iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Kristen Breitweiser

Kristen Breitweiser

GET UPDATES FROM Kristen Breitweiser

The Sad Defeat of Our Constitution

Posted: 04/ 4/11 05:10 PM ET

Today I was given two hours of "advance notice" regarding DOJ's decision to not prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators in an open court of law. According to DOJ's statement, the remaining individuals will be sent to military tribunals.

I recognize that there are many, many other things for Americans to be upset with today, but I hope everyone can take a second to contemplate this decision and recognize what it says about President Obama, the Department of Justice, and the United States.

As for the Department of Justice, it shows their inability to prosecute individuals who are responsible for the death of 3,000 people on the morning of 9/11. Apparently our Constitution and judicial system -- two of the very cornerstones that make America so great and used to set such a shining example to the rest of the world -- are not adequately set up to respond to or deal with the aftermath of terrorism. To me, this is a startling and dismal acknowledgment that perhaps Osama Bin Laden did, in fact, win on the morning of 9/11. And chillingly, I wonder whether it wasn't just the steel towers that were brought down and incinerated on 9/11, but the yellowed pages of our U.S. Constitution, as well.

And what does it say about the solemn capabilities of our Department of Justice if it is left to "subcontract out" its duties and responsibilities to the Department of Defense? We should all think about that scary notion for a bit. But, perhaps more disturbingly recognize that it is not occurring under the tutelage of Bush and Cheney, rather it is coming at the hands of Obama.

At least when President Bush was in office, he was candid about his feelings regarding the alleged 9/11 conspirators in our custody. He didn't care about them. He allowed them to be tortured. He was fine letting them rot in the heat of Guantanamo for all of eternity. They were less than human to him and he certainly was never going to afford them the benefits of our U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. That was President Bush. Whether you agreed or disagreed with him, you, at least, knew where he stood. And you could, like it or not, rely on his word.

For the past two years, it's been President Obama in the Oval Office. Quite early on in his presidency, Obama invited the 9/11 families to the White House to discuss 9/11-related issues. During this meeting in Feb '09 the topic of closing Guantanamo and the use of Article 3 courts to prosecute the remaining alleged 9/11 conspirators was discussed. Many of us were incredibly relieved to learn that as a matter of course President Obama was going to shut down Guantanamo and support the open prosecution of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. He gave us -- the various widows and children at the meeting -- his golden word. He shook our hands. He smiled broadly. He posed for pictures. (In fact, several weeks later many of the widows even received hand signed courtesy copies of these photos from Obama -- a nice touch. I did not receive such a photo.)

It's been almost ten years now since my husband was killed. My daughter has gone from a 2-year-old to a 12-year-old. Our country has started two -- and now maybe three -- pointless, misguided, costly wars. And if it wasn't already difficult enough to accept that Osama Bin Laden will probably never be caught or held accountable, now I have to swallow the fact that I will never see constitutional justice for the handful of individuals we actually hold in custody. In short, justice in a court of law for the murder of my husband and 3,000 others will never come.

I suppose in life timing is everything. To me, as a lawyer and a 9/11 widow, DOJ's announcement today acknowledges the sad defeat of our U.S. Constitution when it comes to 9/11. How truly tragic in my eyes. And you would think that a man who was once a constitutional law professor might feel the same way. Yet, not so much for President Barack Obama who has chosen this great day to announce his billion-dollar campaign for re-election. His slogan asking us to "join in" by writing him a check.

First, I've never been much of an "in"-sider. Second, I truly wonder how you can trust a leader who carries no compunction to keep his promises or his word -- whether those words and promises were made in support of gay rights, to not start or perpetuate illegal/useless/costly military campaigns (or wars), in support of environmental causes even to the detriment of big business, to put an immediate end to torture and unlawful detainment, to rein in the bloat and greed of Wall Street, to oppose gun control, or to correct the broad overreach of a previous administration.

But perhaps most pointedly, if you can't trust what a man says to a group of widows and children, then what words and promises of his can you trust?

