Eric Holder on The Huffington Post

Lincoln Mitchell: The KSM Trial And Republican Attacks

2009-11-25T09:12:09Z

The recent attacks on the decision by President Obama and Attorney General Holder to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), one of the masterminds of the September 11th terrorist attacks, constitute one of those political moments where partisan sniping dominates everything else. For many Americans where KSM is tried is something of a non-issue a technicality that has little bearing on their lives, so long as justice is served. However, for many Republicans, none more so than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani it is an opportunity to get some media attention and take a cheap shot at the president.

Giuliani has gotten more publicity in the last six weeks or so than he has since his ill-fated presidential campaign collapsed more than a year and a half ago. Most of that publicity was not due to his doing but to those of Giuliani's New York Yankees as they won their 27th World Championship. The former mayor was present at almost every home game sitting in seats in the new Yankee Stadium that most Yankee fans would love to have, even if it meant spending nine innings with America's erstwhile mayor. By vociferously attacking the Obama administration, Giuliani briefly made himself relevant again, albeit in a transparently silly and partisan way, accusing Holder and Obama of not taking the threat of terrorism seriously because they want to try KSM in a civilian court.

If it had been a Republican president who had called for KSM to be tried in New York, Giuliani almost certainly would have applauded the decision as giving New Yorkers a chance to host the trial of the man who sought to destroy their city. Moreover, if Obama had moved the trial out of New York on the grounds that a New York trial would give KSM a platform for his anti-American rhetoric, Giuliani and other Republicans would, not without reason, be lining up to accuse that president of cowardice and of lacking faith in America.

Other Republicans, most notably John Ashcroft, have suggested that trying KSM in New York is a security threat and that New Yorkers will fear another attack if KSM is tried in their city. This assertion is even more transparently a case of partisan sniping than Giuliani's comments. Imagine if a former Democratic Attorney General suggested that the trial should be moved because otherwise New Yorkers would fear another terrorist attack. Giuliani would almost certainly be the first, and loudest, to yell that New Yorkers are afraid of nobody and demand the opportunity to sentence KSM in New York. Comments like those of Giuliani and Ashcroft amount to little more than partisan bickering, but the more serious attacks on Holder's decision have been based on his choice of locale for the trial, but for his decision to try KSM in a civilian court.

The president's critics argue that if the War on Terrorism is truly a war, than people like KSM who are captured overseas should be tried in military tribunals rather than civilian courts. This argument is not altogether unreasonable, as a strong case can be made that people like KSM are enemy soldiers and should be tried as such. It is, however, worth remembering that the debate about the status of captured terrorist suspects did not begin with Obama. It was the Bush administration, specifically former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted that people like KSM were, in Rumsfeld's words, "(N)ot PoWs. They will not be determined to be PoWs." This decision was made so that the U.S. would not have to apply the rules laid out in the Geneva Conventions about the treatment of POWs to these terrorist suspects. Rumsfeld, and the Bush administration, settled on the awkward and legally ambiguous term "unlawful combatants" to describe the status of these people.

The Bush administration did not set a very good or clear precedent regarding treatment of captured terrorists like KSM; and the Obama administration has certainly not yet come up with a comprehensive solution to this dilemma. Holder's decision may be the best that can be done at this time, or it may be a mistake and a bad precedent. It is not, however, as Holder's critics suggest, a politically motivated move by the Attorney General or the administration. On the contrary, Holder has boxed himself into a no win situation here. If, for some reason, KSM is acquitted, many Americans will feel that justice was not served at that our government let a dangerous, and murderous, terrorist go free. If Holder, as is likely, gets a conviction and KSM receives either the death penalty or a very long prison sentence, the world will not, as some in the administration have suggested, look admiringly at the U.S. criminal justice system, but will assume that the fix was in before the trial even started.

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [102] -- Harry Reid's Glacial Progress Grinds On

2009-11-20T20:31:53Z

Our illustrious (cough, cough) White House press corps showed it could get to the bottom of a story with impressively journalistic and probative skills this week. The story that so obviously required multiple questions to President Obama on his trip to Asia? Whether he's eating enough, and whether he's losing weight. Oh, and his gray hair.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Somebody, obviously bored on the excruciatingly long plane ride, decided they'd float the rumor that Obama was skipping meals and getting dangerously thin. Because the reporters were all trapped in the same flying aluminum can, they all decided it was a big deal, patted themselves on the back for doing so, and then took lots of valuable interview time with the president to ask him about it. Over and over again (since they all wanted the "scoop"). Obama's response was that he was eating just fine, thank you, and he wasn't any skinnier than he's always been.

Whew! Good thing we have such an illustrious cadre of journalists, to reassure Americans that the president is not starving himself or anything! After all, it's not like there are any other issues to talk about, or ask the president about.

Such as Sarah Palin, for instance. Palin sure ate up a lot of "news" time last week, which must have overjoyed her publicist and publisher (oodles of free publicity, in other words).

Seriously, there are a few things going on in the world that are actually more important than what the president had for lunch, and what Palin's ghostwriter cobbled together in "her" book.

Such as health care reform legislation, to name but one. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally woke up from his weeks-long nap, and is moving a bill to the Senate floor for debate. It was reported this week that the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, then on Wednesday, then on Thursday, then on Friday, and (currently) on Saturday. Which pretty much sums up the last few months of waiting on Harry. But Harry will be discussed later in the program, so I'll just move on here.

I thought it was appropriate to review exactly what is left to do on the health care reform effort. There are a few hurdles left to clear, and it's going to be a long and drawn-out process. The media will trumpet each one of these hurdles as it happens, but will (my guess) fail to lay out exactly what to expect next at each stage of the process. So I thought I'd fill this lack. Matt Osborne at Huffington Post also has a good overview of the 11-dimensional chess game we're playing, if you'd like an alternate summation of where we are in the process.

The first step is Saturday's vote. Or, I should probably say, "the vote which is currently scheduled for Saturday." This vote will be held in the Senate and is a vote to "end debate about the debate," or to overcome a filibuster/closure attempt to block the bill before it gets to the floor for debate. The media will portray this as a "vote to move the bill to the floor," but this is technically inaccurate, as it is a vote against killing the bill's progress. It's confusing, but this is the Senate we're talking about.

Democrats need 60 votes to overcome the filibuster attempt. Harry Reid thinks he's got them, but then this is the reason why the vote keeps getting pushed back -- because he's obviously still scrambling for the final few votes before he moves ahead. But they can't push it back much further without eating into their own valuable vacation time, because they're all itching to fly back home for a leisurely week off for Thanksgiving.

Once Democrats get the 60 votes they need (throughout this whole explanation, I am assuming Democrats will succeed at each stage, although I should point out that any of these hurdles could derail the entire process and kill health care reform for the year), the Senate will start debating the bill. Amendments will be offered. It's a little unclear which amendments will require only a majority (50 votes plus the Vice President, or 51 votes), and which will require the supermajority of 60 votes. Look for lots of Republican amendments to fail during this stage, and lots and lots of grandstanding by senators who are hoping to see their face on the news.

So, assuming some amendments pass and others fail, eventually Reid will move to close debate and actually vote on the bill as a whole. This is when the second major filibuster will be attempted. And getting 60 votes to overcome it will be even harder, since some of the senators who have publicly committed to killing the first filibuster attempt have pointedly not committed to moving the bill to a final vote. But, probably with some wheeling and dealing, Reid rounds up the 60 votes he needs and defeats the filibuster once again.

Which brings us to the final vote. This vote only requires 50-plus-one, meaning Democrats who don't like the bill can vote against its passage, after voting with the Democrats to kill filibusters. This sort of thing, I should add, is common. John Kerry got lambasted in his bid for the White House, for expecting Americans to know how the Senate actually works, when he said he "was for the bill before he was against the bill" (or was it the other way around?). This is called "having your cake and eating it too," when it comes to explaining your votes to your constituents, and is common practice by both parties in Washington.

But ignoring all of that, a bill passes the Senate! Woo hoo! We're done, right?

Well, no.

This is the trickiest phase of the whole process -- the dreaded conference committee. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid name a limited number of negotiators (which names are on this list will be crucial) to a committee of both House and Senate members, and they get a chance to totally rewrite the bill. Their goal is to come up with a bill that can pass both houses in exactly the same form. This will be challenging indeed, since the vote margins are going to be pretty thin for both houses. A handful of Democrats from the left or the "center" could play the "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" tantrum game at this point.

Many are the bills which die in conference committee, it needs emphasizing. It's a tightrope wire to walk that sees many, many ideas fall off the wire to perish below (no safety net down there). This will be the toughest part of the whole process.

Eventually, though (assuming success at every stage, as I said), a compromise bill emerges from conference committee. Then it goes to the House and the Senate, where individual senators and the Republican Party en masse will try to derail it by adding amendments willy-nilly. But sooner or later, the House and the Senate vote on the same bill. Over in the Senate, of course, this will mean more filibuster attempts to be dealt with, but in both houses the final vote requires just a simple majority to pass.

