Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Washington at Its Worst: Stop the Gitmo Sell-Out
It's getting even uglier in Washington DC.
Yesterday, the
Washington Post reported that President Obama's advisers are
"nearing a recommendation" that the administration overrule Attorney
General Holder's plan for a criminal trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammed
and other Guantanamo Bay detainees and revert to Bush/Cheney military
commissions. Negotiations have reportedly been underway between Rahm
Emanuel and Senator Lindsey Graham, with Graham allegedly promising to
help the administration curry favor with Senate Republicans in his bid
to close Guantanamo Bay if the president abandons his Attorney General
and his pledge to defend the rule of law.
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst. The recommended White House flip-flop on terror trials puts politics above national security. "Change we can believe in" is being replaced with some of the worst Bush/Cheney policies. The advice that Rahm Emanuel and his White House colleagues is apparently offering the president is dead wrong principally, practically and politically:
Principally, it undermines a bedrock of our nation -- the rule of law -- while reversing the president's campaign pledge to uphold it. And it makes a mockery of the president's commitment to re-establish an independent Justice Department that is no longer a political tool of the White House.
Practically, it replaces a system that works -- the criminal justice system -- with something that doesn't -- military commissions. There have been 319 convictions of terrorist suspects in criminal courts compared to a total of three in military commissions.
And politically it makes the breathtaking assumption that this flip-flop is going to silence Republicans, end their campaign to keep Guantanamo open, and back them off from their dogged criticism of the President's national security strategy. Call me crazy, but isn't it obvious that such a retreat will have precisely the OPPOSITE effect, emboldening the right-wing to increase their volume and step up the pressure on the White House and Congressional Democrats?
The Post story includes an extraordinary quote from the acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions. Marine Colonel Jeffrey Colwell told the Post that it would be "a sad day for the rule of law" if President Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial.
"I thought the decision where to put people on trial -- whether federal court or military commissions -- was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous."
Colonel Colwell is right. Rahm Emanuel is not. Progressives throughout the country are taking a moment to call and fax the White House. They are responding to our appeal to let the White House know that we strongly oppose any deal to close Guantanamo that abandons our Constitution and our core values. Our national security, our judicial system based on the rule of law and our Constitution should not be jettisoned in a Washington, D.C. deal to curry favor with Senate Republicans and protect the President's political standing. I hope the White House will reconsider this ill-advised decision and listen to folks like their own Attorney General and Chief Defense Council at the Pentagon and put terrorist on trial in the system we know works best -- the criminal justice system. If you agree, the White House needs to hear from you.
White House Switchboard: 202-456-1111
21 Comments so far
Show AllThis is outrageous!
Let us hope that fear mongering and political pressure will not win the day yet again.
If it indeed comes to pass that the Attorney General is overruled on this matter, he should resign in protest.
That would take some degree of honor, in other words fat chance
Are you really surprised by this? Send Obama and the Dems a dime, after all that's the real difference between them and the Repubs.
Obama is selling us out again, I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
Rule of law? Since when?
We have "hope" that President Obama will fulfill his oath to preseve, protect and defend the Constitution. Many pledges that gave us "hope" have been stalled or forfeited.
"Hope" is not the "eternal flame".
History will not judge kindly (See Chamberlin) who take the path of apeasement for temporary sanctuary.
Do the right thing President Obama and in so doing restore a slice of our "hope".
You are our hope for 'change'. Hope for Change is not the Eternal Flame.
Remember that Barack Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for twelve years, 1992-2004.
W's ignorance of the Constitution was his excuse, but what is Mr. Obama's excuse for this injustice?
Obama's "hope" and "change" get voider every day.
Here is a 27 page, finite description of the differences between a Federal trial and a military commission(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40932.pdf).
Now, without using hyperbole and other drivel, will someone who is a lawyer from ACLU or other venues define what is legally 'right' in this case and make that case to the President. Isn't that the way to go in this case instead of raising this to the level of punditry?
