Here's what the Attorney General isn't doing. He's not following public opinion, which generally opposes conducting any sort of 9/11 terrorist trial in the United States. He's not following perceived political wisdom, in that the administration is not providing cover for Democrats who are afraid of Republican remonstrations on terrorism. He is not appeasing special interest groups, the bulk of whom -- the ACLU being an example -- oppose quite vociferously the prospect of any new military commissions.
If this is politics, it's really dumb politics. And that's why it's probably not politics. Occam's razor applies. Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism. They want to change the narrative from a "strength/weakness" metaphor to an "example/rule of law" metaphor. This sounds a little PoMo, but it's the mark of a president who, on this issue in particular, does not believe that the old ways of thinking make America any safer. Certainly, they don't contribute to a national security politics of consensus.
This will be a hard sell. The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.
Now -- there is a conspiracy theory out there that Holder decided to try the 9/11
five in Article III trials because he wants to find a way to get all
the bad stuff the Bush administration did out into the open without
being blamed for doing so. The idea is that federal trials will
inherently lead to the compromise of classified information. On its face, it's sort of absurd -- the motive, that is. But the risk of disclosing sensitive methods and sources is real, albeit one that the interagency process has focused on
and found manageable; the CIA's general counsel said yesterday that the
agency is working quite closely on ways to protect its sources and
methods in upcoming federal trial. Those promulgating this conspiracy
certainly do not have much faith in the experienced terrorism
prosecutors from the Southern District of New York or the Eastern
District of Virginia, or the federal judges who will administer the
trials, or even the jurors who will decide them.
What distinguishes the 9/11 five from the five defendants who'll stay in the military commission system? The location of their terrorism. Plots that culminate inside the U.S. will be disposed of, it seems, using regular methods. Plots that culminate outside the U.S., like, say, in Yemen or in war zones -- will be treated differently. One of the five non-9/11 defendants whose disposition was announced today, Ahmed Haza
al-Darbi, does not stand accused of plotting to kill or capture U.S. soldiers: he's on trial for trying to bomb oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz.
The word you're struggling to find Marc is "principles".
Heh, well put.
And that's the problem with this sort of political reporting - it's so obsessed over process and point-scoring, on which side "won the day", that it ends up missing the bigger picture.
Eh, maybe this is simply "the right thing to do"?
"The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans."
What evidence do you have that Americans want a discriminatory justice system that chooses who will be innocent until proven guilty and who will be just guilty? Some people in our government want such a system, yes, because it increases their power. But why would American citizens want their system of justice perverted? Proof, please.
Multiple opinion polls have shown, by a two-to-one majority, that Americans do not want the prison at Guantanamo closed and detainees brought into the United States.
Mark, Please note that some Democrats also disagree with President Obama.
Senator James Webb (D, Va) -
"I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.
The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.
I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants."
He's the Attorney General...this is the responsibility inherent in his job. Although a political appointee, the President's and/or the public's approval should not override his and his department's interpretation of how the countries laws should be enforced.
country's laws even
So if future administrations don't like the results of these trials can those future administrations do investigations to see if charges should be filed against the AG's office?
Just wondering...
Moron. Of course they could. But those investigations would produce not produce evidence of wrong doing. Try not and let your political ideology blind you from reality too much.
So what you are saying, Marc, is that the Obama administration couldn't give a d*mn about what the American People think? Can't wait till the polls come out next week showing how badly this administration blew out, and how many Americans are against this action.
This is simply a sop to the far left wing not only in America, but around the world. It won't be KSM on trial, but the previous administration who did all they could to keep the American people safe, something the Constitution actually states as a duty of the government, unlike providing health insurance and care for all.
Disappointed in Webb based on the statement above. The case of Japanese pilots who participated in the attack on Pearl Harbor is readily distinguishable. Japanese POWs could not have been tried in civil courts for US criminal offenses under the Geneva Convention. In essence, these rules are designed for the protection of prisoners of war, to prevent them from being subjected to criminal show trials merely for having carried out their duties as soldiers of a foreign power. Here, the conclusion that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al., are not covered by the Geneva Convention actually argues in favor of their being tried for criminal offenses in civilian courts. They are alleged to have committed indictable offenses under US law - murder of US civilians within the US - that do not come within the Geneva Convention or any other rules of international law governing acts of soldiers during wartime. Thus, there is clearly no impediment to subjecting them to the jurisdiction of US criminal courts, and it makes sense to do so. The hard question relates to enemy combatants who have been taken prisoner and who have not committed crimes indictable under US law - what is the legal basis for holding them? I think that it is probably a good idea to come up with a legal framework for holding people who fall into that category (the ACLU disagrees), at least many of them, but that is not this case.