The bill, after achieving passage in both houses, then goes to the Oval Office for President Obama to sign.

If this all sounds like a very long and drawn-out process, well, it is. And the new "operative" deadline (as they say in D.C.) is now the State Of The Union address which President Obama will deliver to a joint session of Congress in late January. That is not a lot of time. With so many formidable hurdles left in place, the clock running out becomes more and more of a serious possibility.

In any case, while the news media will portray Saturday's vote (or Sunday's, or Monday's... sigh) as a gargantuan-sized Big Deal, please keep in mind that we've got a long way left to go.

A Democrat this week hit a most impressive milestone, as Senator Robert Byrd became the longest-serving member of Congress in history. This benchmark adds service in both chambers, meaning Byrd's six-year term as a member of the House is added to his impressive 50 years and ten-and-a-half months in the Senate. Byrd's Senate record is already the longest in history, passing Strom Thurmond's a few years ago. So now Robert Byrd is not only the longest-serving senator in American history, but also the longest-serving member of Congress in history as well. For this, he receives an Honorable Mention from us this week.

Representative Alan Grayson also gets an Honorable Mention as well (with special "strange bedfellows" oak leaf cluster), for joining with Ron Paul to win passage of language in a bill to mandate an audit of the Federal Reserve. Other Democrats wanted to water this down, but Grayson and Paul prevailed. For now. Their opponents shut down a vote on the bill after this happened, though, which the White House is reportedly not happy about.

Also annoying the White House is Representative John Conyers. Conyers, however, is on the right side of this issue. He's pressuring President Obama and Rahm Emanuel with some very blunt language: "You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren't all that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself." For pressuring Obama to stand up for the ideals he campaigned on, Conyers is also awarded an Honorable Mention this week.

But our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Attorney General Eric Holder. I have already written twice this week (in Tuesday's column and Wednesday's column, in case you missed them) about Holder's decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a civilian federal court mere blocks from where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood.

Now, reasonable people can disagree about Holder's decision, but we are awarding him the MIDOTW award for how he has handled himself this week. It's a rare thing in Washington to see a government official make a strong decision, and then defend it as the right thing to do without either (a.) trying to blame everyone else for the idea's shortcomings, or (b.) immediately apologizing for the decision, or (c.) "walking back" or even overturning the decision at the slightest sign of political stormclouds on the horizon.

All in all, Holder admirably defended his decision and admirably faced his critics when dragged before a congressional committee. So, as I said, whether you agree with his decision or think it was wrong, Holder was still impressive in the way he strongly stood up for himself after announcing it -- a rare thing in Washington. And for that, we award him the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Attorney General Eric Holder on his Department of Justice contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

So, here we are on the health care reform front. A bill may make it to the floor of the Senate tomorrow. But you know what? We could have been here in July. Or September. Or October. This endless series of delays and time wasted can be laid at the feet of one man -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Because it is an inescapable fact that a stronger leader would have moved the legislation a lot further by now.

Now, in Reid's defense, the bill he came up with is a lot stronger than a lot of people thought it would be at this point. The number of times the public option has been declared dead by serious and important people inside the Beltway is staggeringly high. And yet, there it is in Reid's bill. No trigger (at least not yet) is in the bill either -- denying yet another piece of inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom for the past five months. Given what he had to work with, it's not a horrible effort by Reid. Fairness dictates we point this out here.

But Reid has shown over and over again that he simply does not know how to negotiate in a timely fashion. He usually begins negotiating by publicly stating he will be throwing away all his best leverage in the negotiations -- making it much easier for his opponents to defeat him. He has put up with so many delaying tactics on health care reform that we find ourselves only moving a bill to the floor right now -- just before Thanksgiving. Because the Senate is going to go home for a full week next week, it won't be until early December that the floor debate even begins. And after such debate, and after a vote on passage, there still remains the conference committee -- which is going to take a few weeks, at the very least. With the end-of-year break in there, it is already an extremely tough schedule to meet if Congress really wants to pass this by the State Of The Union speech in late January.

Meaning Reid has left everyone with very little elbow room. Which makes it all the easier for opponents to defeat the whole effort -- because now they don't need to absolutely shut it down, they just need to run out the clock for a few more weeks. While Max Baucus certainly deserves some of the scorn for this situation, the buck stops at Harry's desk, as the leader of the Senate Democrats.

As if all of this weren't enough, Reid just announced that he's no longer even considering reconciliation as a last resort. Once again, Reid takes the most powerful weapon at his disposal and, instead of wielding it forcefully, actually chucks it over the side of the boat instead. This seems to be Harry's standard operating procedure -- surrender before the fight begins.

But there's a way to change all of this. The Democratic caucus in the Senate traditionally chooses its leadership in December. Meaning that any Democrat could soon challenge Reid for his leadership role. If a movement started among Senate Democrats to rally behind a more forceful personality, this could put some serious pressure on Harry Reid to get things moving along. Democrats could let it be known privately that if health care reform isn't at least in conference committee by the time they choose next year's leadership, then they would be handing Harry his hat, and repainting his office for his successor.

There are many, many Democratic senators who could fill the void of leadership Harry Reid carries around with him. Pretty much anyone who knows how to negotiate and knows not to throw away their best leverage before the fight begins would get my support, at this point.

Oh, and while they're at it, Democratic senators could also strip Joe Lieberman of his committee chairmanship on the Homeland Security committee if he votes with Republicans to kill health care reform. Just a suggestion.

But for this week, Harry Reid wins his fourteenth Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award. That is twice as many as anyone else has won. Get a move on Harry, or else stand out of the way for someone who can. Please.

[Contact Senator Harry Reid on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 102 (11/20/09)

I'm going to remain optimistic at the end, here, and write my talking points this week for Democratic politicians (to use on the Sunday morning chat fests) while assuming that the Senate has managed to vote to bring the health care reform bill to the floor. That's right, I'm going to make a leap of faith and assume that Harry Reid manages to get his 60 votes tomorrow night. Because, really, if he doesn't, there won't be a whole lot for Democrats to talk about this Sunday morning.

Anyway, remaining cheerfully (some would say "blissfully," or perhaps "idiotically") optimistic, here is what Democrats should say on Sunday to bring all the pressure they can bear to their fellow Democrats in the Senate who may waver in future votes.

Rushing? Um, no.

The standard cry of the obstructionists in this debate is that we are somehow "rushing" health care reform. Attack this with the disdain it deserves.

"Excuse me, did you say rushing? You think we're rushing into health care reform? The effort to bring quality affordable health care to every American started seventy years ago. This effort has been going on currently ever since the 1960s. We've taken months -- sometimes years -- to come up with portions of this bill. We've debated them non-stop for the past six months. We've spent weeks and weeks putting together final legislation. How, exactly, is any of this 'rushing'?"

The wrong side of history

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was actually the one to use this line the best so far in this debate.

"History is calling, in the form of health care reform. History will judge us on what we do in Congress in the next few weeks. We Democrats must make a simple choice: do we want to stand on the right side, or the wrong side of history? Do we want this vote to be a proud achievement for our party, and for all of America, or do we want to be shamed later by voting against such wide-sweeping reform? I know which side of history I want to be remembered on, and that is why I will be voting for health care reform."

Party unity

This is a phrase which got quite a bit of scorn in last year's campaign (see: PUMAs, or "Party Unity, My Ass" soreheads). But it needs to be picked up, dusted off, and given the proud placement it once had.

"The Democratic Party needs to show some unity, for once. Party unity means voting against Republican filibuster attempts in the Senate. I don't care whether Democratic senators vote for or against the bill on the final vote, but I think it is shameful for any Democrat to join the 'Party of Obstructionism' or the 'Party of No' in a procedural vote. It is the coward's way out. The courageous thing to do here is to keep party unity intact, and guarantee an up-or-down vote for the final bill on the Senate floor. Robbing the Senate of that vote, and robbing the people of seeing how you would have voted on the final bill is nothing short of shameful. Party unity used to mean something in Washington, and I hope it means something in the filibuster-killing votes in the Senate in the next few weeks."

Maybe we need new leadership

This one only really works if you are a Democratic senator. Although other Democrats could use it, prefaced with something like "well, you know the scuttlebutt I'm hearing is..." or language to that effect.

"The end of the year is traditionally the time we Democrats caucus to choose our leadership and committee chairmen for the upcoming year. If we can't manage to get a health care bill through a floor vote in the Senate, I and many of my colleagues are going to have to think long and hard about who will be the most effective leaders for the Senate next year. I'm not going to name any names, but there are quite a few of our leaders who seem more interested in causing unconscionable delays to the process rather than exhibiting true leadership. And we will be looking at that quite closely in December."

Want to get re-elected?

These last three are a direct appeal to those mugwumps sitting on a fence on the health care reform debate. Don't appeal to their better interests, appeal to their fear of losing power. It's the best leverage to use in Washington, when you get right down to it.