So President Obama, am I IN? Will you be receiving my check?

Hell no.

Because I'm tired of gambling on your hope, believing in your promises, and being thrown under your bus.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 698
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (18 total)
06:10 AM on 04/06/2011
I think that the major obstacle to public trials is the Congress, who denied funding for the trials to go forward. I don't think that the ones who carried out the mass murder on 9/11 acted at the behest of any national entity. Quite simply, they are well-funded thugs - criminal conspirators who should be tried and,if proven guilty, given life in prison (a worse punishment, in my view, than what they consider to be 'martyrdom'). And no, we are not at war. We are battling an international crime syndicate who seeks to hide their actions behind the claim that they are waging Jihad. They are not representatives of Islam, but they know that that claim is a great recruiting tool to ensnare young, idealistic (and yes, frustrated) Muslims into their ranks. So long as we treat this as a war, we will be unsuccessful: there is no national entity to surrender. The crooks should be tried in the jurisdiction in which their crimes were perpetrated. It is not the Constitution that has failed us. Certain powerful republicans who do not want this crime to be adjudicated in the light of day, are afraid that some of the crooks will 'walk' due to the illegal activities of the Bush administration such as torture and rendition. This is damage control plain and simple, and this 'enemy combatant' nonsense is just a mechanism to get the military to whack as many of the Gitmo inhabitants, guilty or not, as they can.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Quinny
My micro-bio has been seized by the Feds
12:31 AM on 04/06/2011
Ms. Breitweiser,
In the hope that you are reading these comments,
I would just like you to know that you are absolutely correct regarding
the blatant disregard of the Constitution and the rule of law by our "leaders"
here in the US. I tried to post a few comments about your article, but they
were not allowed by the moderators. Perhaps because - like your own
comments - they were very critical of Obama. I can't help but feel that your
negative response to Obama's recent actions are directly linked to
the fact that your article was moved off the front page of HuffPo. This
article SHOULD be read because it is nothing less than the unvarnished
truth.

All The Best,
Quinny
photo
intotheabyss
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
05:47 PM on 04/05/2011
Officialdom can't take the risk that some info might slip out that contradicts the official story. Sorry, but there are still too many unresolved inconsistencies to not smell a rat. Obama will do as he's instructed as always and the public will stay in the dark. Rant and rave at my conspiratorial point of view all you like. Nothing in this country has been on the up and up since November 22nd., 1963.
08:27 PM on 04/05/2011
Obama is a good and decent man who has fallen under the spell of the rich, the powerful and the corporations. He was a chance at real change but the powers in Washington made short work of that change. His own party let him down, big time.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Quinny
My micro-bio has been seized by the Feds
12:54 AM on 04/06/2011
I could not agree with you more. KSM could never be
allowed to have a public trial because "The Govt." cannot
take the chance that the truth behind the events of 9/11
might be revealed in an open court. KSM will be tried, and
no doubt convicted, in secret. And of course your comment
regarding JFK is spot on as well. Once the MIC realized they
could assassinate a President in broad daylight - and get AWAY
with it - they knew they could get away with ANYTHING.
And they have...

"The gun shots that hit Kennedy not only killed him,
but they also pieced the heart of the American dream
in the twentieth century...and maybe forever."
"I have NEVER forgotten the pain and anger I
felt when I heard that JFK was dead and I NEVER will..NEVER!!

Hunter S. Thompson

Selah
11:13 AM on 04/06/2011
MIC? Forgive my ignorance, Mr Thompson...Men in Charge??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
exxman
Visualize Whirled Peas.
05:42 PM on 04/05/2011
I seem to recall that Obama tried to close Guantanamo and congress, controlled by democrats, refused to fund it. I also seem to recall that Obama was all for civilian trials and the republicans had a major hissy fit about how he was endangering the whole country.