This is only partially right. Americans, it seems, are not much supportive of due process rights of those accused of conventional crimes either, especially if it's an infamous or ugly crime. People react angrily enough when someone is proved to be innocent after spending years in prison -- and rightly so -- but have little or no patience with the notion that a person accused might be acquitted, or have his conviction later overturned on some point of law (i.e., a "technicality"). This because, of course, we all "know" he's really guilty. For many, the notion of innocent until proven guilty, or defendant's rights and due process, are no more than pleasant ideals that shouldn't be allowed to interfere with their notion of "justice."
I have a lot of respect for Senator Webb, but his analogy to the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor is not only wrong, it's an embarrassment to a man who is both a decorated combat veteran and one who views himself as something of an historian. It's just dumb. No Japanese pilots were captured after Pearl Harbor, but one crewman from one of the Japanese Navy's "midget" submarines was. His name was Ensign Kazuo Sakamaki, and he became United States Prisoner of War No. 1. He was interrogated, but not tortured. He survived the war, and as of 1989 was living in Brazil.
I appreciate that KSM and his ilk are not conventional PoWs like Ens. Sakamaki. I agree. They're criminals, and need to be dealt with as such. If their treatment over the last eight years at Guantanamo makes prosecution difficult, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
This is the right thing to do and I think you stated it well, Marc. We have lost our leadership clout the world over because of the "strength/weakness" narrative. Time to get it back by truly practicing the principles we preach.
Too much of the American populace has been taught to fear (almost everything it seems) during the Bush/Cheney regime. No doubt, having trials in N.Y. is politically risky. But, we shouldn't fear the carefully carved justice system that has made this nation great and that has served us so well. So, to the Republicans who continually cry, "Freedom," it's time to walk the talk.
I would give an unequivocal BRAVO to Holder except for the five who are being sent to military tribunals. They, too, should have had their day in court. It is the American way! EQUAL justice for all.
Another case of amateur hour at the WH, the problem is this latest mistake will cost many more Americans their lives. By trying scum like KSM in US courts because their acts of war took place in the US you INCREASE the incentive for Islamic terrorists to kill thousands of civilians in the US.By the Obama/Holder standard if you are an Islamic terrorist who kills in the US you receive all the protections of the US Constitution all at taxpayers expense. The reason Gitmo was created was to deprive Islamic terrorists of that protection as war criminals and unlawful combatants.Here's how Powerline noted the stupidity of the Obama/Holder terrorists trial policy:
"This illustrates the perversity of mindlessly applying the criminal law template to terrorist attacks. What is the implication of Holder's criteria? Put yourself in the place of a would-be terrorist: If you want to garner maximum publicity; if you want to make yourself into a world-famous martyr; if you want an endless platform for disseminating jihadist propaganda; if you want to be treated with kid gloves at all times; what should you do? That's right: you should organize an attack on American soil that kills thousands. You'll be rewarded with top-flight legal representation at taxpayer expense and a forum in which to advance the cause of jihad."
First off,
Everything these guys do is political.You notice nobody here mentions Bagram, but the rest of the world notices it. It's all about sucking up to who bought you, which means a perception (to Americans) of NOT BEING BUSH!! This administration is a joke. Unfortunately, not very funny.
And, to the leftists who think I care about Bush, I don't, so save your replies.
Moving the trials to Ny proves that progressives hate Bush so much that they are willing to put America and americans at greater risk to score political points. The ironic part is that if KSM's confession is ruled inadmissable due to the waterboarding, which is what the leftys really want, it will be the progressives that are discreditted and hated not Bush or conservatives.
I think the US Gov't and Courts need to realize that their jurisdiction ends at the borders. Despite their arrogant attitudes in thinking that acts against Americans worldwide grants them authority to act (such as the kidnapping of the President of Panama years ago), such might does not make right. You cannot go to a foreign country, kidnap one of their citizens with your military, and then with a straight face hold them on trial for violating American law without getting laughed at by the world for your arrogance. The Obama Administration is doing the very thing that the President says he doesn't do, promote American arrogance.