"Any Democrat thinking of voting against health care reforms should take a good hard look at the opinion polls coming out of their state or district. The American people want health care reform, they expect us to deliver health care reform, and if we are instrumental in blocking health care reform, then they are going to let us know about it. For all the so-called 'moderate' Democrats that I've heard about, when you look at the polls from their own constituents, time after time they show that people want not just health care reform, but actually stronger health care reform than is currently in the bill. These Democrats need to think long and hard about their own political future if they vote against the needs and wishes of their own constituents. Because voting with the Republicans is going to make it a lot harder for you to get re-elected."

Democrats are toast in 2010 without health care reform

In fact, expand this to the whole party.

"Democrats are going to be toast in the midterm 2010 congressional elections if we don't deliver on health care reform. With huge majorities in both houses of Congress, if we can't follow through on the biggest agenda item that got a Democrat elected to the White House, then voters are going to be disgusted with the Democratic Party as a whole come next election day. They are either going to stay home and not vote, or they are going to vote for anyone who isn't an incumbent. Our party's future in Congress hinges in a big way on whether we can pass healthcare reform or not. If we don't, President Obama is going to be a lot weaker next year, and Congress is going to be universally held in contempt by the voters. And a lot of Democrats who are now sitting in office are going to be looking for jobs this time next year."

Democrats deserve to be toast in 2010 without health care reform

This is "part 2" of the previous point.

"And you know what? We Democrats are going to deserve to be toast in the 2010 elections if we can't pass health care reform. We've got the biggest majorities in Congress we've had in a generation, and the voters sent us here for a reason -- to get something done. If we prove that we are incapable of delivering this to the voters who sent us here, then we will absolutely deserve to be stripped of our majorities and our power come next year. I wouldn't blame the voters in the least if they see us fighting amongst ourselves so much, and more worried about our own egos than in producing some legislation to improve people's lives. The voters would be entirely justified in 'throwing the bums out' if we can't manage to get something done. I say this as a warning to all my fellow Democrats, and I sincerely hope they will take it to heart."

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

NEW! Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

Michael Winship: New York's Tough Enough for Terrorist Trials

2009-11-20T15:29:39Z

If you want to royally tick off New Yorkers, try telling us what to do.

That's probably why the police stopped trying to enforce the jaywalking laws here years ago (as opposed to Washington, DC, where I once got one too many tickets and was sent to pedestrian school).

And that's why in the weeks after 9/11, my favorite sign was the one that appeared in the windows of Italian-American neighborhoods near where I live downtown. In bright red, white and blue, it read: "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. You got a problem with that?"

So imagine how pleased many of us were when told by conservatives -- most of them from out-of-town -- that we should be very afraid that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and some of his Al Qaeda henchmen will be put on trial here in New York City, just blocks from the scene of their horrific crime, the World Trade Center.

My own unscientific survey indicates that most of us who live not far from Ground Zero and who were here on 9/11 see it as an appropriate and just venue and aren't afraid that the trial will result in terrorist retribution. And if for some reason it should, we will stand up in righteous, rational indignation, the way we New Yorkers do on an almost daily basis, whether the source of vexation is slight or extreme.

I immediately thought of the moment in Casablanca, when the supercilious Nazi, Major Strasser, asks Humphrey Bogart if he's one of those who can't imagine Germans occupying New York. Bogart replies, "There are certain sections of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try to invade."

The response of Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg was especially offensive. After noting that Mayor Mike Bloomberg had said that New Yorkers are tough and could handle the trial and its attendant commotion, Rep. Shadegg declared on the floor of the House, "Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the judge's wife? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister?"

Rep. Shadegg wound up apologizing, although he insisted the point survived his insensitivity -- "I think it is important to note that this decision involves potential risk to innocent people," he said. But even Rupert Murdoch's right wing New York Post took offense, describing Shadegg's remarks as "the outrageously shameless use of Bloomberg's children as debating points."

Two local politicians who should know better did speak out in opposition to a federal trial here in Manhattan, but to a large degree their motives can be perceived as mercenary. Both men are or may be running for statewide office, and polling outside the city indicates that when it comes to a civilian trial, a sizable majority has bought into the fearmongering.

Former Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who became such a hero in New York as he walked the rubble-strewn streets on 9/11, and who has been bandied about the media as a potential candidate for governor or the US Senate, fell into conservative lockstep and told CBS News, "There is no reason to try them in a civilian court. Others are going to be tried in the military tribunal. And the reality is we've never done this before. And this is something that was pushed very, very hard by the left wing for President Obama to do."

Which is odd, because back in 2006, when a civilian jury sentenced 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui to life without parole, Giuliani told Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball that while he would have preferred the death penalty, the verdict "does show that we have a legal system, that we follow it, that we respect it. And it is exactly what is missing in the parts of the world or a lot of the parts of the world that are breeding terrorism... it does say something pretty remarkable about us, doesn't it?"

What's more, when blind sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahmanm, the architect of the first Trade Center bombing in 1993, was convicted in New York federal court, Giuliani said, "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law... I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

More baffling was New York's Democratic Governor David Paterson, who told The New York Times, "This is not a decision I would have made... We still have been unable to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers." But the governor's popularity is so low and election chances next year so slim he is desperate for the slightest grit of traction. A Siena College poll this week had 69% saying they would vote for someone else. At this point, he probably would allow himself to be pulled between two farm tractors if he thought it might help him carry upstate.

Paterson's position also seemed to puzzle US Attorney General Eric Holder -- a New Yorker, by the way -- who last week announced the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his fellow conspirator here in the city. When told of Paterson's comments, he said to the New York Daily News, "It's a little inconsistent with what he told me last week."

Attorney General Holder, in this instance at least, has been the consistent one, unwavering over the rightness of his decision while admitting that it was a "tough call, and reasonable people can disagree with my conclusion."

On Wednesday he handled four hours of often harshly critical questioning from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and then met with families of 9/11 victims. He countered the opposition's main objections. "We know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years," Holder said, and the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) "establishes strict rules for the use of classified information at trial."

As for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- often identified simply as KSM -- and his track record of rabid histrionics, Holder said that the terrorist "will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions...

"Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I'm not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial -- and no one else needs to be either."

Which seems right to me and my friends who stood on our neighborhood streets and watched those towers burn and fall. You got a problem with that?

##########

Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

Bush DOJ Vets Defend Holder's KSM Decisions

2009-11-20T08:02:41Z

Reasonable minds can disagree about Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 perpetrators in a Manhattan federal court. But some prominent criticisms are exaggerated, and others place undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials.

Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.

Michael Smerconish: KSM: Ready For His Closeup?

2009-11-19T17:56:26Z

United States Senator Arlen Specter -- former chairman and current member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- would like to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's federal court trial be televised.

"I'd be for that. Absolutely," the senator told me one day after questioning Attorney General Eric Holder about the decision to bring KSM to the Southern District of New York. "I would let the world see exactly what went on -- how calculating, how ruthless, how brutal they were, how devoid of any humanity. Contrasted with the decorum of federal court, where they are accorded rights, where they are treated with dignity."

At the outset of our conversation, Specter said that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were perpetrated on American soil where legal tradition prescribes that those criminals be prosecuted here. A worldwide audience will be reminded of the horrific details of those events, Specter said, while those "who are not involved one way or another who are watching what we do with Guantanamo, watching what we do in our trials, will say, "You've got to hand it to the Americans. They're giving them all those rights and they're willing to use their values and not to be intimidated and I like them.'"

Pennsylvania's longest serving U.S. senator knows the implications of what he said. The man cut his political teeth more than four decades ago as Philadelphia's hard charging district attorney -- a Republican during a watershed Democratic era. As a young lawyer he was tapped to work on the Warren Commission. No doubt he was thinking of the Nuremberg trials when he invoked the "American values" and the "great many safeguards" the country will extend "to these blaggards."

He's also well aware of the arguments that support the current prohibition of cameras in federal criminal trials. Though the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have recently approved legislation that would allow cameras in federal courtrooms, neither was brought up for a full vote.

Specter said his support for broadcasting the proceedings stems from a prosecutorial belief that trying KSM in a federal civilian court is the right decision. The evidence is sufficient, he told me, as will be the security measures taken.

The "dominant factor" in his mind will be the contrast between America and the "bloody, ruthless, murderous terrorists" seated in a court that has never acquitted an alleged terrorist.

"The war against terrorism is going to be won in the minds and hearts of men. It is a battle of democracy versus fundamentalism, and by using our regular judicial system, we are showing the world the superiority of our democratic principles and our values," he said.

What about the men and women defending those principles in Afghanistan and Iraq? Senator Specter told me we're "fortifying them" by instilling a "confidence that they're defending a system of values that they can be proud of."

"When they're fighting terrorists wherever they might be, those terrorists are not totally stupid. I think that there are some who may well be ashamed and who may well be persuaded by the superiority of the way we're handling" terror trials in domestic courtrooms.

