Obama, Liz Cheney Lack Faith in American Justice System
The Washington Post reports today that President Obama may be close to making a decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed by military commission, rather than through civilian courts, as promised. The move would apparently be a tradeoff deal struck to get the military prison at Guantánamo Bay shut down. Emphasis mine:
The president's advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.
Ah, a "symbol" of commitment to the rule of law. Much like the symbolic closure of a terrible prison, instead of prosecution of those that allowed it to become such a seething mass of horror. Neat.
Glenn Greenwald is rightly, and righteously, angry at the prospect:
First, although they will try, it will be extremely difficult even for his most devoted loyalists to deny the fundamental cowardice of Barack Obama. ...If, in the face of "GOP demands" that Mohamed be denied a civilian trial, he again reverses himself -- this time on the highest-profile civil liberties decision of his administration -- he will unmistakably reveal himself, even to his most enamored admirers, as someone so utterly devoid not only of principle but also of resolve: you just blow on him a little and he falls down and shatters into little pieces.
I may qualify as one of those "devoted loyalists," and yet I, too, find this decision, should it come to pass, to be absolutely indefensible. Set aside the fact that it's sickening we have to consider making symbolic gestures toward favoring the rule of law, and look at this in the coldest political light possible. What benefit does Obama get from reversing this stance? It's not like the Liz Cheneys of the world are going to declare victory and stop trying to get further civil liberties revoked. They won't be more likely to compromise -- rather, they will be emboldened by this victory. Expect a victory lap that includes a desire to keep Gitmo open forever, or possibly to expand it. Why not just build a few more stories on top of it and start exporting more people straight from the fields of Afghanistan right into hell? Expect this to be the end of any glimmer of hope of prisoners in Cuba or god knows where else having hope of any trial at all.
I am not usually one to engage in slippery-slope arguments, but here there is real proof that the other side in this debate can never have their thirst for outright vengeance slaked. Though the American system was built on the idea that vengeance and justice aren't compatible, they're campaigning for the destruction of that separation. Liz Cheney has argued that the government employees who were assigned to defend Gitmo detainees are essentially un-American traitors for representing the rights of detainees in court and through written briefs.
Imagine how terrifying and persuasive these alleged criminals must be if their case is so strong that even allowing them the guaranteed benefit of legal advice and support might make America less safe!
Does Liz Cheney really fear the case these terrorists can make? One of the signs of the strength of any argument is the willingness of the arguing party to engage ethically with the other side. If you have an argument you believe in, you should be willing to provide the other side with all the time and support they need and still be confident that your argument will prevail. Yet Cheney, and her compatriot at "Keep America Safe," Bill Kristol, seem to believe instead that the arguments and evidence held by the terrorists is so absolutely shocking and dangerous and, one might guess, persuasive, that it should never see the light of day.
I, for one, am not afraid of being swayed by the arguments of alleged terrorists. I'm not afraid to see them given fair trials. I'm not afraid to see the U.S. Department of Justice face the test of finding out who's really responsible for the terrorist attacks and plots of the last ten years. I'm sorry that Liz Cheney and her friends lack faith in the strength and will of the American people, and I'm sorry that neither she nor President Obama have faith in the rule of law.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
Whatever gave you the idea that civilian criminal trials are the sole venues for following the rule of law and giving fair trials? That's like saying that all trials must be conducted in the Southern District of New York.
I hesitate to object to your reasoning, however. The outrage against Obama being evidenced by you and other members of the far left is music to my ears as it promises that we may be rid of this sad excuse for a president sooner rather than later.
Their problem is that we are their enablers. No matter how much they shit on the base, we vote for them anyway because we would rather stick needles in our eyes that vote GOP, or split the vote with a vote for a Green Party candidate.
Setting aside for a moment the odious nature of the GOP, one must nevertheless admire their fearlessness. They are willing to lose an election rather than abandon their "principles." They take the long view. And God help the candidate who strays from their orthodoxy. No GOP candidate would dare to piss off their base. Until we put that same fear into Obama, and Congress, they will continue to take us for granted and they will continue to shit on us.
What this excellent piece states is far from ridiculous, and your analogy to all trials in SDNY is beyond strained. I especially like the statement that "the American system was built on the idea that vengeance and justice aren't compatible," and this is such an notable observation because all these traitorous right-wingers like that dizzy cow Liz Cheney seem to be capable of doing is trying to out-neanderthal each other by showing how little justice we should strive for.
Well, I don't post here much and have probably just stepped in a huge, stinking pile of troll bait, but I really enjoyed this essay.
Gordon Osmond, however, is full of shit.
I trust our courts. I trust our professionals. This is Obama throwing a rotten bone. Damn.
thanks Saturn, you are invaluable
What puts the best face on our actions?
a) the military does have a justice system
b) trials can and more importantly are, moved for all sorts of reasons
c) Obama is going to have this blow up in his face.
I agree with all three, although, I don't want c, because I don't think changing is good, unless you make it plausibly deniable, which maybe he can still do.
Now, he has the worst of both worlds, of no one liking this who cares.
