But he sure is doing a good job prosecuting American intelligence agents.
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, accused the Obama Administration of an "Alice in Wonderland" approach to the nation's anti-terrorism strategy.
Lieberman and other senators on both sides of the aisle are critical of President Barack Obama's decision to try terrorists in civilian court in New York City as well as the Obama Justice Department decision to process the so-called "Underwear Bomber" captured on Christmas Day in the civilian criminal justice system.
Lieberman urged the Administration Monday to move Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from civilian to military custody because "he is an enemy combatant and should be detained, interrogated and ultimately charged as such."
"Though the President has said repeatedly that we are at war, it does not appear to us that the President's words are reflected in the actions of some in the Executive branch, including some at the Department of Justice, responsible for fighting that war. The unilateral decision by the Department of Justice to treat Abdulmutallab – a belligerent fighting for and trained by an al-Qaeda franchised organization – as a criminal rather than a UEB and to forego information that may have been extremely helpful to winning this war demonstrates that very point," Lieberman wrote in his letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
Holder's decision to prosecute murderous, fanatical terrorists — including the 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — in civilian courts continues to infuriate many Americans, but to no avail.
President Barack Obama claims that he sees American intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement systems working together seamlessly. He wants the professionals in these areas to collect, share, integrate, analyze and act on intelligence "as quickly and effectively as possible to save innocent lives, not just most of the time, but all of the time," he said. "That's what the American people deserve. As President, that's exactly what I will demand."
But not everyone believes the President is serious about intelligence gathering and analysis during a time of war. Some security experts believe that it wasn't the intelligence people who failed in the prelude to the Christmas Day attempted airline bombing, but a clear lack of leadership.
"You have a Homeland Security Secretary who believes returning war veterans are extremists and an Attorney General who's biting at the bit to prosecute intelligence agents," said former NYPD detective and US Marine intelligence officer Mike Snopes.
"And when they get caught with their pants down, right away they blame the people — the intelligence community — whom they denigrate with their usual vitriol," he added.
"We and many others have already expressed serious concerns about whether a trial in civilian court might compromise classified evidence, including revealing sources and methods used by our intelligence community," said Senator Lieberman.
"We are also very concerned that, by bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists responsible for 9/11 to the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, only blocks away from where the Twin Towers once stood, you will be providing them one of the most visible platforms in the world to exalt their past acts and to rally others in support of further terrorism," he said.
"The moment [Abdulmutallab] was given Miranda [warnings], the guy lawyered-up. Which means investigators will have to negotiate with him and possibly trade intelligence for a lighter prison sentence or other break," said political strategist Mike Baker.
When asked about his motives for not allowing the military justice system to try Gitmo detainees, Attorney Holder and his supporters blame President George W. Bush's failure to try Gitmo terrorists in the so-called military tribunals.
However, the real reason there were so few military trials was that lawyers were continuously working to derail the military courts martial by challenging them in the civilian courts. And far too many of those lawyers are now working for Holder at the Justice Department, according to Holder and Obama's critics.
In fact, during the Bush Administration, Holder's law firm, Covington & Burling, provided pro-bono services for about 20 of the enemy combatants held at Gitmo. In lawsuits Holder and his firm brought against the American people, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to these violent terrorists.
"From a political standpoint, Holder reserves his vitriol and passionate opposition for US intelligence officers and those law enforcement leaders who fight terrorists, or police commanders who are tough on criminal aliens," said Mike Baker.
Yet, Obama and Holder appear to enjoy immunity from any investigative journalism by the elite media, including questions regarding Holder's ties to defending enemies of the United States in the past.
"My read of Holder and his boss Obama is that they are perfectly comfortable befriending and defending terrorists. Obama's close friend — and ghostwriter — William Ayers was a bomb-maker for the fanatical Weather Underground. And Holder possesses a history of beneficence to terror organizations such as when he brokered a deal for releasing FALN bombers in New York just as Hillary Clinton began her campaign for that state's US Senate seat," claims former NYPD detective and US Marine Sidney Frances.