Not that Specter believes that every suspected terrorist needs to be flown to the U.S. to make that point. To the contrary, He called the objections of those who envision American soldiers reading Miranda rights to Osama bin Laden unfounded. "If you have battlefield conduct, that preeminently qualifies for the commission. And where you have the blowing up of the ship in Yemen -- our Naval ship in Yemen -- there's been a decision to move ahead with the commission. So there is a good distinction which justifies what we're doing here and doesn't tie us down in future matters," he said.

Nor does he tolerate any confusion between his desire for due process with a refusal to mete punishment. Lest his critics think he has gone soft on terrorism, consider his response to concerns that KSM's trial could turn into a circus. "If he turns it into a spectacle, he can be shackled." Or removed from the courtroom and forced to watch on closed circuit TV. "We've got answers to all of those issues as a result of centuries of judicial procedure," he said.

Adam Hanft: Quakers and Shakers: Giuliani and Paterson Unlikely Bedfellows in the Axis of Anxiety

2009-11-19T14:50:35Z

Tough-guy enforcer Rudy Giuliani, and touchy-feely David Paterson are in unlikely and violent agreement: making Manhattan Ground Zero for the Khalid Sheik Mohammed trial is a very bad idea.

As the Times put it, "Giuliani said the trial would give 'an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists' and pose risks to New York. 'Anyone that tells you this doesn't create additional security problems, of course, isn't telling you the truth.'"

Now wait a minute. Wasn't it Giuliani and President Bush who encouraged us to go shopping on September 12th, who said that if we live our lives in fear, it will mean the terrorists have won? Didn't he argue that any fundamental change in our behavior would be nothing less than a wimpy concession to our fierce enemies?

Is it merely that the ex-mayor is looking to make political hay out of this, or is he honestly convinced that trying the "acknowledged mastermind" of September 11th less than a mile from the scene of the tragedy will widen our exposure? I'm no expert on the psychological motivations of terrorists, but I find it hard to believe that there's a guy in an Al Qaeda training camp in Waziristan saying "Well, if they tried the guy in Gitmo I wouldn't even consider blowing myself up on the V train, but now that the trial is in New York, I'm going to take out 14th Street."

New York City is already so much the locus of evil -- with streets overrun by Zionists, gays and women in cleavage-baring garb -- that no further damnation is required to make us destruction-worthy.

And here's the other intellectually unsustainable part of the Giuliani argument. If he is so concerned with not pissing off terrorists, then why doesn't he support the plan to try Sheik Mohammed as a civilian? After all, a military trial mitigates the defendant's rights, and gives the prosecution advantages it doesn't have in a civilian court. So if Giuliani's mission is to make New York safer, he should be supporting Eric Holder's decision to bring this trial to the Southern District where the Sheik Mohammed will have a "fairer" trial before the world.

Governor Paterson's argument appears to be less about the trial putting New York City in the global terrorism crosshairs, and more about the emotional consequences. He sounded less like a chief executive and more like chief shrink earlier this week:

"This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country."

Thomas Kean, who was chairman of the 9/11 Commission, objects for a different reason.

"I worry a little bit about the decision, because it's what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants... he wants to be a martyr, so I think he's going to use the trial as propaganda ... and I think he wants to be Che Guevara or something like that. He's going to try to be a hero to the Muslim world."

This doesn't make any sense to me. It's going to be a sensational trial, with unprecedented media attention no matter where in the world it's held. Mohammed will become a martyr because he's likely to get the death penalty; the venue for that sentence is incidental to his execution.

What does the public think? Well, in reporting on a recent poll the Times headlined their story "Many New Yorkers say 9/11 Trial A Security Risk" and began the article "Forty percent of New Yorkers believe the trial of accused September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed makes an attack on the city more likely ... "

That headline and lede combination are misleading; they could have headlined the story "Majority of New Yorkers Believe the 9/11 Trial Will Not Put City In Danger," which would have triggered a completely different reaction among readers.

I think the Obama administration made an appropriate and gutsy choice. Sure there will be security burdens on the city, but both Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly are supportive of the decision. And I can actually imagine a scenario where we'll be safer than we would have been if the trial were held elsewhere. In that case, our exposure as a symbolic target would still be enormous, but we would be in the same amped-up state of vigilance.

Yes, the trial will be traumatic to some and cathartic to others. That's why news interviews with families of the victims show a wide range of opinion; it's impossible to secure moral and emotional unanimity on a decision that will blast open deep wounds and activate the irremediable pain of loss.

And yes, there's a risk that the trial will deteriorate into a more circusy spectacle in New York than it would otherwise devolve. But for me, this is the right place, the best place, and in a real way the only place for the government to make its case. To show the world that we are capable of justice and fairness in the most emotionally-charged location the trial could possibly be held in.

It takes a kind of courage to hold the proceedings here, a courage drawn from the same deep well of toughness and resiliency that New Yorkers showed the world during those dark days themselves.

And bringing back those horrific memories has its heuristic benefits. New York is a city that forgets fast and remembers forward. Already, we've stopped wondering if Wall Street can survive and started wondering how much this year's bonuses will plump up the co-op market. Stopping us in our tracks is a lesson that our hard hearts need.

Allison Kilkenny: Holder Acts Like a Patriot As Republicans Continue to Shriek in Terror

2009-11-19T09:11:24Z

The swift regression of the Republicans from an oppositional political party into a mob of screaming infants during the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial preliminaries has been well documented by Salon's Glenn Greenwald.

The right's typical accusations of "traitor!!" and "Al-Qaeda lover!!11" -- directed at anyone attempting to defend the civil liberties that Habeas corpus grants to every human being accused of a crime in the United States -- are neither new or surprising, but Greenwald's dismantling of these juvenile attacks is great and should be read in their entirety.

Today, the New York Times brings us the latest in the de-evolution of the Republicans. When contrasted with the recent statements by Attorney General Eric Holder, the right really does look like a bunch of sniveling cowards afraid of being tempted by the siren call of a Jihadist. For example, here is what Holder said before before the Senate Judiciary Committee

We need not cower in the face of this enemy...Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is ready, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

Contrast that with Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican, who said

Nuh-uh!
It's not cowering in fear of terrorists to decide the best way for this case to be tried is to be tried by a military commission...I think there are clear advantages to trying cases by military as opposed to what can become a spectacle of a trial, with high-paid defense lawyers and others focused on using that as a forum.

"The spectacle of a trial" thing is the card the Republicans always play. Translated, it means they think so little of Americans' patriotism (and after eight years of Bush, who can blame them?) that the second KSM launches into a terroristy diatribe, American men will run out to acquire the necessary chemicals to build dirty bombs, while the women fashion burkas out of the courtroom's drapes.

That's pretty insulting to Americans, and it would be downright offensive to Thomas Paine, as Greenwald points out. In his 1790 Dissertations on First Principles of Government, Paine wrote

An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Basically, even the accused bad guys deserve a trial. Protecting the liberties of the ideological opposition is one of the good core American values Republicans don't like to acknowledge anymore -- along with much of the Constitution. Compare the above statement from one of the original patriots with this remark by Holder

What we are doing is a national responsibility

and

I'm not scared of what Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has to say at trial...And no one else needs to be afraid either. I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is.

Which man do you think Paine would embrace as a friend to democracy, and which do you think he would punch in his little weasel Alabamian face?

Just in case the stark difference between Holder and the Republicans' responses to the KSM trial wasn't clear enough, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) rushed in at the last moment to say something stupid

I don't know how you can make a statement that failure to convict is not an option, when you've got juries in this country...I think a lot of Americans thought O.J. Simpson ought to be convicted of murder, rather than being in jail for what he's in jail for now. It seemed to me ludicrous.

Oh, he went there. That's an O.J. Simpson reference, folks. In 2009. And the adults were talking about an entirely separate trial involving an accused terrorist. Yet, Grassley couldn't help himself and blurted out the last time some colored fellow made him really mad. To be fair, I'm sure Grassley has so little exposure to minorities that the O.J. Simpson trial probably was his last encounter with a person of color.

Cross-posted from Allison Kilkenny's blog. Also available on Facebook and Twitter.

Stephen Paul Smith: The Forgotten Defendant of Guantanamo

2009-11-18T18:23:44Z

Prosecutors, defense counsel, a military judge, several journalists and a handful of non-governmental organization observers like myself convened at Guantanamo Bay this week for what was to be the first hearing for a Guantanamo defendant under the Obama administration's "new and improved" military commissions.

The hearing came about a month after Congress passed legislation to improve the widely discredited military commissions, and just a few days after US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that five detainees, including the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would be sent to US federal court for trial.

But if the administration was hoping this hearing might make the case that the new and improved military commissions are a legitimate forum to try detainees, they could not have been pleased with today's proceedings.

