Showing posts with label ksm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ksm. Show all posts

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Coming Full Circle On Military Commissions


“As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions.”

Presidential Candidate Obama, Aug. 1, 2007

Heh.

In the wake of the debacle that was the trial of Ahmed Ghailani, the Obama administration is apparently going to Plan B. Ghailani was a participant in the 1998 embassy bombing. In a trial before a civlian court, he was convicted on one count, acquited on 284 counts after the judge ruled against admitting the testimony of a key witness because the government had learned about the witness while subjecting Ghailani to enhanced CIA interrogation. Today, the NYT has announced that the Bush Obama administration intends to restart military commissions in Guantanamo in order to try "some" those Gitmo detainees that are awaiting a trial. Finally, change we can believe in.

As to the military commissions, this will not be swift justice. Numerous issues surrounding the admissibility of evidence and the right to confront one's accuser will no doubt eventually end up before the Supreme Court. All of these issues, plus jurisdictional issues, will be raised in what is expected to be one of the Commission's first trials, that of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Saudi accused of plotting the Cole attack in 2000. Nashiri was also one of three detainees waterboarded for intelligence information.

As to all of the detainees at Gitmo - all of whom we have a right under the Geneva Convention to detain until the end of hostilities, regardless of whether we subject them to a trial - the administration announced that it is instituting a "parole board" to provide for periodic review of their cases. I strongly suspect that is in response to the Supreme Court's horrid Boumediene decision that gives Gitmo detainees the right to file Habeas Corpus actions in Article III courts. That decision did not provide guidance to the lower courts as to the evidentiary standards and procedures that should be followed, leaving it to the lower court's to determine. This is likely an attempt to effect the federal habeas hearings.

At any rate, you will remember that it was two years ago that Obama signed Executive Order 13492, providing for the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the U.S., the closure of Gitmo and the supension of all trials before military commissions. Such was the moral imperative that he signed the order almost immediately after being sworn in. And it was only last year that the Administration was trolling around for a site to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Reality has dawned. Break out the popcorn.

Let the left-wing wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.

(H/T Hot Air)

Read More...

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Comparing Apples and Rocks

Here is Newsweek's Michael Isikoff's opening paragraph of a short article telling us about the Justice Dept.'s review of the legal work of OLC attorney's:

For weeks, the right has heckled Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. for his plans to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City and his handling of the Christmas bombing plot suspect. Now the left is going to be upset: an upcoming Justice Department report from its ethics-watchdog unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), clears the Bush administration lawyers who authored the “torture” memos of professional-misconduct allegations.

Having actually read the memo's on enhanced interrogation - not "torture" - I would have been amazed to find a result by any neutral agency that was different. What really struck me about the above paragraph was Isikoff's incredibly inappropriate comparison between complaints about dangerous procedures with far left complaints about an outcome that they wanted. It is comparing two completely different things as if they were mere polar opposites along a linear scale.

The right's complaint as regards the Undiebomber is that valuable intelligence of the kind that could save American lives was not farmed. We now know that is because, after a year in office, Obama has utterly emasculated our national security apparatus, at least as regards interrogation of captured enemy combatants. As to KSM, the complaint was about giving him a civilian trial that would risk exposing national security secrets and that would provide KSM with the world's greatest platform to spread al Qaeda propaganda. The right's complaint, in both instances, is about what procedures will best protect our nation.

The left's complaint is of a wholly different cloth. The left wants an outcome - the lynching of the OLC attorneys. They want the blood of those attorneys and they do so wholly irrespective of the law regarding what does and does not constitute "torture." The left, from Obama on down, have demagogued this issue, slapping a bald label on enhanced interrogation of "torture." They have used it as a tool to crush the right politically, regardless of the ramifications for our national security. Thus Isikoff forecasts their unhappiness that the final bloodbath will be denied them.

How Isikoff conflates these complaints and casually reduces them to their lowest common denominator is troubling indeed. It gives moral relevance to two things that stand on wholly different moral planes. But then again, that seems to be a habit of those on the left.

Read More...