NYT: Obama administration cowardice blocks the 9/11 trial

[Bluebear]

Monday’s announcement represents a huge missed opportunity to prove the fairness of the federal court system and restore the nation’s reputation for providing justice for all.


Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. described a federal court trial for the self-professed mastermind of Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, as “the defining event of my time as attorney general.” On Monday, Mr. Holder’s dream for demonstrating the power of the American court system crumbled when he announced that the trial would take place not in New York City or anywhere in the United States but before a military commission at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, prison camp.

That retreat was a victory for Congressional pandering and an embarrassment for the Obama administration, which failed to stand up to it.

The wound inflicted on New York City from Mr. Mohammed’s plot nearly a decade ago will not heal for many lifetimes, yet the city, while still grieving, has thrived. How fitting it would have been to put the plot’s architect on trial a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center, to force him to submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers, to demonstrate to the world that we will not allow fear of terrorism to alter our rule of law.

But, apparently, there are many who continue to cower, who view terrorists as much more fearsome than homegrown American mass murderers and the American civilian jury system as too “soft” to impose needed justice. The administration of George W. Bush encouraged this view for more than seven years, spreading a notion that terror suspects only could be safely held and tried far from our shores at Guantánamo and brought nowhere near an American courthouse. The federal courts have, in fact, convicted hundreds of terrorists since 9/11. And federal prisons safely hold more than 350 of them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05tue1.html?src=twrhp

[Skittles]

1. we have to LOOK FORWARD, don'tcha know, PT?

NOW LET'S HOLD SOME TEACHERS ACCOUNTABLE

[Wilms]

2. Even members of the 9/11 Commission say they weren't given access to some evidence.

I would think a defense attorney in a REAL trial would have been all over that.

Mission Accomplished.

(Click my sig line link to review the Unanswered Questions.)

[Liberal Veteran]

3. Oh for fuck's sake!

So, Obama makes an attempt at trying these suspects in the correct manner and a bunch of whiny ass, weak republicans and DINO's in congress interfere because they are afraid of their own shadow, Obama is the culprit?

I don't like it, but it strikes me as odd that anyone would say "Oh, let's just let them rot for a few more years in perpetual detention while we get our shit together."

[former9thward]

4. Not exactly as it happened.

A Grand Jury in New York returned the indictment against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 2009. Congress did not pass any restrictions until December, 2010. The DOJ had a year to put on the trial but just stalled as opposition in NYC and Congress gained steam. Any evidence they are going to use against him they have had for years. They could have done this trial in NY in federal court if they had the political will. They didn't.

[leftstreet]

5. +1

[Bluebear]

6. +

[ProSense]

7. David Paterson: New York Terrorism Trial a Mistake

David Paterson: New York Terrorism Trial a Mistake

Bloomberg: 'Very Happy' If 9/11 Trials Were Moved

Obama Praised, Pummeled on Gitmo and KSM

[TheWraith]

10. Not so. Congress passed restrictions almost immediately against moving Gitmo detainees.

Not to mention that the governments of the city and state of NY have both been putting up unholy hell against this.

[former9thward]

13. Then you will give a link on when Congress did that.

Last night PBS had a expert on the case stating that the case could have been tried anytime in 2009 until the December, 2010 restrictions. I will believe her over someone who does not provide a link.

[jbnow]

16. No, a May 2009 by 90-6 vote Senate first stripped funding

for moving or transferring any prisoner from Gitmo
These were the 6
NAYs ---6
Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Here is a Guardian article. Not the best explanation of it but has the basics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/close-guantanamo-funding-senate-obama

The house had already passed it the week before. I don't remember the voter numbers there but the senate vote was shocked into my brain.
As article notes they were very clear they did not want any detainees sent here to stand trial or serve prison sentences.

Obama didn't stop there. He made speeches, had talks, wrote plans, wrote signing statements, tried to get funding for specific things. He even gave orders for a prison here to be prepared to take some detainees. Congress continued blocking him, passing several more restrictions as well as placing them in all the military funding bills

I followed it pretty closely because I could not believe Congress was being so chicken shit. The media loved writing about them rebuking or slapping or whatever term to Obama. I bet he was more surprised than I was

One of my concerns was nioted in Guardian article

But Obama's new Pentagon policy chief, Michele Flournoy, said it is unrealistic to think that no detainees will come to the US, and that the government can't ask allies to take detainees while refusing to take on the same burden.

That has proven true and other countries specifically note that as he has tried to work out places to relocate them.
Oh and they haven't had the evidence for years. A big reason for initial delays is that many detainees did not have any files or gathered evidence. They had assumed attorneys could just go there and review files to start making decisions...
Anyway it is hardly a surprise with the current Congress that they just gave up

I'd be happy to bitch about Obama and economic team or on some appointees or what he has done on various things but I have never understood Gitmo as a broken Obama promise. I've been surprised there hasn't been more outrage that Congress was working against him on it

[Luminous Animal]

8. Obama (reversing Holder) decided on a military tribunal BEFORE Congress acted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209.html?hpid=topnews

The article is from March of 2010. The Defense appropriations bill in which funds were specifically denied to transfer Gitmo prisoners to the U.S. for civilian trial was passed in December 2010.

[ReggieVeggie]

17. In the correct manner...so you agree with George W. Bush

[struggle4progress]

9. ... Congress blocked funding for any civilian trial of those at Guantanamo Bay ...

Military trial for 9/11 plotter?
by Opinion Staff
http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/opinionzone/2011/04/04/military-trial-for-911-plotter/

[gratuitous]

11. It certainly is the defining event, Mr. Holder

Who's running the Department of Justice, anyway? I always thought it was the Attorney General who called these shots. And the Times is absolutely correct: This is an act of abject cowardice by people who think the United States and its system aren't durable enough to take on its enemies, foreign or domestic. This could have been an event that would have retrieved some of the prestige the United States has lost over the past 10 years. Instead, all the rest of the world sees is: Terrorists torture, the United States tortures; lawless states run kangaroo courts, the United States runs kangaroo courts; terrorists kill non-combatant men, women and children, the United States kills non-combatant men, women and children.

An open trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed would have shown the world that we trust our justice system to arrive at a fair verdict. Shunting this off to a tribunal shows that we either don't trust our system, or we're covering something up. If we tortured Mohammed, we don't deserve to convict him under our own laws. If our laws don't apply to Mohammed today, they may not apply to you or me tomorrow.

I am uncomfortable with that. Highly uncomfortable. And shame on the Obama administration and the Department of Justice for their capitulation, and shame on anyone in Congress who worked against our Constitution.

[Bluebear]

12. Thank you for that post. nt

[Solly Mack]

14. and the US has already admitted to torturing him. Bush admitted it. Cheney admitted it. The CIA

admitted it.

And yet....

[LooseWilly]

15. You saved me the trouble of composing my thoughts—I agree completely.

I suppose our objections were exactly the intended point for the Republicans... they wanted to send a message that the US doesn't bother with the niceties of law in some cases... I disagree with them that it is a strategically advantageous position to stake out.

The fact that Obama's administration has chosen to walk W's line... is just another indication of poor judgement/cowardice, in my opinion. It's another straw of evidence that the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is in the theatrical tastes of their hollow rhetoric, employed on-stage/before-the-cameras.