The detainee whose hearing took place today in the hilltop courthouse overlooking Guantanamo Bay was Mohammad Kamin, an Afghan who has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2004. Although he was one of 10 detainees facing charges before the military commissions when President Obama was sworn into office, his name was not among those mentioned by Attorney General Holder last week.

It seems the Justice Department, in making its announcement, failed to decide the fate of the Kamin case. And the result was the usual chaos and confusion that has plagued the military commissions since their inception.

Given no guidance, the lawyers and commission officials had little choice but to continue with Kamin's hearing, debating the merits of the case in a legal Neverland.

Kamin himself didn't show up for the hearing. As he had done throughout the proceedings against him, he boycotted. The one time he appeared, for his arraignment in May 2008, he was forcefully extracted from his cell. When he was informed this morning of today's hearing, he reportedly placed earplugs in his ears, pulled a blanket over his head, and waved away the officials.

And then there are the charges.

Kamin is charged with "material support for terrorism." Yet Jeh Johnson, General Counsel for the Department of Defense, stated during a Senate hearing in July that "material support for terrorism" is not an offense under the laws of war, and therefore should not be prosecuted by military commission. The Military Commissions Act of 2009, which was signed into law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act on October 28, retained the offense despite Johnson's conclusion.

Kamin's appointed defense counsel, Lt. Cmdr. Richard Federico, also challenged the current jurisdiction of the military commissions to try Kamin. "If there is a conviction, it would likely be overturned on appeal," he said. Under the previous 2006 military commissions statute, Kamin was deemed an "unlawful enemy combatant." But the new language only authorizes the prosecution of "alien unprivileged belligerents." Since the government has not alleged that Kamin fits the new category, it is not clear the government has the authority to bring the case to trial.

Participants in the hearing operated without the benefit of a new rules manual, no doubt adding to the fog which envelopes the commissions' procedural guidelines. Reportedly, the Department of Defense has begun work on such a manual, but the date for publication is still unknown. In spite of the murky legal terrain, defense counsel attacked the slow pace at which the government has released internal memos, contact information for witnesses, and unaccounted for interrogation logs. "We are advocates," said Lt. Cmdr. Federico. "We just want the opportunity to engage with these issues."

Air Force Judge Thomas Cumbie, who voiced his frustration with the ongoing delays in the release of documents, described the mantra of the government as "It's in the mail, and it will be there soon." Adding: "And then it doesn't happen."

To date, government prosecutors in the military commissions have successfully litigated only three cases. All three defendants - David Hicks, Salim Hamdan, and Ali Hamza al Bahlul - were convicted of material support for terrorism. In the first two cases it was the only offense for which they were convicted, and both Hamdan's and al Bahlul's convictions are on appeal to the ad hoc Court of Military Commissions Review. It is easy to understand why the government would be hesitant to throw out the charge.

The recent changes to the military commissions are improvements over the previous incarnation, which itself was enacted after the Supreme Court ruled that President Bush's military commissions violated US law. They limit coerced or hearsay evidence and provide greater equity in resources to the defense counsel. However, as illustrated by today's hearing, the 2009 Military Commissions Act still falls short of the due process guarantees of the federal courts or courts martial. The legal standards, procedural rules, and participants remain makeshift and unstable. Prosecutors, defense counsel, and even the judges themselves stumble to make sense of a system without precedent.

The commissions were created by the Bush administration to circumvent legal protections. Under Obama, the underlying purpose remains the same. The new commissions offer little hope for swift and decisive justice in the Kamin case or any other.

The Chances That Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Will Be Released From Custody After His Trial Equal Zero

2009-11-18T14:53:32Z

Earlier today, Sam Stein reported on Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), taking a new approach to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed terror-trial fearmongering by raising the specter of O.J. Simpson. I gather that what Grassley wanted to convey was an scenario in which the ghost of Johnnie Cochran gets KSM acquitted, because of racism, and then the terrorist is set free, to become some sort of golf-course-haunting pariah.

Presumably, he'll get Judith Regan fired again from Harper Collins and will only end up in jail at last after he tries to jack some guy in Vegas in an effort to get back some of his terrorist memorabilia. Maybe there will even be a cross-country Ford Bronco chase, with Falcon Heene! If this scenario develops, I promise to liveblog the whole thing, after which I will surely win all the Pulitzers.

But! Is it at all plausible to suggest that KSM is going to come away from his upcoming trial acquitted on these charges, to walk among us as a free man? As it turns out, no! Or, as Adam Serwer of the American Prospect puts it, "No. Not Ever." That's because the "same legal rationale that could have been used to hold him indefinitely will be used to hold him in case of an acquittal." And beyond that, there are further options:

"They have three sources of authority that would allow him to detain [KSM], one of which is the [Authorization to Use Military Force], because it directly cites the 9/11 attacks in its language -- the people who planned the 9/11 attacks are combatants and are detainable under the AUMF," explains Ken Gude, a human-rights expert at the Center for American Progress. "Under the .000001 chance that they are acquitted, they will have that authority to detain them."

The attorney general could detain him as an "international terrorist" indefinitely, in renewable six-month periods, based on a provision in the PATRIOT Act. And if things really get desperate, they could detain him as someone who is in the United States illegally, pending deportation. Since no country is going to take a mass murdering terrorist, that detention will essentially be indefinite.

On the prospect of KSM being released, Gude shrugs, "It isn't even in the realm of possibility."

Of course, Serwer is correct to point out the dark side to all of this: "That may make some of us feel safer, but it's also part of the reason why the ACLU's Jonathan Hafetz argues that U.S. detention policy is 'essentially lawless.'"

But look: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not going to be the next O.J., he's not going to get acquitted and end up starting a new life working for some Brooklyn food co-op, and he's not going to be toddling down to Mexico to start a new life running chartered fishing trips with Andy Dufresne. So, Chuck Grassley should feel free to shut up and stop pretending otherwise.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Paul Helmke: Virginia Tech Survivor With Hidden Camera Films Dangerous Gun Sales at Gun Shows

2009-11-18T11:50:44Z

Should someone who wants to buy a military-style assault weapon be required to undergo a criminal background check?

In America they don't have to.

In fact, felons, gangsters, wife-beaters, and the dangerously mentally ill can buy as many military-style assault weapons, semi-automatic pistols and other firearms as they can carry, with no questions asked.

They just have to know where to go.

It's no secret. There are thousands of gun shows in 43 states that don't require Brady criminal background checks for all gun show sales.

Why do criminals and traffickers go to gun shows? As the bank robber Willie Sutton might have put it, "Because that's where the guns are."

Our weak gun laws make it lethally simple for unlicensed gun vendors to sell as many firearms as they can to whomever they can, cash and carry.

Colin Goddard proved it. Colin survived being shot four times at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. After learning more about our nearly non-existent laws restricting access to guns, he took it upon himself to document how easy we make it for dangerous people to get guns in this country.

Watch Colin's story here:

This past summer, Colin went to gun shows across America in Minnesota, Ohio, Texas and his home state of Virginia. Equipped with a hidden camera and accompanied by a resident of each state he visited, Colin filmed how recklessly -- even callously -- unlicensed gun sellers sold military-style assault weapons and semi-automatic pistols with no criminal background check, and without even requiring identification.

Currently, the Brady Law, requiring criminal background checks on gun buyers, applies only to federally licensed gun dealers. A loophole in the law allows the kind of gun sales that Colin was able to document in the video below: unlicensed gun sellers unloading their guns to anyone who has the cash.

Watch what Colin found here:

One gun show seller in Ohio sold an AK-47 military-style assault rifle to Colin's associate, even after he said he didn't have identification with him. After taking his cash, the gun seller told him, "Have fun with it."

Another gun seller in Minnesota sold a semiautomatic pistol with no questions asked. In fact, he clearly knew the underhanded nature of his business when he told Colin and his associate with a laugh: "OK, there's no tax. There's no paperwork. That's worth something." This seller clearly didn't care who his gun buyers were, anticipating that some of them will actually pay a premium to avoid a criminal background check altogether.

A gun seller in Virginia sold Colin a rifle with a high-capacity ammunition magazine and was only concerned about the sale price. He didn't ask Colin a single question about his background, didn't ask to see any identification, and didn't ask why he wanted the weapon.

The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, fights to keep these sales legal. Due to their lobbying, any felon can walk into one of approximately 5,000 gun shows in 43 states that do not require criminal background checks at gun shows, and buy whatever weapon he wants from these unlicensed gun sellers.

America's weak gun laws practically invite dangerous people to arm themselves.

You can help can change this by joining us in telling Congress to stand up to the gun lobby and require all gun buyers at gun shows to undergo a Brady criminal background check.

We make it too easy for dangerous people to get guns in this country. Tell Congress to close "the gun show loophole."

Please go to www.bradycampaign.org and sign our petition today.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Grassley To Holder: Remember O.J. Simpson Before Trying KSM

2009-11-18T11:31:10Z

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) offered a stern warning for Eric Holder on Wednesday when addressing the attorney general's confidence that he would get a conviction in civilian court for 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Remember O.J. Simpson.

