No Trial For KSM At All?

By GottaLaff

Sharp-eyed Lizz Winstead just alerted me to this piece by Adam Serwer, someone we both follow on Twitter. When she did, I was nearly speechless. For me, that's really something.

I went right over to read it, hoping I'd find something different than what she said to me. I'd hoped she misinterpreted it or read it wrong.

No such luck:

I've said before that if the administration chooses to retreat on trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other September 11 conspirators in civilian court, he might not be brought to justice at all, given the constitutional vulnerability of the military commissions. Brookings' Ben Wittes and former Bush Office of Legal Counsel head Jack Goldsmith are recommending indefinite detention as a "solution" to the problem:

[...] [T]he politically draining fight about civilian vs. military trials is not worth the costs. It also distracts from more important questions in the legal war against terrorism.

"Not worth the costs"? We've already paid dearly for avoiding/ignoring our own system of justice. What could be more costly than trading our democracy for political expedience?

They write that "the political costs" of a trial "have become exorbitant" even "unaffordably high" and even a military commission "isn't worth the effort, cost and political fight it would take."

And who is driving up those political costs? Cowardly, self-serving fear mongers.

KSM and his cohorts are likely guilty of a terrible crime, and they should be brought to justice for it. Wittes and Goldsmith fail to properly consider the costs of holding KSM forever without trial -- the American people growing further acclimatized to a government whose definition of justice and commitment to the rule of law is increasingly capricious. That kind of long-term damage is immeasurable, and a far greater cost to the country than the short-term false outrage of McCarthyists and hypocrites.

Adam nailed it. This is unacceptable.

Shallow Thoughts: Let's NOT Make a Deal edition

By GottaLaff

Today's Shallow Thought:

Closing Gitmo in exchange for military trials and indefinite detention is, for lack of a better word, redundant. They're nearly synonymous. While closing Gitmo rids us of one House of Horrors and some bad press, indefinite detention is simply another House of Horrors.

As for military commissions, how many ways do I have to say it?

Let's not make a deal.

That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.

No reason for Obama to backtrack on 9/11 trials

By GottaLaff

I'm not sure how many ways this can be said, but until a few irrationally fearful political game-players come to their senses, I'll post about this topic every which way I can.

Via Tim Rutten of the L.A. Times:

If the president, who campaigned on a promise to restore the rule of law in the treatment of the jihadis, reverses course, it will be not only a lamentable triumph of politics over principle but an affront to common sense and some of our most valuable historical precedents. [...]

Other Al Qaeda-linked terrorists who have passed through the normal criminal justice process [...] were tried and convicted, and all are serving life sentences in federal prison [...]

The notion that Mohammed, his alleged accomplices and the other 35 Guantanamo detainees the administration says it wants to bring to trial pose some particular challenge or threat that these other defendants didn't is simply absurd. The only real difficulties posed by these new cases are the ones created by the extra-legal, extra-judicial handling of their situations up to now, mainly the use of torture to obtain confessions and other evidence. Those problems -- products of the previous administration's panicked overreaching -- are going to be there no matter how or where these trials are conducted. [...]

This is an instance in which the Obama administration must choose between principle and political expediency.

I just gave you the generalities, Rutten gives you the details here. And he does it well. Suffice it to say I strongly agree with him, and am sick and tired of the fear tactics used for no other reason than political gain.

Our legal/security systems are just fine. Better than fine. Too bad they're being exploited. In fact, it's shameful.

All my previous posts, about this, rants and otherwise, can be found here.

ACLU ad equates/morphs Obama with Bush

By GottaLaff

Ouch. The ACLU took out an ad in the New York Times that morphs President Obama into Bush. I can't think of a bigger insult or a worse juxtaposition:

The military commissions are seriously flawed and unprepared to handle these complex cases. If President Obama reverses his attorney general’s principled decision under political pressure, it will strike a devastating blow to American values and do serious damage to our nation’s credibility. We urge the president to do the right thing and keep these cases in federal court, where they belong.”

Personally, I don't like to equate President Obama with Bush, even in cases like this one. It's too harsh, even if there are similarities. IMHO, Bush is a war criminal, so I reserve comparisons to him for other thugs.

I do, however, agree with the points the ACLU is making.

They also wrote a letter to the president. You can read the whole thing here (click on images to enlarge):


The ad's full text:

What will it be Mr. President?
Change or more of the Same?

Candidate Barack Obama vowed to change the Bush-Cheney policies and restore America’s values of justice and due process. Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obama is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court. Our criminal justice system has successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases compared to only 3 in the military commissions. Our criminal justice system will resolve these cases more quickly and more credibly than the military commissions.

President Obama can vigorously prosecute terrorists and keep us safe without violating our Constitution.

As president, Barack Obama must decide whether he will keep his solemn promise to restore our Constitution and due process, or ignore his vow and continue the Bush-Cheney policies.

Tell President Obama not to back down on his commitment to our justice system, and to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court.

Remind the world that America stands for due process, justice, and the rule of law.

I've written extensively about this subject; you can track all my posts here.

