More

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

Matthew Duss

Posted: March 5, 2010 02:37 PM

Will Obama Hand the Cheneys - And Al Qaeda - A Victory?

What's Your Reaction:

The Washington Post reports that "President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal," reversing Attorney General Holder's plan to try him in civilian court:

Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a "sad day for the rule of law" if 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," Colwell said.

When he announced his decision to close Guantanamo Bay prison, President Obama said this:

"This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our Founding Fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

If the Obama administration abandons its effort to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in civilian court, it would represent a significant capitulation by President Obama to his political enemies, and a betrayal of his supporters who took seriously his promises to bring America's anti-terrorism policies back within bounds of the law.

It will also represent a significant propaganda victory for Al Qaeda, who crave the status and recognition that treating them as "soldiers" in a "war" bestows, and would love to be able to show the world that Obama, just like Bush and Cheney, will cast American principles aside when faced with a threat.

President Obama should understand by now that no matter how much he reaches out his hand to his neoconservative critics, they will never unclench their fists. They'll just look for a new place to strike. The president's struggle to cultivate bipartisanship is admirable. But a bipartisan consensus in favor of fashioning a new legal framework for dealing with an age-old problem -- terrorism -- is worse than worthless, it's an admission to Al Qaeda, and to world, that our existing institutions aren't strong enough to deal with it, and that we'll abandon our core values when it gets hard.

 

Follow Matthew Duss on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mattduss

 
 
  • Comments
  • 52
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:47 PM on 03/07/2010
We might find out "Al-Qaeda*s " is largely a Fiction.
Bush/Cheney ,the corporate media,and MIC invented and over- stated "Al-Qaeda*s ' aims and organizational capabilities. We have heard countless times how "Al-Qaeda '' wants to launch a nuclear attack. This is never questioned in the media. It has become the common wisdom . I have questions for those who continue to fear ''Al-Qaeda" and use 9/11 as proof of their deadly power.
1) On 9/11 "AL-Qaeda" had 4 jets they could have flown into Nuclear Plants or Chemical Plants,Oil Refineries or packed Sport Stadiums. Why didn*t they create a Nuclear Event or Chemical Attack when they had the planes on 9/11?
2) American businesses exist in every country in the world.Why aren*t those banks and fast-food restaurants being attacked by ''Al-qaeda''?
3) Why hasn*t ''Al-Qaeda'' been able to kill even One American on American soil in eight years ?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:48 PM on 03/07/2010
Stop it! Your not thinking like a Good American ;-)

Deep deep deep DEEP down, I think (hope) fellow citizens know the truth.
photo
Marlyn
Always wrong, but never in doubt.
03:34 PM on 03/07/2010
"It will also represent a significant propaganda victory for Al Qaeda" ???

B S
photo
Marlyn
Always wrong, but never in doubt.
03:33 PM on 03/07/2010
"reversing Attorney General Holder's plan to try him in civilian court"

Now, if Obama would just reverse Holder's plan to NOT try Bush and Cheney for taking us to war in Iraq based on lies.
03:03 PM on 03/07/2010
Cheney is a war criminal. Al Quaeda is a war crimes enterprise.
BrighterStar
Let Freedom Ring
01:03 PM on 03/07/2010
In no way are military tribunals outside of the law. They have been used in this country since its founding. This hands terrorists no more of a victory than the Nuremberg tribunal handed the Nazi's a victory.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:31 PM on 03/07/2010
You are wrong like most Americans on the definition of "military" tribunal for KSM. What KSM is going to get is something derived from the "Military Commissions Act" of 2006. A creation of the Republican Congress and Bush Administration. The Obama Administration modified it slightly in 2009, but it is the source of the tribunal that they brand "military". It is extra-judicial, not Constitutionally based. A new creation since 2006.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:59 AM on 03/07/2010
Why is Obama sending KSM to a "military" commission, an extra-judicial forum created from the Republican Congress of 2006.

According to the book Triple Cross, by Peter Lance (a 5-time Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter):

An Islamic radical and Egyptian ex-commando, Ali Mohamed, worked for the Pentagon's Special Forces, was an FBI informant and CIA asset, but yet, Ali Mohamed was also working for Al Qaeda.

But alas, why do you believe KSM’s trial will be in Dick Cheney's newly created and secretive “military” commission? This decision certainly appears to have support from both Parties.
12:56 AM on 03/07/2010
Of course we abandon our core values. That's because we only think they are our core values. This same bit happened with both Lincoln and Wilson in their suspensions of habeas corpus. Without passing judgment on their actions, to say that habeas corpus has been held sacred since the Magna Carta is off the mark. We're more than happy to abandon our "core values" whenever it suits our purpose. The tide rises and falls. A revolution in this country could result in complete abandonment of the constitution, either by the revolutionaries or the ones in power. In the absence of a revolution, the changes are incremental, as we see with both the Bush and Obama administrations.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Valentine
Retired SEIU Member
09:06 PM on 03/06/2010
Following in Bush's footsteps Obama continues to flaunt American lawlessness.
BrighterStar
Let Freedom Ring
01:04 PM on 03/07/2010
What law does this violate?
08:28 PM on 03/06/2010
This is another capitulation to the the terrorized Repubs. They are terrified because these are Muslim terrorists. There is no concern about the domestic Christian terrorists like the man who flew a plane filled with Gas into an Austin government building. What was the difference between this act and the WTC. One was Christian the other super magical Muslim. The Repubs and the Obama administration are afraid that there God does not stack up well against their God. That is why they are terrified of having the trial here. When the terror is domestic with no tie to Islam, there is little interest in follow up on who and what these terrorists were associated with. We bring the full power of the FBI, Homeland security etc, etc when they are Muslim. They still aren't sure who really did the Anthrax attack. Even though that was the very first successful weaponized biowarfare attack on the US. You would have thought it was a prank. So the biug difference is that the Obama administration and the Repubs are afraid that Islam is stronger than their own Religion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:40 PM on 03/06/2010
President Obama's pattern of quickly capitulating to Repubs is causing me think maybe he's unable to take a firm stand on principles.. and/or that he might have no firm principles on which he is willing to stand firm.