The Iowa Republican, speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Holder was testifying, raised the specter of a sympathetic jury letting KSM off on some sort of judicial technicality. To drive the point home, he recalled what happened roughly 15 years ago with the "Juice".

"I don't know how you can make a statement that failure to convict is not an option, when you have got juries in this country," said Grassley. "I think a lot of Americans thought O.J. Simpson ought to have been convicted for murder rather than be in jail for what he is jail for now... I'm a farmer not a lawyer but I just want to make that observation."

A somewhat bemused Judiciary Committee Chair, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), interrupted Grassley to allow Holder to respond.

"Maybe I should have been more expansive in response to the question," he said. "Certainly we have thought, I have thought, about that possibility and one of the things this administration has consistently said, in fact, Congress has passed legislation, that would not allow for the release into this country of anybody who is deemed dangerous."

"So if, if, there were the possibility that a trial was not successful that would not mean they would be released into our country," Holder added. "But again I want to emphasize that I'm confident we will be successful in the trial of these matters."

Indeed, the case against KSM would seem airtight for the Justice Department or else they would never have brought him to trial in New York. The question is: can DOJ get guilty verdicts for other detainees considering the issues that will undoubtedly arise around the permissibility of testimony and evidence?

Obama: Professed 9/11 Mastermind Will Be Convicted

2009-11-18T08:15:12Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: "Failure is not an option."

Even if a terror trial suspect were acquitted, Holder said, he would not be released in the United States.

Feds Launch Anti-Fraud Crackdown

2009-11-17T19:06:23Z

The Obama administration launched a renewed push Tuesday to prosecute financial crimes and stop financial fraud.

Updating a seven-year-old, post-Enron task force first formed under former President George W. Bush, this new effort will go after financial crimes relating to the current crisis and recovery efforts. The task force is a collection of some 20-odd federal agencies and departments like the Department of Justice, Treasury, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve, among others.

The goal is to bring them together in hopes of greater cooperation and better overall performance.

One change from the Enron-inspired effort will be a focus on problems that are "more systemic," according to a Justice Department spokesperson. The collective will go after "bigger picture, interlocking issues."

The new effort is bringing together bank regulators, for example, with criminal prosecutors: the regulators know things that the prosecutors don't. Lending fraud is easier to catch when you're familiar with banking and lending issues. So there will be a lot of information sharing and training to help prosecutors get up to speed.

"We face unprecedented challenges in responding to the financial crisis that has gripped our economy for the past year. Mortgage, securities, and corporate fraud schemes have eroded the public's confidence in the nation's financial markets and have led to a growing sentiment that Wall Street does not play by the same rules as Main Street," said Attorney General Eric Holder.

Holder said the FBI is already investigating more than 2,400 mortgage fraud cases, up almost 400 percent from five years ago. The agency has more than doubled the number of agents investigating mortgage scams, he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner added that the Treasury Department has been investigating home loan modification scams for months. In fact, a recent report by MortgageDaily.com shows that federal and state regulators are increasingly going after loan mod scammers with aggressive lawsuits.

This updated task force particularly will focus on:

*Mortgage fraud -- from the simplest of "flip" schemes to systematic lending fraud in the nationwide housing market;

*Securities fraud -- including traditional insider trading, Ponzi schemes, and misrepresentations to investors;
*Recovery Act and rescue fraud -- we will ensure that the taxpayers' investment in America's economic recovery is not siphoned away by a dishonest few; and,
*Discrimination -- this Task Force will work to ensure that the financial markets work for all Americans, and that no one is unfairly targeted based on impermissible characteristics.

"Too often in the past, even with dedicated people at the federal and state level trying to provide strong protections, resources around enforcement were not mobilized until extensive damage had already been done," Geithner said today. "Remember, it took federal banking agencies until June 2007 to reach a consensus on supervisory guidance that imposed even general standards on subprime mortgages. By then it was too late."

Andy Borowitz: Detainees Moved to DMV; Could Be Held There 'Indefinitely'

2009-11-17T12:58:50Z

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - In a plan that would solve the thorny problem of where to transfer the detainees currently held at Guantanamo, Attorney General Eric Holder said today that the enemy combatants would be transferred immediately to a Department of Motor Vehicles office in Manhattan.

While Mr. Holder did not indicate how long the detainees might be held there, he did say that the DMV "is capable of detaining them indefinitely."

But the Attorney General's plan may have already hit a roadblock as human rights organizations have howled in protest at the move.

"Detaining prisoners at the Department of Motor Vehicles, especially in Manhattan, is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions," said a spokesperson for Amnesty International.

Elsewhere, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced that her audiobook would be read by Barney the Dinosaur. More here.

Mark Green: Holder's Terror Decision Was His -- the De-Politicization of Justice

2009-11-17T09:34:48Z

Beyond the merits of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in federal criminal court in Manhattan is the fact that it was his decision. When I asked him about this last night at an event for the Brennan Center for Legal Justice, he candidly said, "that happens to be true. We informed the president while he was on Air Force One enroute to Asia."

Which is what the Founders expected but not the way Nixon and Bush 43 operated.

The 1789 Federal Judiciary Act created the position of Attorney General, who would be appointed by the president and be "a meet [fitting] person learned in the law." The idea was that he (at that time) would not be a crony or pure partisan but a person who would objectively advise on and enforce the laws. The next two centuries saw AGs in the political mold like Mitchell Palmer in the Twenties and Robert F. Kennedy in the early Sixties, as well as Edward Levi, Gerald Ford's Attorney General, a former president of the University of Chicago and its law school dean.

Then came John Mitchell, Richard Nixon's law partner and campaign counsel. It was under instructions from the Nixon White House that the antitrust case against ITT was dropped after the conglomerate made a $400,000 contribution to the 1972 Republican National Convention. (Tapes caught Nixon saying, "I want something clearly understood, and, if it's not understood, McLaren's ass [head of the Antirust Division] is to be out of there within one hour. The ITT thing -- stay the hell out of it. Is that clear? That's an order...I do not want McLaren to run around prosecuting people, raising hell about conglomerates.")

And, of course, Archibald Cox was fired as Watergate special prosecutor when he appeared to be doing his job too well.

Bush 43 adhered more to the Nixon than the Ford model. Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzalez grossly politicized Justice by weakly settling a major tobacco case leading to resignations, by refusing to enforce the environmental and civil rights laws, by rejecting qualified lawyers to civil service jobs because they were Democrats (remember Monica Goodling's admission that they had "crossed the line" and broken the law), and by ordering the firing of U. S. Attorneys who wouldn't toe the White House line on suing people for "voter fraud."

The decision whether to try KSM in a civilian court or a military tribunal, with more secrecy and fewer due process protections, was not an easy one. When announced, the Anti-Terrorist Trio of Rudy Giuliani and Representatives Peter King and Peter Hoekstra predictably said that the sky was falling. Giuliani sarcastically noted that KSM wanted the trial in NYC and "since when are we in the business of granting the wishes of terrorists?" Of course, when the so-called 20th hijacker was previously tried and convicted in federal court, he had lauded that case and result; and since KSM has said that wants to be executed so he could martyr himself to his Islamic war on America, would Giuliani apply his own logic and agree that he shouldn't be "granted his wish" and therefore not be executed after a guilty verdict? (Of course, we should all be grateful that America's Mayor didn't charge a royalty because Holder had referred to "9/11".)

There were indeed difficult and competing arguments about the likelihood of convictions, added risks to New York City, the sentiments of victims' families, the use of evidence after waterboarding, and allowing KSM to exploit his case in open court to propagandize to the world. On the other side, there was the message to the world that America was bigger and better than any murdering terrorist and would adhere to the rule of law rather than a regime of torture and Gitmo.

But even though the choice of trial venue clearly had national and international political and security implications, The Decider ended up being precisely who it should be -- the Attorney General of the United States based on his judgment of law and evidence.

A prosecutor made the decision and took the heat. Unlike Nixon and Bush 43, the person upholding the "original intent" of our Founders -- the de-politicization of law enforcement -- was Eric Holder.

Guantanamo Detainees: Colorado Officials Say They Haven't Been Contacted About Housing Inmates

2009-11-16T17:39:54Z

DENVER — Colorado officials say they haven't been contacted by the federal government regarding housing detainees from Guantanamo Bay in the state.

Federal officials on Monday toured an empty prison in Illinois under consideration to house the detainees. Colorado's Supermax federal prison in Florence has also been mentioned as another possible site.

Craig Alan Silverman: If This Is War, What Are We Doing?

2009-11-16T16:50:05Z

Political correctness can be a killer. Normally, "correct" means "truth." Add in politics and the truth gets twisted. Consider the askew analytical abilities of some political and media leaders when it comes to determining if Major Nidal Hasan's motivation was Jihad. Smart journalists write detailed and "balanced" analyses yet assiduously avoid that Hasan proclaimed "Alahu Akbar" before and during his massacre.

