Trying the Terrorists

This big news this weekend is that Attorney General Eric Holder decided to try some of the Al-Qaeda terrorists in U.S. Federal Courts. One of the people that will be tried is the person the government believes masterminded the attacks on 9/11/01. I think Holder's decision is a courageous and wise decision and I wish he would extend it to cover all the alleged terrorists that we hold in custody.

I have some thoughts about this decision.

1. It is my belief that this is the best way to defeat the terrorists. Al-Qaeda sees itself at war with the West and they want to west to react militarily so that the West overreacts and muslims respond by joining Al-Qaeda. Why would we want to play by the rules? I think treating Al-Qaeda like criminals will defuse the myth that they are super villains and deflate their standing.

It is my firm belief that the best way t defeat them is to use the institutions that enshrine the values of our democracy. Our ideals and values are stronger and more enduring than any bomb. Demonstrating our values in action before the world(friend, enemy, and skeptical) will do more to come closer to victory then any military action.

2. I do not understand the objections to the Attorney General's decision. I no see no security threat. Our courts and police have handled plenty of terrorists and other dangerous criminals. The Federal courts have successfully prosecuted the first world trader center bombers(in New York City), Eric Robert Rudolph, the Oklahoma City Bombers, and 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. All of these trials went off safely and without any security disruption.

As for the fear of terrorists being released on a technicality; I think that fear is is misplaced. A "technicality" usually means the police or the prosecutor were sloppy. On a case as important as one involving Al-Qaeda, we would want our police and prosecutors to give their best and most detailed effort.

I also don't buy the threat of losing an intelligence resource. If there are safety considerations about an informant then our government contains plenty of people with expertise in providing security to witnesses. Otherwise the chance to public bring Al-Qaeda terrorists to justice and hold them to account in front of the whole world is worth the risk to our intelligence resources.

The U.S. effort against Al-Qaeda has suffered from too many self inflicted wounds. It is time that the U.S. anti-terrorism efforts earn a victory by upholding U.S. values and the institutions that uphold those values. Attorney General Holder's decision is a good first start.

We Have the Capability

Glen Greenwald writes about a report that concludes that U.S. Federal Courts are completely capable venues for the trying and convicting of terrorism suspects.  Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that many of those who take oaths to defend the constitution believe that you can't follow the constitution and defend it at the same time.

Greenwald briefly touches on the argument that some terrorists are too dangerous to release but our conduct prevents them from getting a fair trail.  My own is that I don't know why we are quick to excuse sloppy work.  The are serious consequences when our government does a alck a*s job.  However we the people bare the ultimate responsibility.  If our government's refusal to follow the constitution puts us in more danger then we need to demand they follow the constitution and uses the tools that the constitution provides.  Today's report demonstrates that it is possible to follow the constitution and still go after terrorism.   

If we can't trust our government to put forth its best efforts on the most serious issues of the day(such as terrorism) then we have to live with the consequences.  The answer is not to excuse sloppy work but to demand that our government's actions match its words when it comes to torture and the constitution.

Please, Just Shut Up

Over at his CrunchyCon blog Rod Drehr says: "It cannot be true, however much some pro-choicers want it to be, that pro-lifers are obliged to shut up and go away because one violent kook killed an abortion doctor."

Mr Drehr, first of all, the was not the work of "one violent kook."  Dr. Tiller's murder was the culmination of almost two decade worth of violence and intimidation directed towards Dr. Tiller and his medical practice.  The violence directed towards Dr. Miller is not an isolated incident.  Among the other acts of domestic terrorism committed by anti-choice zealots are the murders of two doctors and a clinic escort in Pensacola, Florida, the murders of two clinic workers in Brookline, Massachusetts, and the bombings perpetrated by Eric Robert Rudolph.

Mr Drehr, you and your anti-choice allies, need to be quiet for a while because you have not figured out a way to passionately advocate for your position without providing inspiration and cover to domestic terrorists.  Until you can figure how to advocate with inspiring domestic terrorists then you need to be quiet.  

BHO...

WTF.

Mr. President, if you do not think that the institutions that enshrine the values of our democracy our sufficient to tackle the demands posed by modern terrorism then what is the point of trying to defend those institutions?   

U.S. Threatens UK Justice?

Binyam Mohamed is a former resident of the UK and is currently a prisoner at Guantanamo.  Mr. Mohamed was arrested in Pakistan because British and U.S. intelligence thought that he was an accomplice in the Jose Padilla "dirty bomb" plot.  In an effort to extract a confession, Mr. Mohamed was sent to Morocco and Afghanistan through extraordinary rendition where he was tortured.  In early 2003, the U.S. imprisoned Mohamed in Guantanamo.  In May of 2008 Mr. Mohamed was charged in the Padilla plot but the US withdraw the charges in October.  Read a good summation here. 

In the UK, Mr. Mohamed's attorneys filed a motion to gather information from the UK government about their client's treatment.  Two UK high court judges released a summation of  Mr Mohamed's treatment that was based on information the U.S. shared with UK intelligence agencies.   The judges ruled that the evidence indicated that Mohamed was tortured or treated in a cruel and inhuman fashion.

However, the judges redacted that summary at the request of UK Foreign Minister David Miliband.  He argued that disclosing the information might harm UK security.  UK Channel 4 news acquired letters that US State Department legal advisor John Bellinger wrote to the UK Foreign Office that says that disclosure of the information about Mohamed's torture could threaten " the U.S.-UK intelligence sharing relationship, and thus the national security of the UK."

The Obama administration currently supports the actions of the previous Secretary of State and her legal advisor regarding this case.  That is simply an unacceptable position.  Hiding our conduct at Guantanamo is not protecting vital state secrets; it is covering up a crime.  President Obama has so far done a good job stepping U.S. policy back from the criminal excesses of the previous 7 years.  However, he needs to go further and do as the UK judges recommend and put the information about Binyam Mohamed in the public domain.

Andrew Sullivan  and David Rose at Vanity Fair do a good job reporting on this story.

"On Our Terms"

President Obama orders Guantanamo and other CIA "black site" prisons closed.  During the ceremony, President Obama said we are going to win the fight against terrorism "on our terms."  This is great news because we had been dealing with terrorism on the terms set out by the Gestapo, the KGB, and the Khmer Rouge. 

As far as I am concerned, Obama can take the rest of the year off and he will still be considered a success.

Off to a Good Start

President Obama announces a 120 day suspension of the proceedings at Gitmo.

We Have Lost..

The War on Terror.  After the convening authority of the military commissions Susan Crawford said that we cannot prosecute alleged 9/11 20th hijacker Mohammd al-Qahtani because we tortured him it is clear that all we can do is try not to lose.  We sold our soul and got nothing in return. 

National Security Courts

Hilzoy has a post proposals that are floating around about creating a new legal system to try terrorists.  With Obama pledging to close Guantanamo something has to be done with 15 "high value" detainees.  One of the suggestions is to create special National Security Courts.

Let me address that idea with a simple answer.  Hell No.  National Security Courts would probably lessen the rights of defendants and be more flexible about allowing the government to use evidence gained in illegal ways such as torture and spying.  Once we allow any weakening of the safeguards of our justice system then that weakness will spill over into all of the legal system.  It is easy to see an over zealous prosecutor using a national security court for going after radical enviromentalists or ant-war activists or any other group on the fringe of American society.

 The only way we can lose to terrorism is if we beat ourselves.  Creating another legal system without all the safeguards is a quick way to do that