I keep talking to people about this, and they keep responding, "Oh, Obama probably did it because they don't have enough evidence to win in civilian court." And that's not true, and it's not even the point. The point is, George W. Bush pushed the dangerous idea that the 9/11 attacks were acts of terror by states, not individuals - and that was the rationale for invading Iraq. Trying the 9/11 attackers in military tribunals is saying the Bush-Cheney doctrine was right, and lays the groundwork for bipartisan support of pre-emptive attacks:

The Justice Department's restoration was among the most important tasks facing the Obama administration: The Bush administration's political appointees had dismantled the hiring practices that allowed career attorneys to make hiring decisions, and gave more weight to ideological conformity than legal expertise. The result was a Justice Department where incompetent ideologues with political interests in mind were given more power than career attorneys concerned with upholding the law. Michael Mukasey began the process of de-politicizing Justice after he replaced Alberto Gonzales; Eric Holder has continued it.

In light of this, I think Andrew Sullivan's observation of the conflict between Rahm Emanuel and Holder over the prosecution of the alleged September 11 conspirators is especially important:

But whatever your view, this must not, it seems to me, be a politicized decision. It should be a matter of justice. And to go from a Rove-driven Justice Department to an Emanuel-driven Justice Department is not the change most of us who supported Obama wanted to see. Or believe in.

I'm not interested in going from a Justice Department whose behavior is driven by Republican political interests to one whose behavior is driven by Democratic political interests. That's going nowhere at all. Retreating on the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court won't undo all the important changes the administration has made to the Justice Department, but it would reinforce the idea that the Department is a political fiefdom rather than an entity that exists to enforce the laws of the United States and secure the rights of its citizens.

A separate point is that Republicans won't budge on Gitmo anyway, no matter what Lindsey Graham says, so Emanuel's choice isn't even smart politics.

DOWNLOADS: (935)

PLAYS: (2601)

Embed

Monica Crowley this morning, appearing on Fox News' Happening Now, followed in Newt's footsteps in her eagerness to deny that shoe bomber Richard Reid's case -- also tried in civilian courts by the Bush administration -- bore any similarity to that of "Underwear Bomber" Umar Abdulmutallab, a fact that undermines their brazen attempts to attack President Obama for his handling of the "war on terror".

That is, she lied:

Crowley: There are some unanswered questions here, Julian. Is Abdulmuttalab answering questions or cooperating because he got a plea bargain?

Also, Richard Reid was matriculated into the civilian justice system because military tribunals did not exist in late 2001, and the only reason we got a conviction in the Moussaoui case is because he plead guilty.

In fact, as Julian Epstein points out, military tribunals have been around in the United States a long time -- in fact, they've existed since the Revolutionary War. Moreover, the Supreme Court long ago set the precedent, in Ex parte Milligan (1866), that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional.

Crowley cannot even claim that she actually meant that Guantanamo Bay, where terrorism suspects bound for military tribunals have been held since 9/11, was not operating. In fact, terrorism detainees began arriving there on October 7, 2001, more than two months before Reid's arrest on December 22.

But then, facts have never been deterrent for right-wingers intent on bashing President Obama.

You know, the Villagers are so uniformly self-centered and oblivious to larger reality that it's too much like shooting fish in a barrel to go after them -- too easy and not quite sporting.

But the bed-wetting Richard Cohen takes it to higher levels than almost anyone else:

There is almost nothing the Obama administration does regarding terrorism that makes me feel safer.

Because it's all about you, isn't it, Richard?

Whether it is guaranteeing captured terrorists that they will not be waterboarded, reciting terrorists their rights, or the legally meandering and confusing rule that some terrorists will be tried in military tribunals and some in civilian courts, what is missing is a firm recognition that what comes first is not the message sent to America's critics but the message sent to Americans themselves. When, oh when, will this administration wake up?

What, you mean the concept that we all have equal rights under the law? Yes, I can see where that idea might cause some problems.

[...] No doubt George Bush soiled America's image abroad with what looked liked vigilante justice and Dick Cheney's hearty endorsement of ugly interrogation measures. But more is at stake here than America's image abroad -- namely the security and peace of mind of Americans in America. Bush stands condemned by the facts for Sept. 11 -- his watch, his responsibility -- and in all likelihood he bent over backward to ensure that nothing like those attacks would happen again.

The Obama administration, on the other hand, seems to have bent over backward to prove to the world it is not the Bush administration and will, almost no matter what, ensure that everyone gets the benefit of American civil liberties.

As one of those who have been watching as Obama rubberstamps numerous Bush terrorism policies, I can only shake my head. Can it be that Cohen simply doesn't know how to read?

But the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security and this, sad to say, has eroded under Barack Obama. Repeatedly, the administration has shown poor judgment. Abdulmutallab's silence is a scream that something is wrong.