Political correctness can and often does destroy criminal prosecutions. You cannot ever take a criminal conviction for granted. Few cases are so strong that an inept prosecutor cannot lose it. Eric Holder may be a politically correct and inept prosecutor given his decision last week to try five alleged members of al Qaeda hierarchy in a federal court in New York City.

Do you remember when LA DA Gil Garcetti unilaterally moved the OJ trial from Santa Monica to downtown Los Angeles? The elected (political) prosecutor was playing politics. In the words of Dr. Phil, (another PC fella) how did that work out for ya?

I voted for Barack Obama. I did not vote for AG Eric Holder. According to the New York Times' David Brooks, Holder made this fateful decision without input from the President. Are you kidding me? While the AG is supposed to be politically independent, this decision will likely prove terrible for Barack Obama and America.

Don't get me wrong. I love the American court system. It is among the best and fairest on Earth. However, it has flaws which we are willing to endure and embrace in a normal criminal case. We let lots of guilty people go free to avoid convicting an innocent person. Evidence obtained unfairly is tossed out even if it is accurate. The prosecution bears the heavy burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant starts off with a presumption of innocence.

Our court system provides an abundance of due process; all designed to make sure the proceeding is as fair as possible. You can more than double the due process when the death penalty is involved. We appropriately bend over backwards not to execute without fairness. What does fairness have to do with fighting a war? Are we at war or not?

All is fair in love and war. So are we fighting a war here? Maybe not "all" is fair, but we have spent the last eight years figuring out just how much fairness needs to be provided. The United States Supreme Court several times rebuked and refined the procedures undertaken by the Bush/Cheney Justice Department. In the end, Congress came up with the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 which is an option that is available for the Obama administration (in 2006, then-Senator Obama said he wanted a full military trial for KSM).

These military tribunals have been specifically designed for non-citizen enemy combatants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). KSM stands accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attack which killed approximately 3,000 people in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania. He did so in furtherance of an al Qaeda plot and conspiracy wherein they long before declared war on the United States of America.

When Eric Holder announced that KSM and other top level al Qaeda 9/11 plotters are going to be tried in New York City and the death penalty sought, he makes clear his opinion that KSM perpetrated these murders -- this act of war. No responsible prosecutors seek the death penalty if they think there is a chance that the defendant is innocent.

So here we have Eric Holder who must fully believe that KSM plotted and perpetrated this atrocity. Holder should also know that the government's easier path toward execution is through an authorized military tribunal, and yet he has chosen the extraordinarily risky, expensive and dangerous path of seeking the death penalty at a jury trial in New York. This is political correctness run amok.

Has Eric Holder ever prosecuted a death penalty case? I have and if you want a case that never dies, do a death penalty case and get a jury verdict in your favor. Every conceivable roadblock will be thrown in your path. There are lots of criminal defense attorneys who despise the death penalty and will oppose it under all circumstances with every fiber of their being.

Do you know how many complicated legal issues are going to arise in these death penalty trials? First, you have the suppression issues and the discussion of waterboarding and whatever the heck else they did to KSM and the others.

The government has already conceded this was torture and by any American jurisprudential standard, the fruits of that poisonous tree are going to have to be thrown out. Anything in KSM's coerced and unconstitutionally obtained statements which might have led to the discovery of other evidence may be considered fruit of the poisonous tree.

Remember when they gave Colonel Ollie North and Admiral John Poindexter immunity to testify in front of Congress? It was said that such immunity would not jeopardize the upcoming felony trials of these Iran-Contra conspirators. After all, the government had a good case without need for hearing more. But then they heard more. Ultimately, the federal appellate court decided, as it so often does, that it is impossible to separate out the tainted evidence from the good evidence and that is why Ollie North and John Poindexter had their felony convictions thrown out on appeal.

Can you imagine the pre-trial publicity issues surrounding this case? Do you not expect a Change of Venue Motion to be vigorously litigated? Do you really think New Yorkers can set aside their opinion about 9/11 and the publicity they have heard about KSM and the others? How many jurors will want to serve on a case like this?

What about the composition of the grand jury and the trial jury? What happens if the arrays for the juries do not include a sufficient number of people of color or Muslims? What happens if the prosecutor seeks to exclude a person of color or Muslim descent from the jury? Lots of cases get overturned on appeal for just such reasons.

Does Eric Holder really even want or support the death penalty? When was the last time anybody got the death penalty in a courtroom in New York City? When was the last time a death penalty was carried out in New York? 1963! And almost the last before that, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg in 1953! Virginians have a recent history of imposing and carrying out death penalties. Why is this case not in Virginia where so many died at the Pentagon on 9/11?

Every move that the government makes in a death penalty trial will be scrutinized and second guessed. Talented and committed defense attorneys will volunteer their services because they like publicity and they hate the death penalty. These attorneys will be making statements themselves, or through surrogates, to the media while the government cannot ethically respond.

What about the feelings of the victims' families and friends? Did anybody talk to Dr. Judea Pearl whose son, Danny Pearl, was allegedly decapitated by KSM? Isn't that a question you wanted to ask the victim's family before you publicly announce you are giving the alleged killer rights you do not have to and seeking a death penalty?

How many victims' family and friends who are just starting to put their lives they back together again will have to put things on hold as they endure the years and years of litigation that will necessarily dominate their attention? Where is the compassion and consideration for the victims? How many of them were consulted before Holder's announcement? Was more weight given to world opinion than victims' rights? And in the end, will world opinion really benefit the United States when all of this is over?

I doubt it. America will be put on trial. Lots of people dislike America and the death penalty. Courtroom battles are like athletic competitions. There is a lot of second guessing. Anything can happen. Fans of one side are always going to find something to criticize in the way the game was played and refereed.

This forum in New York appears to be exactly what KSM wanted. This al Qaeda demon, educated in North Carolina colleges, asked upon his capture to have a lawyer and to be taken to New York. Eric Holder just granted his wish.

Will this be a forum for KSM and the others to make widely disseminated Jihadi statements? As Sarah Palin would say, you betcha. During the trial on the merits, a judge could conceivably stop KSM and the others from rambling on the witness stand, but if and when it ever gets to the sentencing phase, a defendant's right of elocution is absolute. A death penalty defendant has a right to say nearly anything and everything he wants before being sentenced.

How much will this cost? The security, the transportation costs, paying for the defendant's legal teams, and the appeals suggest at least hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. Do you know how many billable hours there are going to be if this whole death penalty situation plays out? Do you how many trees are going to be killed for the paperwork alone? You don't want to know.

If these trials go off without a hitch, then America could look good to the rest of the world as we demonstrate our efficient and fair legal process.

But there will be hitches. It is never efficient in modern day America when the death penalty is sought and obtained. Unless the defendant decides he wants to die and convinces his lawyers to back off, a death penalty case will routinely take more than a decade between conviction and execution.

This is a terrible decision by Attorney General Eric Holder. President Barack Obama needs to do something about it.

Julie Menin: Lower Manhattan is the Proper Place to Try Khalid Sheikh Mohmammed

2009-11-15T22:51:46Z

My phone started ringing within minutes of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Lower Manhattan, just blocks away from Ground Zero. I have represented the Lower Manhattan district for over four years as Chairperson of Community Board 1 and sit on several of the government boards that govern downtown Manhattan. People in the community called me upon hearing the news, some saying it is fitting that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be brought to justice in the community that he attacked, while others feared security risks of the impending trial. The announcement led to a torrential outpouring of emotion and viewpoints, which Republican officials were quick to pounce on and politicize.

Personally, and I stress I speak for myself here, I think it is imperative and absolutely appropriate that Mr. Mohammed be tried in the shadow of the World Trade Center site. In my view, it should indeed be a jury of New Yorkers, the community who was most adversely impacted by the horrific events of September 11th, who decide Mr. Mohammed's fate. The people outside of the court room are entitled to have the trial in their community, the place of the attack, just as Mr. Mohammed is entitled to a fair trial in the court room. Federal trials are open to the public and this will then be an opportunity for family members, the community and the public as a whole to try to get closure on a horrifying event. Some defense attorneys have suggested that Lower Manhattan will not afford him a fair trial, as the jury pool is tainted. But what community was not impacted by 9-11? What constitutes fairness will be a well run jury selection process and voire dire.

Another reason the trial should absolutely be held in federal court in Lower Manhattan is for the rule of law to be upheld. Holder's announcement brought an end to a dishonorable chapter in our nation's history when the Bush Administration in 2006 set up special military tribunals with their own standards of evidentiary rules that were significantly looser than those required in a criminal trial in federal court. Most disturbingly, no sooner did Holder make his announcement, then we quickly saw Republican officials jump to condemn the decision and to urge a return to the secret military tribunals.