Mr. Kouri, I've been to the sight of the FALN bombing at Fraunces Tavern. Besides the people the bomb killed and injured, its upper floors housed the original offices of Secretary of Foreign Affairs (now called State) Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of War (now called Defense) Henry Knox, and Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton. This was an attack on both America's present and its history. And it was the site where George Washington gave his historic farewell speech to his officers.
The FALN bombing was a real and symbolic attack on America's past and present.
Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", was tried by the Bush administration in criminal court in Boston. Would everything be hunky-dory if we just prosecuted Abdulmutallab in Boston instead of New York City? Or did Bush make the same mistake?
Bush was wrong.
I see this is a discussion all over the lefty blogs. Capable of an original thought?
Odd that I don't recall anybody making a big deal of Bush's "mistake" back then.
So long as we're being, snide, should I ask, "Capable of intellectual consistency?" :->
It’s always helpful to remember the actual timeline of an action/decision when answering a question about "mistakes" or consistency in venue.
President Obama's supporters are making much of how the Bush administration treated 2001 shoe-bomber Richard Reid the same way that the Flight 253 Christmas bomber has been treated: arrest, indictment, and trial in civilian criminal court. In doing so they in fact continue to perpetuate a deep division that dates back to the first days after September 11, 2001, between law enforcement and war strategies.
While plans for military tribunals were established (by Executive Order dated Nov. 13, 2001), a few weeks before Reid was arrested, former U.S. attorney Mike Sullivan, who prosecuted Reid in federal court in Boston, said that how to use tribunals and particular arrangements for them had not been settled. Sullivan said he is "confident" that had Reid landed at Logan Airport in Dec. 2003, there would have been discussion as to where Reid would be sent. …
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/11/richard-reid-and-the-christmas
So let me see. Was the nature of the trial for the shoe bomber splashed all over the media? No. Did Bush make a show of his AG transferring the authority from the military to civilian courts? Nope. Did Bush seem to tend towards treating terrorists as criminals in general? Uh-uh.
Was Bush wrong, assuming it was his direct choice, to use civilian courts? Yes.
This is intellectually consistent.
Liberals have two hallmarks: Fantasy and Hypocrisy.
This administrtion displays both:
Fantasy–That we can resolve terror by "Talking" to Iran
Hypocrisy–going after Arpaio and O'Keefe, while refusing to prosecute Obama appointee's with known crimes or the Balck Panthers
Ray is incredibly arrogant & a poseur.
And as noted, this is the umpteenth thread & repeated MSM story suggesting that Bush had all terrorists tried on civvy street even after he saw his (& I hate to use a technical legal term here), mistake in that one & others. Oh wait, they forgot.
But, not to worry, This is Verdict First, trial later:
Instapundit 1/31/10:
ROBERT GIBBS OPENS HIS MOUTH AND
REMOVES ALL DOUBT:
Gibbs: Accused 9/11 plotter likely to be executed.
“Accused Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is likely to be executed after being tried and convicted, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday.” This statement, from an official White House spokesman, seems a bit indiscreet. Certainly if the goal is to impress the rest of the world with the fairness of our civilian judicial system, official statements that treat conviction and execution as near-certain would seem to undercut the whole point of the exercise.
The problem with The Administration's assurances to us is that it won’t then be what’s called a trial!
But it's amusing now to see Obama apologists like Ray robotically defend Obama’s treating terror as a civilian matter since, golly, he's only doing what Bush did. These are the guys who told us before Election 2008 that Obama's most appealing trait was that he was the un-Bush!
And now we’ve had eight years of Bush OJT to look at. Only fools repeat OJT mistakes. What we have is a War on Terror, not a Case against Terror.
This should not be hard for people of good faith with a modicum of Commonsense to understand.
As noted by Former Justice Dept. prosecutor, Andy McCarthy:
“The law of war framework maximizes our ability to prevent terrorist attacks while maintaining our ability to prosecute at the time and in the system of our choosing — rather than according to the rigors of the civilian system's Speedy Trial Act. Adopting it would enable President Obama to prioritize his first responsibilities — protecting the nation and fighting the war — without compromising his important but subordinate interest in prosecuting war criminals.”