Really? Really, "the paramount civil liberty is a sense of security"? Your sense of security? I'm sitting here looking at the Bill of Rights and yeah, they do talk about security, all right - but not the way you mean:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...

Maybe you should go back and read the rest, you pathetic excuse for an American. Or remember the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's been a popular refrain by conservatives that the Detroit Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, ought to be turned over to the military so that he can be "squeezed" for information. Yes, that's because it's worked so well in the past... but more to the point, how's the former administration's track record on civil and military trials of terrorist suspects? From the UK's Guardian:

The Bush administration -- in which Liz Cheney's papa held a fairly high position, you might recall -- prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

Then, the tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he served six months after conviction. Today he's back in -- guess where? -- Yemen.

Now far be it for us to accuse the Republicans, Faux News, and many conservatives of deliberate hypocrisy. But it's hard to look at the numbers and then suggest that the right-wing hysteria is anything but deliberate political gamesmanship without any regard to due process or actually addressing the threat of terrorism.

DOWNLOADS: (761)

PLAYS: (1923)

Embed

Apparently, the job of filling in for Glenn Beck comes with a wingnuttery quotient proviso. Because yesterday on Beck's show, Judge Andrew Napolitano made sure he filled his.

Napolitano started by complaining that it was "progressives" who were arguing that we had to give up our liberties in order to obtain security. Come again?

What exactly did we hear from the American Right during the eight years of George W. Bush's nonstop assaults on civil liberties -- ranging from wiretapping citizens to using torture to using military tribunals to try American citizens? Oh, that's right -- we heard that opposing these measures meant we hated America and cared more about terrorist rights.

It's true that Napolitano opposed the wiretaps and the torture. But is he now claiming that these were progressives who argued they were necessary?

In any event, the real capper came shortly after:

Napolitano: Can the government keep us safe? I don't think so. I think airline travel is safer today because pilots have guns, because cockpit doors are now like bank vaults, and because the passengers have become courageous. All this was done by individuals, in the private sector, and not by the government.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If the feds had not stripped us of our natural rights to keep ourselves safe by keeping and bearing arms, 9/11 would never have happened!

Come again, again? Napolitano seems to think that if everybody on board those planes had been permitted to pack heat -- which is the scenario he seems to envision here -- we'd all have been a lot safer.

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Just let everybody bring their guns on board. That'll make us safer. Uh-huh.

Maybe Napolitano is arguing that only pilots should have been allowed to pack heat. But that would not exactly be consonant with his complaint that the feds had taken away our "natural rights" to carry guns.

All I can say is that if the airline system were insane enough to follow his suggestion and let everyone exert their "natural rights", I'd be exerting my natural right to take a train or a bus.

Theoretically, the Obama administration could bring some integrity to the process. But practically speaking? I think the tribunals are too tainted to retain, and I don't pretend to understand why this is happening:

WASHINGTON — - The Obama administration will announce plans Friday to revive the Bush-era military commission system for prosecuting accused terrorists, current and former officials said, reversing a presidential campaign pledge to rely instead on federal courts and the traditional military justice system.

Word of the imminent decision infuriated human rights groups, who argued that any trials under the system created by former President George W. Bush would be widely viewed as tainted and said the Obama administration was duplicating the mistakes of former administration.

[...] White House officials insisted that Obama was not overturning a campaign vow. The president "never promised to abolish" military commissions, an administration official said. However, during his campaign Obama repeatedly called for change.

[...] The administration still intends to prosecute some Guantanamo Bay detainees in federal courts, as Obama had pledged. But officials have concluded that a small number of detainees can be tried only in the military commissions, said a U.S. official familiar with the changes, speaking on condition of anonymity in advance of Friday's announcement.

The administration on Friday also will outline major changes to the military commission system that will be used in future trials.

Gabor Rona, the international legal director of Human Rights First, said military commission trials are unlikely to be seen as legitimate forms of justice.

"Everyone knows the military commissions have been a dismal failure," said Rona. "The results of the cases will be suspect around the world."

But Charles Stimson, a former Bush administration official who oversaw detainee affairs at the Pentagon, applauded Obama's proposal as one that would bring needed change to the military commission system while keeping it intact.

"It is a good start. The closer they get to courts-martial the better," Stimson said. "They should learn from the mistakes the Bush administration made, then proudly defend the military commissions.

"

d r i f t g l a s s: 9/11/06...the time for easy cliches and cheap platitudes is over. Has our aim been true?

The Heretik: OCD...Obsessive Caliphate Disorder

Confined Space: Scoundrel Time: Whitman, Giuliani, and the victims of Ground Zero.

Mccs1977: When it comes to setting guidelines for military tribunals, who you gonna trust? G-Dub, or the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?

No Capital: Green energy saves lives. Just ask the soldiers who are fighting to keep the oil flowing.

The Revealer: How come we didn't hear about this foiled terrorist plot?