The ACLU took a tough, clear stand. Somebody had to.

AUDIO- A Jewish Soldier Witnesses Nuremberg: "We found it in ourselves to give the worst of men due process"

By GottaLaff

I have posted and re-posted about the injustice and cruelty at Guantanamo Bay, about Fayiz al-Kandari, and his attorney Lt. Col. Barry Wingard.

I have also posted and re-posted about why today's military commissions are inferior to U.S. civilian courts.

Kids often ask why they need to study history in school. After all, it's ancient stuff, stories that have been told, times past that couldn't possibly affect them now.

Wanna bet?

Via NPR:

Sixty years ago, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg handed down its first verdict against Nazi war criminals. The Nuremberg trials were structured as a blueprint for something new in international law law... "crimes against humanity" and "crimes against peace". [...]

Commentator Clancy Sigal was a sergeant in the American army of occupation in Germany. [...]

Evidence which included the shrunken heads of tortured prisoners and lampshades made of human skin. [...]

The U.S. War Department was determined that Goering and the other Nazis leaders would receive a fair trial. At Nuremberg, there would be no secret evidence or closed proceedings. The Allies believed that would betray their ideal of restoring democracy in Germany. [...]

Today, in the midst of a national debate on how to treat captured terror suspects, my mind flashes back to Room 600 at Furtherstrasse 22. We gave Goering and the other war criminals a chance not only to defend themselves but in some cases, preach hate and violence.

In a ruined Germany, where so many corpses still lay buried in the rubble, and life seemed so very fragile, we found it in ourselves to give the worst of men due process.

Those unfeeling, brutal Nazi beasts were terrorists... terrorists who killed millions of innocents.

It's time the GOP starts trusting our legal system instead of playing politics, playing with lives. Our democracy is at stake, as well as our international standing.

Why is that so hard to grasp? And why on earth would the Obama administration even consider caving to the GOP... again? Maybe they should all give a listen to this audio.

H/t: Dave_von_Ebers

Video- Doocy: Are DOJ attorneys who represented Gitmo detainees "sympathetic to the Al Qaeda cause?"

I can finally understand why this show is so damn popular up here. What Doochey says is hands down one of the stupidest things ever, not to mention that by their own standards he is criticizing one of those damn government arms that the wingers usually revere. Or at least they did revere the Justice Department until those damn socialists got ahold of it. Asshat. Via Media Matters.

Dick Cheney's "fairly large concessions"

By GottaLaff

I found it harder than usual to post a video of Cheney today, so I refrained. I didn't want to subject any of us to his face, his speech patterns, his lies, his offensive digs, or his nasty demeanor.

However, Greg Sargent posted a comprehensive recap of Dickless McHeartStent's appearance on ABC today. Here it is, in part, but please go read the whole thing.

And thank you, Greg, for saving me from the torture (pun intended) of having to sit through another one of his nauseating interviews:

Some real news in the Dick Cheney interview on ABC: First, Cheney basically endorsed repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And second, he made fairly large concessions when it comes to his criticism of the current administration: He conceded that the shoe bomber could have been placed in military custody under Bush, but wasn’t. And he acknowledged that some in the Bush administration — not himself, obviously — saw trying terror suspects in civilian courts as an effective weapon against terrorism.

No question, Cheney repeated many standard attacks on Obama — he doesn’t view our hunt for terrorists as a war; he’s trapped in a pre-9/11 mentality; etc.

But Cheney struggled to explain why it’s fair game to criticize Obama’s use of Mirandizing and civilian trials when these techniques were used under his administration.

There now. That was relatively painless.

VIDEO- Meet the Press: Rachel Maddow on trying terrorists in federal court

By GottaLaff

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

She is the finest talker on the Talk Tee Vee Machine. If brains were Nielsen ratings, she'd beat the Grammy Awards tenthousandfold.

"There have been 3 convictions under military tribunals. Three. And two of the people convicted are now free."

Aaron Schlock on the other hand....

VIDEO- Joe Biden: "He will not be acquitted. He will not be released."

By GottaLaff

David Gregory needs to go host a reality show on some obscure cable channel.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"We are confident in our case... He will be held accountable under the law."

Clear, David? Or do we need one of these?

Official: Terror case may happen outside Manhattan

I actually understand and think this is good idea, at least on the financial basis.

WASHINGTON – Facing growing opposition to its plans to hold the Sept. 11 terrorist trial in New York City, the Obama administration is considering moving the proceedings elsewhere.

Two administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Friday the Justice department is drawing up plans for possible alternate locations to try professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged accomplices in case Congress or local officials prevent the trial from being held in Manhattan.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the deliberation.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that the trial would be held in Manhattan federal court, generating stiff opposition in Congress and in New York.

Word that the administration is considering a backup plan for its most high-profile terrorism trial comes after President Barack Obama and Holder have spent weeks on the defensive about their handling of terrorism threats.

