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

Russ Feingold tells White House to try KSM in civilian court

By GottaLaff

Earlier I posted about the change of heart, er, flip flop, by the White House over the venue for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. I also expressed my frustration, and explained why military commissions are inferior to civilian courts.

Looks like I'm not alone. Greg Sargent spoke to Russ Feingold's office and got the following statement. Feingold is the first prominent Congressional Democrat to speak out, but hopefully not the last:

“We have a great track record of successfully trying and convicting terrorists in civilian courts. The military commission system is largely untested, and these cases could easily get bogged down in years of legal challenges. The best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts.”

Bingo.

The bottom line, as Robert Gates has suggested, is that those arguing against civilian trials for terror suspects are, intentionally or not, actually trying to limit the tools at our disposal for fighting terrorism — for ideological reasons. That point can’t be restated enough.

Thank you Russ Feingold, and thank you Greg.

BREAKING: Al Qaeda agent to be tried in civilian court

By GottaLaff

Liveblogging:

Per Rachel Maddow just now: Another anti-Bush move for President Obama. A suspected Al Qaeda sleeper agent is to be tried in a United States civilian court. Criminal charges have been filed.

Think about that: A fair trial. In an American court. For someone arrested in America. This is the first step to bring these people back into the rule of law, as Obama promised he would do early on.

Al-Marri was never allowed to contest or defend himself, until now, per Rachel. This means the U.S. won't hold detainees indefinitely without charges. Obama is doing things differently.

Al-Marri has been tortured, mistreated, and wasn't charged with committing a terrorist act, just thinking about it, per Jane Mayer. He's already spent a lot of time in prison, which would be considered, too.

We're becoming "us" again.

Al-Marri was arrested in 2001 as material witness to the 9/11 attacks.

And now he is being treated as a criminal instead of an enemy combatant. He is no longer in a legal black hole.

UPDATE: Here's a link to the print story.