Asking people to call the White House when you have not laid out a case either way is playing the same game Bush et al played in getting us into the Iraq War.
Mookie -
There is no shortage of lawyers from the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch, and other reputable public interest legal organizations (as well as attorneys within the US JAG heirarchy and the private bar who represent individual Gitmo detainees) who have already spelled out what is legally "right" about a traditional criminal trial, and what is "wrong" about using a substitute ad hoc shortcut procedure called a military tribunal in prosecuting acts of international terrorism. Nobody really needs to reinvent the wheel here.
I happened to be doing a lot of driving Friday when NPR radio and other stations began to report on the WaPo story Andrews is talking about in this article. It was all very depressing.
Of course there is a history in Washington of trying to time the release of news stories for Friday afternoons (1) to break bad news while the working press is sliding into their weekend break period, hoping it will slip through with little exposure, or (2) to leak and feed something very controversial into the weeked news cycle, so the Sunday pundits can fan the flames while the propaganda machine gins up. I strongly suspect the Post story about a push within the Obama White House inner circle, with Rahm Emanuel slapping down Eric Holder, falls into this latter category of mainstream media manipulation.
Regardless, it would be an unmitigated policy disaster for President Obama to buckle and cut off his Attorney General at the knees, especially if the quid quo pro supposedly hinges upon the ephemeral chance that Senator Lindsey Graham will deliver some vaguely promised bipartisan reciprocity on closing down Gitmo. There is a sucker bet if I ever saw one.
I hope this story is all partisan hype and insider spin for the Faux News/Meet the Press opinion shapers rather than real news. If Obama really were to change course on trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City now that Mayor Bloomberg, Rudy Guiliani, and some blue dog Dems have lined up with the usual neocon war on terror mongers to oppose trial in the Big Apple, then what the President should do is this: announce that all Gitmo detainees who are not released outright will be immediately transferred to the federal maximum security prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, where historically "the worst of the worst" have been housed. All the jury trials will be held right there in Kansas, the heart of the American heartland.
When Senator Pat Roberts goes beserk and shrieks about Willie Horton, then remind Roberts, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Limbaugh that all these jihadi bad guys are the end result of the detention and torture policies Senator Roberts, as head of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the Bush/Cheney era of GOP government, personally sponsored. Some times good law, good principles of public policy, and good partisan politics can all dance hand in hand, off down the yellow brick road.
Bill from Saginaw
bill from saginaw: agree with you 98% of the time, but tell me why closing gitmo is so important. these federal maximum security prisons are much less humane: no sunlight, no windows, no outdoor activities, little contact with people, and the potential for torture is just as great. we paid for gitmo, nearly 800 million dollars at last count. so, let's use gitmo. torture does not emanate from a place, but from those possessed of depraved hearts, who can be found anywhere. closing it would be a victory of form over essence, of public relations over substantive policy.
Not to mention the fact that renditions are still happening and Bagram is is essence a concentration camp. Thanks Dim Repiglicon "bi-partisan" moderate consensus. :(
Bill,
It's good to see your contribution. Your well-considered comments are always appreciated when I happen to catch them.
Very well written Mr. Andrews!
Wow, Obama is not having a good month...or I guess you could say thirteen months as the first 30 days was pretty good. Oh I forgot to go to UPS store to pick up my Camp Gitmo T-shirt order. See you later.
We're next,check out McCain-Lieberman in another article today hereon CD.Tony
Yes, Chains We Can Believe In. Two plus two is five...
