In light of the conservative meltdown over the Obama administration’s decision to bring the 9/11 plotters to trial in New York, I think it’s worth revisiting this October 2007 Colin Powell interview, in which the retired four-star general and former Secretary of State said that one of the best ways for the United States to combat global extremism was to “show the world a face of openness and what a democratic system can do.”

That’s why I want to see Guantánamo closed. It’s so harmful to what we stand for. We literally bang ourselves in the head by having that place. What are we doing this to ourselves for? Because we’re worried about the 380 guys there? Bring them here! Give them lawyers and habeas corpus. We can deal with them. We are paying a price when the rest of the world sees an America that seems to be afraid and is not the America they remember.

You can drive up the road from here and come to a spot where there is a megachurch over here, a little Episcopal church over there, a Catholic church around the corner that’s almost cathedral-size, and between them is a huge Hindu temple. There are no police needed to guard any of this. There are not many places in the world where you would see that. Yes, there are a few dangerous nuts in Brooklyn and New Jersey who want to blow up Kennedy Airport and Fort Dix. These are dangerous criminals, and we must deal with them. But come on, this is not a threat to our survival! The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t use fear for political purposes — scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.

Today in the Weekly Standard, one of the key organs of the terror-industrial complex, former Bush administration official Michael Anton exemplified this mindset. “The odds are of course against KSM winning an acquittal, though one never knows,” Anton wrote. “But that is not the point.”

The point is that our civilian justice system is designed to do specific things, and to try non-citizen enemy combatants who make war on this country and slaughter innocent civilians is not one of them. Now that system will be used for what will likely be a months-long propaganda circus that will make a mockery of our principles and broadcast a message of weakness and pusillanimity to terrorists, their fellow travelers, and intellectual mentors around the world. Even if the U.S. government ends up winning the legal case, we all lose. And the reversion to a federal court trial will, along with other actions of the current administration, conspire to lull the American public into the view that we’re not really at war.

The indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay has itself been a years-long propaganda circus that did make a mockery of our principles and broadcast a message of weakness and pusillanimity to terrorists, their fellow travelers, and intellectual mentors around the world. As Powell noted more than two years ago, correcting the Bush administration’s tragic error in opening the Guantanamo facility in the first place is essential to re-establishing American credibility on the rule of law. That credibility an important force multiplier in U.S. attempts to combat global extremism. As Gen. David Petraeus said in his statement of support for closing Guantanamo Bay prison, “We ought to live our values.”

Our guest blogger is Nina Hachigian, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund

Earlier this week, as he prepared to leave for Asia, President Obama called the U.S. relationship with China a “strategic partnership.” This is a big move. The term is an upgrade from President Bush’s label “constructive and cooperative and candid” and a far cry from Bush’s campaign term “strategic competitor.” President Obama’s comments are 100% certain to be met with accusations of appeasement and naivete by the not-always-so-loyal opposition. The neocons didn’t like the concept of “strategic reassurance” that Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg unveiled a few weeks ago, and spoke about at a recent event, and they are going to like this even less. But using this term before his first visit is a very smart move.

First, let’s be clear about what President Obama said and the context in which he said it. In response to a reporter’s question about how he views China, President Obama began by saying that he sees China as “a vital partner, as well as a competitor.” Later he stated that “on critical issues, whether climate change, economic recovery, nuclear non-proliferation, it’s very hard to see how we succeed or China succeeds in our respective goals without working together. And that is, I think, the purpose of the strategic partnership.”

So it is clear, in case you hear otherwise, that President Obama does not think China is our best friend. In addition to calling China a “competitor,” he went on to say that he raises human rights, “universal rights” he called them, in every meeting with the Chinese. We know that he hasn’t hesitated to anger Beijing when policy calls for that, as his controversial decision on trade sanctions on Chinese tires illustrates. In fact, the entire trip itinerary makes clear that China is only one element of US Asia policy. President Obama is strengthening our traditional alliances in Japan and South Korea, and finally getting the US in the game of multilateral diplomacy in APEC and ASEAN on which China has been running the tables over the last eight years.

