Michael Ratner: This is just words. This speech was filled with all kinds of what you would call little Christmas ornaments that are never actually going to be attached to the tree. …here’s what Obama said. Quote, I have tried to close Guantanamo. That’s probably the biggest lie of the entire speech, I have tried to close Guantanamo. Came into office over five years ago, about four and a half years ago, and he promised to close Guantanamo. He then did everything to not close Guantanamo. The reason we’re talking about this at all is because we have a hunger strike there, and when there was nothing left to be done, the people at Guantanamo took their lives in their own hands. It is true that he did say, I am going to lift the restrictions on sending people to Yemen. That’s a big deal, because 80-some people are from Yemen. Fifty-five of those have been cleared for release to Yemen. So all that has to happen is he has to certify, as he’s required to do under this new law by Congress, and send them to Yemen. But then he says, I’m going to do this on a case-by-case basis. They’ve already been cleared on a case-by-case basis. And so he’s going to go back through it. The proof will be in the pudding even on Yemen. Will he actually do it? How slowly will he do it? …because this is probably the tenth speech he’s given on Guantanamo, certainly the third or fourth major one I’ve listened to, and we’re still sitting here at the Center for Constitutional Rights with all our clients in Guantanamo.
I never agreed that this was a war against al-Qaeda in the traditional sense to which the laws of war apply. …could use force, a police action to stop al-Qaeda, bring them to trial, try them and imprison them. I never accepted the war paradigm at all. Obviously there was a war in Afghanistan. That was a war. And there was the Iraq War that was authorized separately. But as soon as you go outside of those zones–I never read the AUMF so broadly as to say you could attack anyone you wanted who they said was a threat to the United States. They then put in these terms – they’re associated forces to al-Qaeda. Well, they make it up. …what’s an associated force to al-Qaeda? Anybody who stamps the label on their lapel, I’m an associated force of al-Qaeda? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Those people are alleged terrorists – they are probably criminals if they’re convicted, but we’re not in a war with those people in any kind of traditional sense. And therefore the whole argument that somehow it’s legal to drop drones on people all over the world under our law, maybe it’s legal. They can argue that if they want ’cause of the way our courts interpret the law. But under international law, it’s not legal at all. More here.