the base are gone, nine of them having died at the prison. The goal should be to turn 30 into zero. But that's complicated. Nineteen prisoners sit in "law-of-war" detention, still uncharged. Sixteen of those are recommended for transfer to the custody of countries willing to accept them, a process that the administration should prioritize. Yet three are deemed too dangerous for that move. Then there are the four inmates who've been convicted and the seven who have been charged with their cases pending. Gitmo can't go until these inmates, too, are gone - and getting them gone will require a law from Congress permitting their transfer to U.S. soil.

But truly concluding this era in our national life will require more: finally bringing these men to justice, and justice to these men. Plea deals like the one that collapsed last week are an orderly pathway to a procedurally legitimate outcome. Pursuing them is the correct course from a practical standpoint - just not a political one. The administration didn't manage to do the right thing last week. But the president still has a chance to correct course after November's vote, unencumbered by electoral considerations. In doing so, he would leave as his legacy the end, finally, of a grim time for his country.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Aug. 9

Kamala Harris hiding from real interviews

Kamala Harris is on a well-deserved roll right now. Her strong campaign appearances and energetic VP choice are firing up Democrats and building momentum for her nascent presidential campaign. Polls indicate once-skeptical independents are taking another look at a candidate who not long ago had been written off as unviable to lead a national ticket.

This momentum may explain her handlers' reluctance, during the more than two weeks since Harris' campaign began, to sit her down for serious media interviews or news conferences outside the controlled bubbles of partisan rallies and teleprompters. Why mess with what's working?

Because it's not going to keep working for long, that's why. The narrative of Harris hiding from real media scrutiny has already taken root within right-wing media outlets and has become a top attack line from the Trump-Vance campaign.

Unlike most of their attack lines, this one isn't nonsense. Every day that Harris continues this bunker strategy does a disservice to the country - and to her own campaign.

The urgency of dispelling the "hidin' Harris" narrative is particularly relevant for a candidate still coming out from under the shadow of President Joe Biden. Steering clear of real interviews, as Biden himself got away with for far too long, is a particularly bad look for his vice president.

Among the questions interviewers will want to ask Harris is whether she was aware of the president's clear cognitive decline - a fact that his inner circle effectively hid from the public until it shuffled fully into view during that disastrous June presidential debate.

There's no good answer on this for Harris: If she knew, why didn't she insist on public disclosure? If she didn't know, shouldn't she have? It will, undoubtedly, be an uncomfortable interview hurdle. But it's a necessary one to clear if she wants to put the issue behind her.

Other interview topics, however, don't have to be the momentum-stoppers that Harris' campaign apparently fears they will be.

Granted, recent examples of presidential candidates throwing themselves on the mercy of journalistic questioning haven't gone great for them.

Biden's post-debate interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, designed to stanch his campaign's bleeding, instead intensified it. Trump's recent open interview with a convention of Black journalists spotlighted his thin skin and bizarre racial views.

These weren't failures, though, but successes - not for the candidates, of course, but for an American public that has the right to look behind the curtain of carefully controlled campaign events to watch and listen as those who would lead answer tough questions from knowledgeable questioners.

Giving (improved) speeches is one thing - but it's time to actually talk, Madam Vice President.