Right now, he wants HCR. It's a fifty year old institutional goal of the Democratic Party (as much as they are capable of "institutional" goals in any case) and anything that distracts from that goal is a luxury he can't afford at the moment. He can twist congressional arms for KSM or HCR or Gitmo closure, he can't twist arms for all three simultaneously.
Be a little patient though, he only said he's "thinking about it". It's quite possible that he'll think about it until the day after he signs HCR and then decide that a civilian trial convened at a secured location is the best option. Sometimes you (and Greenwald) take what he says too seriously. He is a politician after all.
I think the US has the best system of Justice in the World but this trial will not show the world that system. I know that most people think that it would be unfair to execute or hold these terrorist without trial, but I would rather do that than to smear the American Judicial System with this farce.
Just line them up and shoot them.
I'm angry that people aren't enraged, that politicians can play games with our most basic beliefs and yes, I'm angry at Obama. Even though I recognize that Congress holds the purse strings and can refuse to approve the funding, I keep waiting for him (Obama) to let the inner brotha emerge and tell them where to stick it.
Barak talks the talk but he's a pussy (or is it Rahm again ?)
Gordon - what does Guantanamo (or Cheney or Kristol or Bush) have to do with rule of law ?
First of all, non-U.S. citizens are afforded Constitutional protections routinely.
Secondly, how does one arrive at the conclusion that a person accused of a crime is a "terrorist" without due process? Do we simply divine that the accused is guilty?
Come back when you have either "facts" or "substance" to offer.
I seem to recall having read somewhere that a person ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. You, know, like in a court of law?
Second of all, there have already been 319 terrorists in this country who have been tried by jury trial. I fail to see how the trial of KSM will jeapordize American justice or security. After all, the truck bombers of the World Trade Center in 1993 were all Arab terrorists, and the world didn't end when they were sentenced.
Third, if Nazi spies landing in New Jersey in 1943 can get a jury trial , why can't KSM get the same treatment?
Folks -- I want all of you to go to whitehouse.gov RIGHT NOW and tell Obama that a military tribunal will be one of the greatest mistakes he will ever make. Get off of Open Salon IMMEDIATELY, AND DO IT!!!
The idea that KSM will be given a platform for propaganda is absurd to anybody who knows anything about how civilian trials are really conducted. The idea that such propaganda would be dangerous is absurd to anybody who has read Osama Bin Laden's fatwa explaining why Al Qaeda is attacking the United States.
And the idea of military commissions has one little flaw: no such thing has existed since World War II, and they were terrible and tyrannical then (in Hawaii under martial law, 1942-3). The Republicans want to use a vehicle that will visibly NOT produce justice, but will insure convictions of 100% of accused persons, Similar to their contention that to protect "victim's rights," it is necessary to convict someone, anyone, of murder when there is a killing.
Sounds good to me but what second year law student could not get a defense win with those statements in the brief case?
Let’s say they are convicted, do we put them in a prison yard with the bloods and crips.
These protocols are the laws of war, and they are much older than the U.S. itself. They require combatants to wear uniforms, to carry their weapons openly, to be part of a regular armed force, and, most importantly, to refrain from intentionally targeting civilians. Fighters who adhere to the laws of war are entitled to various protections upon capture. By contrast, fighters who flout the laws of war - such as non-uniformed terrorists who target mainly civilians - are unlawful combatants and may be prosecuted by a military commission for war crimes.
This is not a judicial system, and it is not intended to be; however, it is every bit a legal system. And thoughout all our history - at least until very recently - this has been thoroughly understood. This Salon article not only goes against common sense (for our country's continued peace and civility) but all of history. Nor did the Framers believe that we would be able to indict our enemies into submission in our civilian courts. They believed that we would have to defeat them, which means being able to enforce the protocols necessary to wage war successfully.
For example, reading Miranda warnings to a Nigerian national who had spent 4 months training in Yemen in an al Qaeda (the ones who have pledged to kill any and/or all of us) camp sent here to be the underwear bomber to kill a minimum of 288 citizens - is simplistic and irresponsible. The President's primary responsibility is to defend the Constitution and American citizens. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab still knows the training camps, the trainers, and the identities of countless other terrorists. Instead of his capture becoming one of the great intelligence coups of the war - he has now become just a pesky, American-like street thug to be ran through our friendly justice system. Really? Honestly? I pray the terrorists coming behind him don't blow up your spouse, child, parent, or best friend. If that tragedy were to happen - you would unfortunately become more closely educated to the realities of the world and war. Just as our Founding Fathers were.
A freedom-loving, peace-loving people in the shadow of Presidents Jackson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, do not surrender control of the most fundamental political decisions - such as those concerning national defense - to officials who are not politically accountable. Nor should our elected officials voluntarily surrender control of those decisions. We must reject the idea of entrusting our security to judicial processes or we shall eventually find ourselves neither secure nor free."
(This is taken from a speech delivered by Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, on March 5, 2010, in Washington D.C. at the "First Principles on First Fridays" lecture series.)
Sell Structured Settlement
magician glasgow