(snip)

The officials did not say where else the trial might be held, but others have suggested an unpopulated island near Manhattan, or nearby military installations.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who originally supported the plan, reversed his position this week and called Holder to lobby for moving the trial outside lower Manhattan. The city has claimed it will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to provide security for a court case that is expected to last at least a year.

VIDEO- Terrorist Lockup: Tough or Wuss?

By GottaLaff



Hippie_Cyndi just brought this video to my attention. Thanks, Cyn, it hit the spot:

Are you tough or a wuss? Take a look at what it takes to put terrorists away for good, starting with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. (Oh, and the 195 others who have already been put on trial in the U.S.) A Mark Fiore political animation.

Video- Hannity's Studio Audience Wants Obama Tried For Treason

What Ellen said-

There didn’t seem to be a single person with a different point of view, even in the studio audience where, by the way, I could not find a single person of color. The audience was supposedly made up of 9/11 victims. As a former New Yorker, I know for sure that many people of color were among that group. Funny how unrepentant bigot Hannity couldn’t seem to find any worth including. If there had been any attempt at balance, the show would also have included some members of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows which supports the civilian trials. But during the last segment of the show, Hannity dropped all pretense of discussing the trial as he brought on anti-immigration extremist Peter Gadiel who suggested President Obama should be arrested for treason. So how did “Great American” Hannity react to that bit of extremism? By encouraging his audience to agree.

Video- Rep Gohmert: Are NYC 9/11 Trials An 'Insane' Gambit To Create More Jobs?

Why do I keep calling him Goober? More about his stupidity here.

VIDEO- Jonathan Turley: 9/11 trial critics show "crisis of faith" in the Constitution

By GottaLaff

Turley said exactly what needed to be said. The hysterical critics of using our own criminal court system to try, you know, criminals are showing a disturbing "crisis of faith in our Constitution":

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rudy Giuliani gets one right!

By GottaLaff

Hey, fair is fair. Via Josh Marshall:

I will give Rudy credit for realizing that the most important thing about fighting terrorism is the catch-phrases we use to describe it.

Noun. Verb. 9/11.

Quickie: GOP hysteria in a nutshell

By GottaLaff

Today's Quickie:

Thom Hartmann on the Radio Machine just now, commenting on the Rushpublic hysteria over the news that some of the 9/11 suspects will be tried in the U.S. court system:

"They're hysterical because a criminal is going to show up in criminal court and get the death penalty."

Period.

That was today's Quickie. Was it good for you?

Dueling VIDEOS: Attorney General Holder's announcement v. 9/11 families

By GottaLaff

Military commissions allow heresay as well as testimony given after having been tortured. In other words, it's meaningless.

A.G. Holder claims that the Department of Justice has evidence that hasn't been revealed yet.

In that regard, I've heard that, in the case of low level detainees, evidence has been sprung on the defense, heavily redacted documents that the defense had never seen. And of course, the standards are much lower than they are in federal court. Just thought I'd pass that along.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Via Invictus:



******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Senate Kills Graham Amendment

By GottaLaff

Lindsey, Lindsey, Lindsey, we all know that military commissions allow hearsay and statements made as a result of torture as evidence (See detainee series and al-Kandari, Fayiz).

Of course, that must be exactly why you proposed the amendment:

The Senate just tabled the amendment proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) [...]

The amendment, S.A. 2669, to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, would have forced the government to try the suspected plotters of the 9/11 attacks in military commissions.

Bummer, huh Linds?

There is still the question of where they will end up trying them, though.

AG Holder: 50 or more Gitmo trials possible + bonus VIDEO

By GottaLaff



The video is of A.G. Holder reminding Sessions who's boss.

Moving on:

Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday there may be 50 or more trials of Guantanamo Bay detainees as the Obama administration works to shut the detention center by early next year.

Does that include Fayiz al-Kandari, who's been locked up for nearly 8 years?

Holder told senators protecting Americans from terrorists is his top priority.

Dear A.G. Holder, Please make releasing those who do not threaten Americans a priority, too. Love, Laffy.

Under questioning from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Holder outlined efforts to close Guantanamo. [...]

Graham said he expected about one-quarter or fewer of the inmates to be brought to civilian or military trial. Holder said he thought that figure was "about right."

Holder did not commit to any specific figure and said authorities have only worked through about half the detainee cases so far. [...]

Several of the lawyers representing detainees have previously estimated about two dozen might end up on trial.

If the 25 percent figure were to hold, it would mean about 56 detainees would face a trial of some kind by U.S. authorities. A separate group of detainees would be sent to foreign countries; a third group, the most difficult, would not be released or put on trial.

Holder said officials were discussing how to handle such suspects and whether new legislation would be required to hold them. He said even without a trial, a judge would have to review the basis for holding such detainees. [...]

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., urged the attorney general to make the detainee decisions "an open process" to win the confidence of the American public and the trust of foreign leaders.

And while we're at it, can we please stop abusing them? Yes, that is still happening. More tomorrow.

O'Reilly: I Take FULL Credit For Spain Backing Off Torture Prosecutions

This gave me the biggest laugh I've had in weeks. I was going to say you can't make this shit up, but then again, you can.