Inwood:
Actually, from a strategic standpoint, looking at the real purpose of a civilian trial for KSM and his buds, the statements of Gibbs and others are irrelevant to the proceedings or the outcome.
The Obama Administration has already said they're guilty (no surprise here), and even if they somehow get acquitted (or the case gets tossed for predjudicial comments), we're never going to let these guys go.
So, the only reason to put on a public show is to allow for Discovery, which will put Bush and Cheney on trial, and give the world court any "justification" it needs to prosecute them as war criminals. Once we reach this point Obama can return KSM and his friends to indefinite incarceration, claiming that he showed the world how open and transparent US justice is (as long as we forget that the outcome has been pre-judged by US authorities), and let the world go after the "real" terrorists: Bush and Cheney.
Obama's base will love him, KSM and his Islamo-buddies will stay in prison forever, and Obama gets to flaunt form over substance and claim a moral victory for "justice".
It's the perfect "Progressive" hat trick.
Phil
I was restricting myself to Ray’s repeating the now discredited idea that the discredited Bush should be followed in the area of allowing a trial on civvy street as opposed to the obviously jackbooted Military Trials.
Where are we now?
A situation proving that you can’t give an extremist group all it wants & pretend to be a moderate/centrist, especially when a majority of voters don’t want a particular extremist POS rammed down their throats
Of course you’re right that this trial was meant to be red meat to The Anointed One's Loony Liberal Base. A show trial of War Criminals in the Bush "Regime", including, but not limited to, Bush himself, Chaney, Rumsfeld, & yes, attorneys like Yoo & Bybee (the ones responsible for the now-called “torture memos”). Alas, it was a foregone conclusion that these poor guys were to be faced with a OPR (Justice Dept’s Office of Professional Responsibility, a/k/a, Office of Progressive -Leftist, of course- Responsibility) finding of having violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted the 2002 memo approving the use of what would also be characterized as "Torture" under International Law & under the principles embodied in what a renowned former Constitutional Scholar, thinks about the “unity…We find …in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal… gurgle, gurgle.
KSM would be like the baby at the Christening, the groom at the Wedding, the corpse at the Wake: the necessary excuse for the fun of the guests/spectators.
And the trial would be held in NYC, the capital of the world where all could see how The Anointed Ώne could live up to his Nobel Peace Prize by showing how America is weak & unexceptional among nations, more gurgle, gurgle…
But soon, some of the profanum vulgus in Amerikkka began to fear that some crazy jury in NYC, NYC being made up of crazies, might set KSM free because his lawyers would convince them that he’d been abused. So The Anointed Ώne, some time ago & again even this weekend, had to affirm that KSM was gonna be kept in jail forever regardless of any jury that hadn’t gotten the message.
But something happened recently to Congress & Mayor Bloomberg, & especially to Dem Gov. Patterson & the two Dem Senators all up for election in 2010. Yes: “Senator” Brown, on top of Republican Govs in Jersey & VA.
So none of them & apparently no other pol wants this “trial” in his/her backyard, except someone from a long lost place like Newburgh, NY, one of those faded Mid-Hudson Valley cities. (Please no sidebars; I knew Newburgh in 1951.)
And now the suggestion floating around is that we have a Military Trial in, are you ready, GITMO.
Inwood: You're unlikely to get a sidebar on Newburgh. Those who argue against the law usually just substitute their feelings and emotions for actual case law (as in "The definition of 'torture' is I wouldn't want it to happen to me"), or they look the word up in Webster's dictionary and apply that definition to a precise legal term.
Either way, the only weeds they seem to get into are the ones that can be dried and smoked.
Phil
To parphrase W. C. Fields, a day in Newburgh is torture! Actually it has one of the widest streets in the world & has a magnificent view of the Hudson. And the Mid-Hudson Valley is quite beautiful & historic. Even the training ground for future fascists, West Point, is breathtaking.
