Greenwald bashes Obama administration, "guts its own argument for 9/11 trials"

[bamacre]

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/19/obama/index.html

The end justifies the means. That's the story coming from Washington. It's not just a lack of consistency, it's a lack of respect for the law. They are treating each individual case in the manner of their own choosing, not according to a set of rules, laws, or precedent, just whichever gives the government the best chance of winning. Yet...

"What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism" -- Barack Obama

Say one thing. Do something else. Change you can believe in! :biggrin:

 

[Genx87]

Rachel Maddow was on this shit last Spring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

I am surprised they are going to try terrorists who attacked military targets in a military tribunal and ones who attack civilian in a civilian court. It sets a dangerous precendent that if you attack our civilians you get more rights in court than if you attack our military.

This is going to be a giant circus.

 

[PJABBER]

That's a good compilation of the arguments and links by Greenwald.

This whole thing seems a clear violation of equal treatment under the law. You can't just pick the process by which you prosecute by whether you will get a desired outcome.

Both civilian and military tribunals have extensive guarantees of fair hearing, but they are designed for entirely different circumstances. In my opinion, KSL and pals are perfect for going before the military commissions that Holder fought so long to de-legitimize.

Doing a civilian show trial now is going to backfire on the politicos that are aiming for some stupid advantage and on the nation in the de-legitimizing of our legal system, one that has worked extremely well thus far.

It is telling to watch how Holder squirmed under questioning. He is trying to satisfy too many masters and does not know which way is up any more.

 

[jonks]

A partial retort to partisan objectors, i.e. those making facetime on the issue, not Greenwald:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../11/19/AR2009111903470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again,"

-Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

A partial retort to partisan objectors, i.e. those making facetime on the issue, not Greenwald:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../11/19/AR2009111903470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again,"

-Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.

Oh, stop it! Your ruining all the righties fun If they can't manufacture a legitimate reason to hate Obama they might have to come to grips with the fact that they are racist, greedy and self serving, and will never except a black man as president regardless of his ideology. And that thier true ideology is to fill up thier own money bag and fuck everybody else.

 

[LunarRay]

This is going to be a giant circus.

I don't think so! The last trial I remember is that '20th highjacker' in the Eastern District of Virginia... Federal judges know how to deal with control of the court and its participants...
I think the issue is the cost. It will cost, per the mayor and police commissioner about 80 million$ to augment the norm in the Southern District of NY. That would not be spent if they did Article 1 courts in Gitmo.

 

[bamacre]

Wow, this is definitely ironic. Lefty's using WaPo, a rightwing rag, to refute Greenwald's criticism of Obama.

 

[Fern]

A partial retort to partisan objectors, i.e. those making facetime on the issue, not Greenwald:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../11/19/AR2009111903470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again,"
-snip-

This misses the point in a rather spectacular fashion.

The issue isn't the "legitimacy" of US federal courts, it's about the appropriateness of them in a case like this. Every terrorist mentioned above had a strong nexus to the USA. They were either citizens, residents and/or captured here on US soil. Those that Obama/Holder want to try here were none of the above. I.e., the cases are substantial distinguished on that basis alone.

Yes, this will be expensive and likely a long drawn-out afair with appeals etc. Yes, this will be a circus. Can you imagine the posturing by defense attorneys who want their 15 minutes of fame and subsequent book deals? Yes, because of the switch to civilian courts we are likely to see problems with evidence that have nothoing to do with torture etc. Yes, we are likely to see defense motions for dismissal from inherent problems in chain of custody of evidence particular to civilian courts. Yes, we are likley to see defense requests for dismissal due to prejudical statements by Obama and Holder. Yes, we are likely to see problems with seating a jury.

And to top it off, Holder has remarked that even if found 'not guilty' we'll hold them anyway. This is 'showcasing' the US judical system? I think not, it's show casing blunders and missteps.

Are we gonna give away any intel methods that help terrorists?

Is any local loon terrorist wanna-be gonna try something in NYC? (Like the guy in FT Hood). How much money is security gonna cost us?

I oppose dragging foreigners over here for many reasons; if they don't get the death penalty where shall they be released to?

Now that they're being brought over here to our civilian courts can they sue us?

I think this quite possibly could be a huge political burden for Obama and the Dems.

I've been hearing rumors that Holders' (old) law firm handles terrorists cases; are they gonna benefit? If true, why isn't this a conflict of interest that requires Holder's abstention?

Fern

 

[LunarRay]

AG Holder is making a mistake!...
He is giving the Right so much amunition that if someone gets off Obama will lose a few million votes in 2012... If someone gets off and moves into Trump Towers... I think he loses the election.

