A couple of things here ... one, I have no doubt that the primary motive behind this move of the PoTUS & AG Eric Holder is to do what equals "not Bush." But I hope they understand that they're playing with fire. IF, and unfortunately it is an IF, this entire deal goes off without a hitch, read: convictions; death penalty (my personal preference); no "sources & methods" are revealed; the cost to New York (in a nearly bankrupt state, quite literally) is not outrageously high; and most importantly no attack on NY occurs - a distinct possibility with someone as high profile as KSM, then and only THEN will Obama be vindicated for this move. He will have forever discredited the Bush system (we're talking politically speaking, not real world) of military tribunals and to a lesser extent the need for GITMO.
However, the reason any reasonable AG & CIC should not go through is because you DO NOT take the above risks when a more secure system is available to you. The entire premise, a justifiable one in my opinion, of GITMO & the military tribunals is precisely the security. A military base on the island nation of Cuba is ideal for both offering a protected detention and preventing any one town or community from being targeted as a result of whom the local federal prison is housing. Also, the military tribunals afford prosecutors the latitude of introducing sensitive Intel in a manner they will never be able to in open civilian court. KSM in particular was subject to water boarding - is this to be admissible as evidence of a "coerced confession?" They were held by the CIA for a long period of time - is there to be a discovery submission for the events surrounding that detainment? And the Attorney General of the United States then goes on television today to sate: "I wouldn't have allowed this if I weren't sure we would get a conviction." When pressed with a "but sir, what if they do end up walking" question from the press, he added: "Well I have seen evidence that the public hasn't, and I'm sure they will be convicted." Well that's one HELL of way to start the process - taint the entire American jury pool, and guarantee a conviction! And if the conclusion is foregone then THIS TRIAL is the true show trial, not any military tribunal! The entire premise is madness - if for some reason they were acquitted are they to walk free out of the front door? If not, if they are summarily scooped up in the event of an acquittal (which they most certainly would be), wouldn't that do MUCH more to undermine our criminal justice system and our over all values then trying them in a tribunal? It will be a circus! Add to this that the vast majority, if not all now that I think about it, of these detainees were captured on the field of battle! While I agree with Titus that an indefinite detainment is unsustainable, it is a deplorable precedent to set that every day civilian courts are equipped to deal with such unlawful combatants at a time of war. Insert here a return to "terror is a criminal matter" mentality EVEN ABROAD, even in theaters of combat. This was the 9/10 mindset. It is a short trip from there to mirandizing enemies on the battlefield, or not "picking up" high value targets in Afghanistan because we don't have a warrant! Afghan commanders and CIA officials have already been instructed that the FBI will be handling all interrogations for those captured on the battlefield - think about that, the FBI is a domestic POLICE force.
Even if they are convicted and there is no attack during the trial (I pray there is NOT), the sight of firefighters, policemen, port authority and family members surviving 9/11 victims protesting outside of that court house may be political poison for the administration.
No, no, the military tribunal system with those awaiting trial being housed at GITMO is the most sensible approach from every conceivable stand point. But of course, that's what Bush would advocate, so it's off the table. This is going to get much worse before it gets better I fear.
****
Security vs liberty ...
First let me address something. You wrote:
"Otherwise, we are denying the validity and value of our First Amendment rights as defined by the Constitution, and validating every negative thing people like bin Laden are saying about the USA."
I know you, so I realize this was simply a poorly constructed sentence. No denial, in theory or actualized in the scenario we are discussing, would EVER validate how Bin Laden "sees" the USA. None. He feels we are unworthy of life. From our support to Israel to our unapologetic embrace of liberty (versus the mandate a Caliphate would bring), our very existence is an offense. And look, I know you know this but given the way it was written I wanted to afford you the opportunity to clarify.
Now ... I have witnessed many a left winger assert Franklin's famous quote: "Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security deserve neither." It's a clever approach to arguing against the Patriot Act, etc. It occurs to me that liberal minded Americans seem only willing to quote the Founding Fathers when it comes to the specific instance of national security. Similarly it reminds me of Obama's, "We must be our brothers keeper" comment - he seems willing to quote the Bible only when it comes to spreading my money around, forget the pesky fire and brimstone, moral codes, homosexuality, abortion, etc.
Were those leftists more than an inch deep on the subject they would pull the full Franklin quote: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
So the question becomes, how do we define "essential liberty" and "temporary safety?" I submit that each generation of Americans has been forced to test this question, as each has faced national security hardships on a level unimaginable by their fathers. Lincoln suspends Habeus Corpus. Wilson rounded up dissidents during WWI. FDR detained Japanese Americans. Cold War presidents (via the executive controlled FBI) targeted left wing organizations. And before all of those Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts in preperation for a war with France. And now we have have the war on terror, the Patriot Act and GITMO.
My two cents about it ... one of the defining truly special, unique aspects of this nation is its' ability to rescind measures that bend personal liberty once the crisis has passed. The problem here is that this struggle is multi decade, if not multi generational. So where do we draw the line? I feel the Patriot Act and the Terrorist Surveillance Act struck a fine balance. The Senate approved the former 99-1. And it would be political suicide for Obama to suggest we repeal it - the common sense of the American people just won't allow that. It doesn't take a PhD in strategic relations to realize that we haven't been attacked since 9/11 and that the Patriot Act must be part of that considerable achievement. So, for all the things Bush got wrong (border, spending, etc), I feel that the Patriot Act was what he got right. Will it be repealed years from now? Will our children's children look back on it and GITMO in the way we do Japanese internment camps of the 40's? Perhaps. But we are the ones here now, WE face the threat, WE must act, not they, and I for one am willing to be judged by history in that context. We can only hope our future generations show a level of reasoned hindsight and nuanced understanding of the times in which we lived, in the same manner we look on those whom were responsible for safeguarding America during WWII.
No comments:
Post a Comment