Obama referred to a strategic partnership with China in the context of major transnational threats. China is the world’s largest emitter of carbon, its most dynamic large economy and a nuclear power that neighbors North Korea and buys more oil from Iran than any other country. If China isn’t our partner, then we are in trouble.

The problem is that China has not been a reliable partner. It has been reluctant to take the kind of proactive steps on global challenges that the US wants and needs it to. As I detail in a new report, China is very engaged in all the international institutions and very prepared at the international summits—and this is a big step in the right direction—but you can count on a couple of fingers the number of times China has taken proactive leadership on a global threat: (1) North Korea (but it took enormous and constant US pressure to get them to lead on the Six Party Talks) and (2) the avian and swine flu pandemics, but on those their active leadership has consisted of convening international conferences, not exactly a mind-blowing example of international problem-solving.

Beijing is not using its leverage with Iran to end its nuclear program, it has so far resisted agreeing to limits on its carbon emissions that would make a necessary global deal to address climate change possible, and the steps China is taking to move to a domestic-led growth model that will address global economic imbalances are welcome but too few and too slow.

What the Chinese will tell you is that they achieve a trusting relationship by, first, developing trust with their counterpart and only then doing things together. This is exactly reverse, they will say, of Americans, who want to get things done together and develop trust in the process. President Obama’s gesture gives China’s leaders some strategic reassurance that he has a positive view of the relationship. He is offering a modicum of pre-trust that the Chinese say they need. This is not weakness — it is clever diplomacy.

If, over time, the Chinese do not cooperate more deeply, then “strategic partnership” will fail to become an accurate description of the relationship. The term could end up just a blip in the historical fluctuations of US-China terminology. But instead I hope that, in a few years, it turns out to be a positive, accurate and unremarkable description of our relationship with China.

Today at the Center for American Progress, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano gave her first full discussion on immigration policy and what DHS is doing to lay the foundation for comprehensive immigration reform in 2010. One of the more controversial steps DHS has taken is the revision and standardization of its 287(g) immigration‐enforcement agreements with state and local police as part of DHS’ efforts to prioritize the removal of dangerous undocumented immigrants. Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio made national headlines last month when he belligerently stated that he would continue to enforce immigration laws on the streets of Maricopa County, despite the fact that DHS deliberately limited his power to checking the immigration status of inmates who entered his jails.

Napolitano sat down with ThinkProgress today to explain what drove DHS’ decision to limit some of Arpaio’s authority amidst rampant allegations of racial profiling against the Sheriff’s Office:

I’ve known Sheriff Joe for a long time, and my view was the 287(g) — the agreements that were in existence were pretty standard-less. They had no terms, they had no priorities. They were pretty basic…It was time to build some standards into 287(g) and to put some organization into this.

There are two kinds of 287(g) — one is the task force model where local law enforcement pairs with federal law enforcement and the other is the jail where you’re doing work to move and identify criminal aliens and help with the immigration system. The jail model has never been an issue with Sheriff Joe…it is the task force model that has been problematic. And he was unwilling to accept that there were standards that needed to be met. He wanted to go off on his own. And so that’s where we had a parting of ways.

Watch it:

If Arpaio had showed that he was willing to accept the standards DHS was requiring, he would’ve had to stop conducting blind immigration raids and prioritize “the identification and removal of criminal aliens.” Arpaio would also have had to agreed to be bound by civil rights laws and subject to greater oversight by DHS’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. DHS indicated that police agencies who could not meet the new uniform standards would lose their federal authority.

Arpaio has stuck to his promise of continuing his notorious immigrant “crime sweeps” despite the fact that he lacks federal permission to do so. During the event’s Q&A, Napolitano openly opposed Arpaio’s continued immigration raids, stating that she doesn’t believe that they are the best way to ensure public safety. However, she also indicated that he is operating under state, not federal laws and thus it’s up to the Department of Justice to address Arpaio’s alleged civil rights infringements as part of its ongoing investigation.

Napolitano’s sensible explanation countered the defiant account Arpaio hastily provided the cameras back in October. Arpaio has adamantly insisted that he is simply the White House’s “poster boy” and that DHS singled him out and took his authority as an example. Arpaio also said, “if she [Napolitano] doesn’t like what I’m doing, that’s ok. I’m still the Sheriff.”