BTW, I can find no definition of torture in my dictionary using the phrase "man-made disaster”, or for that matter any such entry in my Thesaurus under "torture".
Inwood –
Um… I was calling for treating terror as a civilian matter well before Obama was a factor on the political scene. Just ask Dr. Jackson. I've also said that (a) I didn't vote for Obama, and (b) I was marginally hopeful when he was elected, but officially disillusioned within four months.
And the difference here is that I think Obama's (surprisingly) doing the right thing, and (astonishingly) Bush did the right thing back then. (Though if Dr. Jackson's link is correct, it's mostly because Bush hadn't made up his mind to do the wrong thing yet.)
But as Mountain Man pointed out, "the nature of the trial for the shoe bomber" wasn't "splashed all over the media", although now a lot of people are claiming Bush made a mistake then. It's only controversial when Obama does the exact same thing.
>Though if Dr. Jackson's link is correct …
Raymond. Maybe you should undertake an investigation of this issue too.
It's only controversial because it's the wrong thing to do, no matter who is doing it. Still intellectually consistent, by the way.
"…claiming Bush made a mistake…" No claim is involved. Bush DID make a mistake, about this and a lot of other things. Still intellectually consistent, by the way.
There wasn't any real doubt that those prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials were guilty, too, but we held trials anyway.
I'd be very curious to see if you have any statements by Obama or his officials to back this up. (A lot of people disagree.) How much are you willing to bet on such an outcome?
>There wasn't any real doubt that those prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials were guilty, too, but we held trials anyway.
*** Apparently there was. Hans Fritzsche, Frans von Papen and Hjalmar Schacht were acquitted of some of the charges.
Phil “So, the only reason to put on a public show is to allow for Discovery, which will put Bush and Cheney on trial, and give the world court any "justification" it needs to prosecute them as war criminals.”
Raymond “I'd be very curious to see if you have any statements by Obama or his officials to back this up.”
Now we understand how Raymond’s previous inquiry into Climategate cleared these officials. He searched for emails that said “We are deliberately falsifying our data to support a pre-conceived position.” All he found was words like “trick” and “artificial correction”, which are not the same words “deliberately falsifying”, so there’s nothing to worry about here.
This explains a lot about how Raymond looks at the world. You don’t analyze a person’s actions and decisions and come to a conclusion about them. Rather, you look at their emails and diaries to find them saying “I’m going to commit a crime/fraud”, before you can “back up” your analysis.
In the absence of a declaratory statement by the person implicating him/herself, there is no evidence.
Amazing.
Dr. Jackson – Okay, there wasn't any real doubt that the vast majority of those prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials were guilty, too, but we held trials anyway. The distinction between knowing someone's guilty and proving it in court is quite important. Among other things, it's the difference between a lynching and a legal execution.
Oh, and as to "statements by Obama or his officials to back this up", I'm referring to anything indicating that prosecution of Bush administration officials is even being contemplated. I linked to quotes indicating the opposite.
And, again, how much are you willing to bet that discovery in trials of "KSM and his buds" leads to prosecution of "Bush and Cheney" by either a domestic or "the world court"?
>how much are you willing to bet that discovery in trials of "KSM and his buds" leads to prosecution of "Bush and Cheney"
Raymond. There's nothing contradictory about my original statements. One thought clearly follows the others.
As for your convoluted logic, you can pursue a strategy designed to “allow for Discovery” [note the words “allow for”], which will effectively put Bush and Cheney on trial instead of the terrorists, and by doing this give the world court any "justification" [note the word “justification”, not “assure a decision”] it might need to prosecute Bush and Cheney as “war criminals.”
For my analysis to have credibility does not require that at the end of the process there will be an actual “prosecution”, meaning that if the Discovery is inadequate, or the world court’s motives are discredited the way the global warming hysterics have been discredited , or any other factors intervene and no actual prosecution takes place , the motives I described were never a factor.
Outcomes do not determine motivations.