This 'KSM trial' issue will speak volumes about where the President stands with regard to Constitutional principles and his belief (or lack thereof) in basic American values pertaining to the rule of law and criminal justice.

The world is watching.
04:30 PM on 03/06/2010
I completely agree. Caving in again. Why? At least the republicans stick to their principles when they are in power and what they think should get done gets done (a disaster for working people and the pillars of our society, but that's not the point here). Who is Obama appeasing? The argument was well made that civilian trials have better, harsher outcomes and politically send exactly the right message. He negotiated against himself with health care, he negotiated against himself with consumer protections, he backpedaled on closing Guantanamo, and now he is backing out of civilian trials for terrorists. Need we remind the president that before Bush there were no military tribunals, and many people were up in arms about creating them because there was no legal framework to do so. Which is why the few who were tried under that approach are free today. I voted for Obama but I am beginning to really not like what I voted for.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
satanlite
If ur neibor wtchs Fox Nws wtch ur neibor
07:08 AM on 03/09/2010
I agree. I'm afriad he's afraid of the tough fight which on the surface seems nonsense since the Republicans have been doing nothing but fighting tooth and nail since he walked into office.

I'm afraid I voted for a capitulator. A typical "talk tough then cave to Republican" spineless Democrat. If he's taking bad advice he needs to send someone to the woodshed. If this is on purpose and a continued theme for the next < 3 years I'm done with him and the Democratic party forever. The funny part is when the Democrats fall out of power they'll be wondering why the aren't getting support from the voters. Obama's failure to stand firm will spell his doom and insure the Republican rise - which will, in turn, spell the doom of the United States.
01:09 PM on 03/06/2010
In order to be tried before a military tribunal, one must be a soldier, or at least guilty of war crimes. We are at war with terror and terrorists, there is no military or army that we are fighting against. KSM and his ilk are not soldiers, they are cowards who kill innocent people by using small minded, young religious zealots to do the dirty work. You'll be a martyr and hero to Islam, blah, blah, blah....These people cannot be allowed to be given the honor of being considered a warrior or a soldier. KSM masterminded the 9/11 attacks, but did not participate in the execution of those plans. How many other attacks has he masterminded? Who knows. How many has he participated in? None. Zero. Soldier? Warrior?I don't think so. Manipulator, coward, criminal? Absolutely. Where in this country do we try criminals? The court system. Where should KSM be tried? In the court system as a common criminal. Where should the trial be held? Ground Zero, open air public trial.If found guilty and given the death penalty it should be a publlic execution that the world has to witness. Criminals should be tried in criminal court. Death penalties are not deterrents if nobody has to see the death. Obama and the rest in the Capital need to put aside political posturing and do what is right, abide by our Constitution and use the rule of law to convict those guilty of crimes against our citizens.
03:32 PM on 03/06/2010
I agree
11:24 PM on 03/06/2010
This is one of the best argued points on this matter that I've read in a while. And overall Strictly, I agree, except for two points.

The first is you will be doing exactly what you say you don't want to do, namely give KSM an honor he does not deserve by allowing him a speaking platform. You say he does not deserve a soldier's honor of being tried by the military, but you will provide him a platform where he will be given a great deal of honor in the eyes of his followers. Where KSM can denounce the "Great Satan blah, blah, blah". Even not allowing any press to film the media circus KSM's trial will become will fail, because even if the records were sealed, there would be leaks.

The second problem, and one you do not mention, is the burden of proof and defense in a federal court. A very real argument against federal courts is making public classified information on sources etc. So if you read my post, please answer these two questions:
1. Would you support federal court if KSM walked, a free man, because the government decided keeping something classified was more important?
2. Would you support federal court if classified information was made public, KSM was convicted, and others just as bad as KSM were never captured?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ramblin jack
09:28 AM on 03/07/2010
Yes
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
okim5150
I only drink to make you more interesting
10:04 AM on 03/07/2010
The law is the law, the same for you, the same for me, the same for KSM. If we don't try him in civilian court according to our existing laws like we would any other criminal, we might as well just take him out an shoot him. That would be just as legitimate as making up a whole new "justice" system just for him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rougebaisers
12:45 PM on 03/06/2010
More than likely. This president just does not seem to care about the wars he still has us in.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Professor MoFo
11:06 AM on 03/06/2010
I say we rebuild the World Trade Center towers (exactly the way they were) and then try those responsible on the top floor.

And if/when they are convicted.....toss them out the nearest window.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
10:41 AM on 03/06/2010
The health care reform that is "alive" is a sham that will not contain costs, so it's basically worthless. It's designed to prevent electoral losses, not fix the titanic problem.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
06:58 AM on 03/06/2010
Although many Americans pay lip service to the Bill of Rights, in fact they despise it. They have no use for the Constitution beyond the Second Amendment. Despite all their big-mouth talk, they are not patriots. They are nothing but flag worshippers.