I agree with you that the constitution has become nothing more than, in George Bush's words, "That damn piece of paper", and I believe you are correct that Osama bin Laden won on Sept. 11, 2001. But I don't think you can blame Obama for it. It has become clear to me that it really doen't matter who is president. It is becoming increasingly difficult to tell one from the other. It seems to me that someone else is calling the shots. Exactly who it is is unclear to me but the homogeneity of past presidents suggests that the office isn't all it is meant to be. My fellow Americans we have been had.
photo
intotheabyss
Imperialism is a form of insanity.
05:49 PM on 04/05/2011
Yup. See my post above if it makes it through moderation.
photo
MarsAmbassador
Per angusta ad augusta
06:35 PM on 04/05/2011
What he says is one thing, what he's been doing is another. I don't care WHAT he's been saying all along, it was merely for our benefit. The reality has been telling a far different story. On this and just about everything else. A person could probably make a 2 hour documentary that shows nothing but the contradictions of what he said in the election and the reality of what he's saying and doing now. Sad, sad, sad. Like you said, it doesn't really matter WHO is the President, nothing changes.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
RumiSouth
Caerbannog!
03:55 PM on 04/05/2011
Know what's missing from this? Any mention of Congress, or how often the Obama DoJ has pressed, pleaded, and begged them to NOT defund civilian trials:

May 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21detain.html

December 10th, 2010: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/12/09/1966040/holder-protests-legislation-to.html

December 22nd, 2010: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/12/congress-approves-defense-spending-bill-preventing-us-trial-of-guantanamo-detainees.php

I'm a little sick of reading angry progressives moan about the president when Congress is the branch constitutionally appointed to control the purse strings and write the laws. This post is exactly the sort of "bus throwing" myopic screed I'm talking about.

Wrong tree, doggies! Go bark at the Capitol Dome!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jsgaetano
"Conservative" is not a political party, genius.
03:51 PM on 04/05/2011
Conservatives: They hate us for our freedoms.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
RumiSouth
Caerbannog!
05:52 PM on 04/06/2011
Because we're all being enslaved by them, you know. Freedom is slavery.

Sadly, we're not overstating the picture of current conservative orthodoxy.
03:40 PM on 04/05/2011
Ms. Breitweiser, as an attorney and former prosecutor, I sadly have to agree 100% with your point that it appears that the constitution has slowly but surely been diminished over the past 10 years. The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of the Constitution did not envision a world in which the protections of our laws would not be afforded to others especially in the matters of criminal acts. The 9/11 acts occurred on our soil no matter if the plan was born and formed in another nation. The jurisdiction should fall to our civil system and under the power of the Constitution.

We need to truly understand what the point of our legal system is, it is to ensure that NO innocent person is wrongly convicted, the Framers were willing to let a few guilty people go free to ensure that, they were not willing to allow a free and innocent person to suffer for no reason. Many times we have lost this goal and lofty ideal in place for political, institutional and professional development. If these people did in fact conspire and execute 9/11 attacks then our system of justice if properly followed will prove that beyond a reasonable doubt but if any of these people didn't commit these acts then we cannot continue to punish them. A true character of a person and our nation is how our principles survive in the time of difficultly and sadly, we let our Constitution down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
03:36 PM on 04/05/2011
Al Qaeda isn't a pure organization. It is mixed with intelligence agency meddlings and double agents, drug and arms trade. Its not pure, and countries use Al Qaeda to get their agendas done such as the Philippines attacking itself and blaming Al Qaeda. Bin Laden has never been officially indicted for 9-11, so lets stop saying it was his attack because there is no hard proof.
04:24 PM on 04/05/2011
Public condemnation and legally enforced punishment are two separate things, and "innocent until proven guilty" refers only to the latter. No hard proof; give me a break.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GuiltD
05:08 PM on 04/05/2011
Also I hope you know that you really should have a full understanding of research into Al Qaeda, thats not presented to you by corporate media. Its important to understand how people like Bin Laden's mentor Sheikh Abdullah Azzam worked for the CIA
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverball
03:05 PM on 04/05/2011
after torturing them...it will be hard to convict them in a us court...hence the tribunals in the first place...but absolutely NO EXCUSE for not trying to bring them to justice in a us court and to close gitmo...promises...promises...reminds me of the words in a robert palmer song (i think it was his)...anyway..."good intentions, never good enough"...so true for this also....personally, after all, i'm just an american that grew up believing in our system with all its flaws, but, if we couldn't convict them in a us court of law because the previous administration tortured them (remember, it's against us and international law) i'm ok with letting them go...if we can't live by our words and laws, we don't deserve their conviction....pretty distasteful to most, but my belief is how the system is SUPPOSED to work.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mrs Main Street
Citizen,Daughter,Wife,Mother,Business Owner
04:34 PM on 04/05/2011
silveball as sad as I makes me, I must agree. We are a country that has lost it's way. Before 9/11 even after Oklahoma City most American's did not believe that something like this could happen. We must hold on to what is left of the principles that have set this country apart from others. A military court does not function under the same "beyond a resonable doubt" nor "innocent until proven quilty" so a conviction is almost certain. Our courts overturn convictions every year based on coersion. Military courts are not bothered by a little torture,but we as Americans should be. While my heart aches for the losses of 9/11, we can not allow our military to usurp our judicial system, or take over when the executive branch delays or implements actions that are in direct violation of our laws and international law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:02 PM on 04/05/2011
I lost several loved ones, including a second cousin, on 9/11. I saw the towers fall and I will never forget that horrendous sight. Knowing how many innocent lives were inside those buildings, people with loved ones who would be waiting for them to come home when they never would.