And, once again to make your point you have to raise an issue I never raised (that Bush and Cheney will definitely be prosecuted) to ‘disprove’ what I’ve supposedly said.
[Now I know why Rahm Emanuel referred to the looney Left as “F-en retards”. It’s a crude way to make an otherwise valid point about the way these people think.]
>as to "statements by Obama or his officials to back this up", I'm referring to anything indicating that prosecution of Bush administration officials is even being contemplated. I linked to quotes indicating the opposite.
*** I assume this is actually a serious comment by Raymond. Hitler said he had no intention of starting a war in Europe, and in fact specifically blamed Poland for provoking German forces (the "exact opposite" statement), so I guess it really must have been Poland's fault after all.
You do not analyze a political action by looking to whether a politician telegraphed his motives in a written document or speech. Many times what a politician says in public is not reflective of what they intend to do and why they intend to do it.
Is this even worthy of discussion?
Could it really be that Raymond read my comment 9 — "”… looking at the real purpose of a civilian trial for KSM and his buds …The Obama Administration has already said they're guilty … and even if they somehow get acquitted … we're never going to let these guys go. So, the only reason to put on a public show is to allow for Discovery, which will put Bush and Cheney on trial, and give the world court any ‘justification’ it needs to prosecute them as war criminals.“ — and concluded that my comments about “already said they're guilty” related to Bush and Cheney, not the GITMO terrorists the Obama administration wants to try in civilian court?
Thus Raymond’s objection is to “anything indicating that prosecution of Bush administration officials is even being contemplated.”
Could it really be that Raymond’s entire take-away from my comment was an assumption that I said Obama himself intended to put Bush on trial?
It’s the only way to remotely make sense of Raymond’s conclusions.
Dr. Jackson – I know that you don't "require that at the end of the process there will be an actual 'prosecution'". I'm just trying to determine how confident you are about your analysis. You can't even give me rough odds?
I'm also aware that "Outcomes do not determine motivations", but I haven't seen you offer any evidence that your analysis of the Obama administration's motives is correct. I'm sure you feel that it's right, but it'd be nice to know why you feel that way.
So far as I can tell, you don't think that following through on a fundamental principle of American justice is a sufficient motive, and the only other motive you can imagine is so that they can indirectly 'get' Bush and Cheney, or at least strive to put them in jeopardy for prosecution by "the world court". Is that correct?
Raymond: I conducted an investigation of the Obama Administration’s activities with the same intensity and commitment to objective inquiry as your repeated investigations into the Climategate scandal.
If you can ignore “artificial corrections”, “tricks”, and non-melting glaciers as evidence that there is nothing at all untoward about the great Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change Hoax, then there is nothing I can produce for you to support my opinion (this is not an analysis) that the real purpose of a civilian trial for KSM and his buds is to effectively put the Bush Administration on trial. [News Flash: This is hardly an original thought. It’s been echoed by a lot of commentators].
But, as a public service since you claim to be incapable of following this thought (a claim I believe has some merit in general, given our past discussions), I’ll spell it out in crayon for you.
Since the Obama Administration has already said the terrorists are guilty, it is legally impossible for them to get a fair trial in a civilian court where we begin with the presumption of innocence. And since Obama and Holder have publicly said that even if these terrorists somehow get acquitted, we're never going to let these guys go.
So those of us with a modicum of common sense, and a passing understanding of the political process, know that we are left with only two choices. Given previous trial balloons about putting Bush Administration officials on trial for their actions during the war on terrorism, coupled with the calls by Obama’s leftist kook base for B&C to be tried as war criminals, the only reason to try these terrorists in civilian court is to allow for Discovery, which will effectively put Bush and Cheney on trial, and thus give the world court any "justification" it needs to prosecute them as war criminals.
There is of course a second possibility, that Obama and Holder are simply as dumb as a box of rocks, which I’m willing to accept as a possible explanation for this and other actions. Take your pick. I’m comfortable with either conclusion.
Was this really that difficult for you to understand?
Once again, with nothing at all of substance to offer, Raymond searches for a way to participate in a conversation.