This is a setup for 'disappearing' anyone in the way of corporate takeover.
progressive dissenter: underewear bomber has no constitutional right to a civilian trial. he crossed our borders dressed as a civilian with the intent to wreak death and destruction against people and property in the united states. roosevelt hanged 12 germans for doing exactly the same thing, and the british hanged nathan hale for carrying messages from one patriot outpost to another. by contrast, ksm plotted deaths of american civilians from abroad, was arrested in pakistan, and did not disguise himself. yet, obama and holder have already violated ksm's right to a fair trial by their highly publicized and repeated assurances to a frightened nation that the court will certainly find ksm guilty and execute him summarily. holder and obama know that prospective jurors are hearing their pretrial condemnations of ksm, yet persist in making them to score political points. in fact, that kind of pretrial publicity violates the the codes of the american bar association. nixon committed the identical offense when he prejudged manson's guilt. why ksm would want a civilian trial is beyond me. the man's been held forever, denied a speedy trial, waterbaorded, denied counsel, and probably violated in innumerable ways. but the civilian court judge will never vindicate his rights, and the president has publicly promised to keep him in custody in the unlikely event the civilian court acquits him. in a military court, he could plead for p.o.w. status, which might allow him to be released when hostilities end. i have always denounced torture and do not favor anyone's execution; detaining combatants and the guilty in livable conditions and allowing them to contact relatives should be among the minimum standards we observe. and it should go without saying that extraordinary rendition of a combatant to any of our torturing allies should land the rendering party in the hoosegow. but what we do with them after humanely detaining them becomes less clear to me. some whom we hold are combatants, but they plot the death of our civilians from distant lands. the northern alliance say that they have imprisoned some enemies of america, but why take the word of warlords who may be just settling ancient scores? some who fight with the taliban are clearly not terrorists, but warriors against foreigners, namely us. they would certainly be entitled to p.o.w. status, but for how long do we keep them? when the bush folks said that this war defied traditional categorization of captured combatants, they were right, though everything they did after that was wrong. they took advantage of the murkiness in the law and descended into forms of depravity from which we are still reeling.
That was really hard to read, please use punctuation and capitol letters at the beginning of sentences, and space your sentences next time. Thanks.
Not that it really matters though as it seems like it was some neo-con bullshit trying to justify military tribunals. Hint for starters we are *not* at war, Congress has to declare war under the Constitution.
Can I just say that it seems to me if our beloved USA doesn't do something to punish and also STOP the torture and other human rights abuses, we're headed straight toward, well, being Nazis. I know it's trite and terribly overused and misunderstood to say something like that, I hear that, but we ought to admit to ourselves, and help convince the others that at some point, one which we're approaching, it doesn't matter whether you realize it or not, if you support Nazis, you're a Nazi. It doesn't matter what you do for "them" or not, if you work for them and help maintain their empire (or reich?) you're a Nazi. No better. Isn't that what we thought of the Germans? None of us will have an excuse, later, and arguments like this one are the VERY examples they'll point to. Dirty lying Americans. Look what they said, and see what they didn't care about. Justice. Freedom. They cared for none of it.
I don't want to be Israel. Please. I don't want to become something of which Hitler would have been proud. Those that he did not kill going on to rebuild themselves in his own image. Saying they believe in human rights, but that the Palestienians aren't human.
Lying murderous monsters as policy. I don't want us to be like them. Are we really so weak that we can't resist that kind of deception and filth that left a good and educated people with a government of child-killing monsters with no morals? Governments that like to see old men cry, with their homes and centuries-old olive trees destroyed.
Please, do we really, REALLY have to be like them??? Can't we control our OWN monsters? Without a constitution, our democracy is just a nation of bullies, will of the majority.
So the world won't just blame our government. They'll blame all of us. And they'll probably think of a new word to call us, which we probably won't like any better than Nazi.
All because of stuff like what this "Washington at Its Worst: Stop the Gitmo Sell-Out" points out. And what we aren't going to do about it.
"The audacity of hope" has morphed into "The timidity of despair"
"Change we can believe in" is "Stasis we cling to"
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst.
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst.
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst.
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst.
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst.
We are now witnessing Washington, D.C. politics at its absolute worst.
No fault of yours, Andrews, but it gets old, doesn't it?