I support the use of military tribunals. These terrorists do not deserve the rights and protections of the U.S. constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Quinny
My micro-bio has been seized by the Feds
01:05 AM on 04/06/2011
I am so sorry for your loss on 9/11. But this is not about
the "rights and protections" of the terrorists...it's about finding
out the truth....

Selah
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imrightyourewrong
04:21 PM on 04/06/2011
It's even more basic. Do we live up to what we say or don't we? On a more practical note, what does it actually mean to say "terrorists do not deserve the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution?" Remember, that trials are things we have when we accuse someone of doing something. Just because the government accuses someone of murdering someone, holding up a bank or even speeding does NOT mean they did it. In fact, we have trials and we require the government to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" he/she did what the government says he/she did. If it's not the accused who deserves them? Who does? This seems akin to saying: only the innocent deserve a trial. We have trials to discern who exactly is guilty. If we want to just skip that part and say that anybody the government accuses is automatically guilty, then let's just do that and get it over with. Let's dispense with trials, tear up our Constitution and have another ceremony (a la on the aircraft carrier) and declare: "We are constitution-free. The terrorists have won."
photo
EllaMai
Non-violent complainer. From North of the border.
02:29 PM on 04/05/2011
Let's not forget that it was under Obama, that the child soldier Omar Khadr (protected by Geneva conventions) was tried and convicted at one of these tribunals. No proof that he ever killed anyone, shot in the back, and yet tried as an "enemy combatant". He was convicted by the word of soldiers that since he was the only one alive, he must have done it. Tortured while in prison, he gave a "confession" that was thrown out by one military judge, only to have that judge removed and another put in that allowed the "confession". Wow, justice certainly received a beating that day.
02:21 PM on 04/05/2011
I am sorry about your loss and suffering. But using military tribunal is within our constitutional means and you should know that as a lawyer. Just because you and a minority of people feel better to see these terrorists in the federal court system, doesnt make it right. The issues has been debated, the people and congress have spoken. Respect democracy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Radius477
02:15 PM on 04/05/2011
And not one word about the congress who prevented the trials by the court systems?
01:29 PM on 04/05/2011
Hope and Change We Can Believe In !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
LI2USsomemore
my dog has midriff bULGe
01:16 PM on 04/05/2011
Even more nefarious is the fact that a very high percentage of the detainees are NOT enemy combatants, but were merely politically expedient pawns, or worse, people in the wrong place at the wrong time. And our government knows this. Yet there they sit.

THAT, IMHO, is the inherent flaw with our detainee program.