 

[Modelworks]

The only reason Holder is pushing this, is to try to make the intelligence community look bad. Look at the mans history , he has a lot of enemies in those agencies and this is his way of getting even, it has nothing to with what is the right thing to do.

 

[LunarRay]

The only reason Holder is pushing this, is to try to make the intelligence community look bad. Look at the mans history , he has a lot of enemies in those agencies and this is his way of getting even, it has nothing to with what is the right thing to do.

Not sure I follow how he could have garnered enemies... He was a DC Superior Court Judge, Deputy AG, US Attorney and other Justice positions.. Well, also Obama's three person panel for appointments...

How could he have made enemies with Intel folks?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wow, this is definitely ironic. Lefty's using WaPo, a rightwing rag, to refute Greenwald's criticism of Obama.

If someone painted Bush black and called him a democrat many would have embraced Iraq.

From the other place "Stupid people are stupid".

 

[IronWing]

A trial may bring into the light of day more despicable acts on the part of the Bush administration. This is the real fear of the rightwing wrt the trials. The terrorists may hang, but the Bushie scum may also find themselves having to answer for their conduct.

 

[Ozoned]

AG Holder is making a mistake!...
He is giving the Right so much amunition that if someone gets off Obama will lose a few million votes in 2012... If someone gets off and moves into Trump Towers... I think he loses the election.

This news was released last friday, and was the focus of the "rightwing media outlets" most of this week, and just a few weeks after Obama tells everyone not to watch FOX news, and after their ratings go way up.

Obama is fighting his war, and I might add, it seems to be going very well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/18/white_house_we_control_news_media.html

 

[bamacre]

If someone painted Bush black and called him a democrat many would have embraced Iraq.

From the other place "Stupid people are stupid".

That did happen, except the name wasn't Bush, it was Clinton.

 

[LunarRay]

This news was released last friday, and was the focus of the "rightwing media outlets" most of this week, and just a few weeks after Obama tells everyone not to watch FOX news, and after their ratings go way up.

Obama is fighting his war, and I might add, it seems to be going very well.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/18/white_house_we_control_news_media.html

Ok... well, maybe he is...
My point is a bit different, I think. I don't want to give my 'enemy' ammunition to shoot me with. That is a prospective issue. With the 2006 Military Commissions Act I think the US has a much better prospect of dealing with any of the terrorist/enemy combatant folks...

I don't see this as having an upside for Obama... only a down side potential.

The differences between Article 3 tribunals and Article 2 or I think they are Article 1 now is huge.
The cost of using Article 3 is also huge... 80 million according to NYC Mayor and Police Commissioner... probably a lot more cuz of the tactics the defense may employ... IF the big guy don't plead guilty like he said he wanted to do.. and be a martyr...

 

[Genx87]

A partial retort to partisan objectors, i.e. those making facetime on the issue, not Greenwald:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../11/19/AR2009111903470.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again,"

-Jim Comey, a deputy attorney general and U.S. attorney in Manhattan during the Bush administration, is general counsel of Lockheed Martin Corp. Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general during the Bush administration, teaches at Harvard Law School and is on the Hoover Institution's Task Force on National Security and Law.

That doesnt address why the Obama administration is trying 5 people in a military tribunal and others in federal court. In fact it completely misses that point when it tries to justify using a federal court because military tribunals so far have only convicted 3 people in 8 years. Again that article highlights the indefensible position the administration has put itself in.

 

[lothar]

The whole thing doesn't make any sense.
I watched C-Span 2 days ago listening to Senators quiz AG Eric Holder and it seems like it was a waste of time. This whole thing is nothing but a charade.

Cliffs of the congressional hearing:
Senator: K. Shiek Muhammed has already admitted guilt himself under military tribunal, why even bother trying him in civil court wasting tax payer money?
AG Eric Holder: I'm doing it based on what we want, not based on what K. Sheik Muhammed wants.
Senator: But he has already admitted guilt himself! How is trying him in civil courts going to make him anymore guilty than that?
AG Eric Holder: We have access to information you don't know.
Senator: Are you saying that he's more likely to be convicted in a civil court eventhough the burden of proof is much higher there than in a military tribunal?
AG Eric Holder: We have access to information you don't know.

This whole thing seems to be nothing but a farce.

 

[Vic]

The fantasy trial makes for an interesting Constitutional exercise.

 

[Craig234]

There's an old saying, get on one side of the road, in the middle you get run over, and that's somewhat fitting for Obama trying to halfway improve the trial issue.

Liberals are distisfied because of the measures falling short while Obama tries to do things like guarantee conviction and not have trials if he can't, while the immoral right is going to oppose Obama for doing anything less than fully supporting their agenda, if he shows any concern at all for the 'rights of the terrorists'.

Obama should take strong measures according to principle. That's leadership - he should try to shift public opinion where it's wrong.