"Classified information can be inadvertently leaked" intoned Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and then further ominously warned: "And our communities will be potential targets for attack." McConnell and others capitalized on the politics of fear to scare Americans into believing that we must accept these secret military tribunals as the only venue. Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman quickly took to the Fox news airwaves to deride Holder's decision. Don't McConnell, Cheney and Lieberman remember that it was a New York federal court who convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Since the September 11th attacks, in fact, 195 terrorists have been tried and convicted in the federal justice system. Not one of these convicted individuals has ever escaped from the supermax federal prisons. Under Bush's much vaunted military tribunal system, only 3 cases have commenced with none of them resulting in a conviction.

Most disconcerting, however, is the absolute disregard for the rule of law that these special tribunals had. We would have had justice served years ago for the families of the 9/11 victims, for the community that was attacked, and for our nation as a whole, if the Bush Administration had handled Mr. Mohammed and other detainees in the proper way from the beginning. After years of delaying a proper trial, we now finally have the opportunity to bring closure to the horrific events of September 11th.

A final reason that it is imperative that the venue be in federal court is so we can have a full public airing of the methods of interrogation that were utilized. Mr. Mohammed was the subject of 183 instances of waterboarding, or simulated drowning. Why should that information about waterboarding and other methods of enhanced interrogation be locked away in a secret tribunal rather than see the light of the day that a public trial in federal court will afford. We once and for all need to shed light on the fact that a means of torture was used, and used repeatedly. We have to remember that the United States after World War II, in the Tokyo Trials, tried and convicted, and indeed hung, Japanese soldiers who had waterboarded American POW's. It is also instructive to look at our Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson who decried the use of torture in his Notes on the State of Virginia "What has been the effect of coercion?" he asked. "To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." In words that ring all the more truly today, Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

New York City deserves this trial. Our community has lived with the impact of the September 11th attacks. We expect a fair trial, and one that actually happens unlike the secret military tribunals, and one which is open and public and upholds the rule of law, except of course for issues affecting national security where the federal government has proper procedures in place to handle classified information. We finally have the opportunity to have a full airing on the devastating September 11th attacks and I hope to be there in the trial room in my community to hear it too.

NYC Terror Trial Poses Legal, Political Risks

2009-11-14T10:02:19Z

WASHINGTON — In a move both politically and legally risky, the Obama administration plans to put on trial the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and four alleged accomplices in a lower Manhattan courthouse.

The venue for the biggest trial in the age of terrorism means prosecutors must balance difficult issues such as rough treatment of detainees and sensitive intelligence-gathering with the Justice Department's desire to prove that the federal courts are able to handle terrorism cases.

Holder: Unfair To Blame Greg Craig For Gitmo Failures

2009-11-13T13:12:51Z

Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday that he was surprised by the resignation of White House Counsel Greg Craig and believes Craig has been unfairly blamed for the administration's difficulties in closing the prison base at Guantanamo Bay.

Briefing reporters at the Department of Justice, Holder called Craig a "great lawyer" who had "contributed in a significant way to the success of this administration." On the issue of shutting down Gitmo -- a project that Craig spearheaded within the administration, but which has stalled in Congress -- the AG insisted that it was wrong to scapegoat one person.

"Greg is a friend of mine," he said, "and those who have tried to place on him, I think, an unfair proportion of the blame as to why things have not proceeded, perhaps as we've wanted, with respect to Guantanamo, that is simply unfair."

Craig's departure from the White House on Friday was long anticipated. Inside the administration, there was a growing frustration over what aides considered a botched political process, which was Craig's responsibility. Those who know Craig personally, meanwhile, say he felt increasingly frustrated with his role within the administration. He had, initially, wanted to be part of the White House's foreign policy apparatus.

The push to close Guantanamo has met various pitfalls since it became a stated administrative objective, with Congress balking at the prospect of bringing detainees to domestic prison facilities. And now, it is widely assumed that the one-year deadline for shutting the detention center will be missed.

"I think it is going to be difficult to close that facility by January the 22nd," Holder told reporters on Friday. "There are a number of things that I think are most problematic."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

David Kirby: Is Obama Ready to Take on Factory Farming?

2009-11-11T17:22:00Z

Part Two: White House Realities

(Note: This is the second part of an essay adapted from David Kirby's upcoming book Animal Factory. To read PART ONE, please click here).

In 2008, Barack Obama was swept to victory on a national wave of desire for change -- change that included a coherent program for curbing many of the excesses associated with modern American animal agriculture.

Obama's Plan to Support Rural Communities appeared on the White House website in January, 2009, and read like a manifesto from grassroots groups trying to defend their vision of what a traditional, sustainable agrarian way of life should be.

The main problem, Obama said, was that family farmers were being squeezed out by big industry. "Consolidation has made it harder for mid-size family farmers to get fair prices for their products and compete on the open market," his plan began. "Rural communities are often left behind." To counter that, Obama vowed to take action, including:

Provide a Strong Safety Net for Family Farmers: Target financial support to family farmers, impose a $250,000 payment cap to fight consolidation, and close "loopholes that allow mega farms to get around the limits."

Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior Against Family Farms: Give independent farmers "fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in prices," and pass laws that protect "independent producers by banning the ownership of livestock by meat packers," who produce more than 20 percent of the nation's hogs. "When meatpackers own livestock, they bid less aggressively for hogs and cattle produced by independent farmers," the Obama document said.

Regulate CAFOs: - Set tough air and water pollution limits on nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other pollutants, and "strictly monitor and
regulate pollution from large CAFOs, with fines for those who violate tough air and water quality standards."

Encourage Organic and Sustainable Agriculture: Help meet demand "for sustainable, locally grown, grass-finished and heritage foods, which is growing quickly," by supporting niche markets and "the continued growth of sustainable alternative agriculture."

They were heartening words for many reformers, but most of them remain as nothing more than words. True, the president has an extraordinary spoonful of troubles on his plate, and most CAFO activists remain patient and optimistic that their issues will not get buried and forgotten after the "fierce urgency of now" has passed.

The administration refused to answer a few simple questions on agriculture policy, though the White House did email me this statement:

During the campaign the President outlined a vision for rural America that focused on rejuvenating local economies and protecting family farmers. That agenda has not changed. The Administration's priorities are reflected in the President's budget, the allocation of critical Recovery Act funding, and a new culture of leadership at USDA based on developing sustainable rural economies.

But in July, a group called the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project was invited by USDA to present their ideas for reform. They leapt at the chance.

"We hope these suggestions start a new dialogue between USDA and the sustainable farming community," the group wrote to Secretary Tom Vilsack, suggesting how "limited resources could re-establish the kind of agriculture that fed this nation successfully for so long."

Sustainable agriculture had received short shrift in Obama's budget, where SDA programs were still "structured to promote and subsidize the failed model of large, corporate farms and vertically integrated processing and distribution."

Measures to counter that trend included:

■ Put greater focus on farmers beginning or transitioning to socially responsible meat production and provide USDA funding for CAFOs to convert over sustainable models.

■ Fund purchases of local, sustainable food for school lunches, colleges/universities, military bases, prisons, etc, to help local farmers and provide healthy foods.

■ Provide start-up assistance for small, multi-species processing facilities within 30-45 minutes of each other and link them to mobile processing units.

■ Limit animal ownership by meat packers to no more than 14 days before slaughter and require that a daily percentage of meat-packer purchases come from an open-bid market.

■ Publicize and educate the general public on the merits of supporting "local, safe and healthful food systems," and on what it means to local economies and the environment.

To everyone's astonishment, Vilsack sent back a prompt and encouraging letter. He was not only listening, but thinking along at least some of the same lines.

I hope the outcome of current USDA activities will reassure you that we are in sync with many of your views," he wrote, adding three main points:

1) You can expect action from GIPSA (the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) in the near future responding to USDA's responsibility to promote rules that level the playing field for livestock producers and to better define where unnecessary preferences are being granted to larger producers.

2) We will be announcing a program, "Know your farmer, know your food" that would promote linking local production more closely to local consumption. We intend to use some of the program funding in Rural Development for the development of an enhanced supply chain infrastructure so we can ramp up sales to larger consumers - schools, hospitals - in a community.

3) Through (stimulus and other funds) USDA is preparing to make the largest investment in rural development in my lifetime.

Tom Vilsack

It wasn't the only promising news for activists. In August, Vilsack and US Attorney General Eric Holder announced joint public workshops "to explore competition issues affecting the agriculture industry in the 21st Century and the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in that industry"

Among the leading issues are vertical integration and "concerns about the application of the antitrust laws to the agricultural industry." Other issues that might get on the agenda include "the impact of agriculture concentration on food costs, packer ownership of livestock before slaughter, market transparency, and increasing retailer concentration."

Finally, on October 15, 2009, EPA released its Clean Water Act Enforcement Action Plan, which targets CAFOs for more federal oversight. EPA will "pursue new strategies to enforce existing rules" on CAFOs, especially in areas "close to imperiled waters."

CAFOs have grown "larger and more densely located, placing more stress on waters in proximity to these locations," and they "result in a large pollution load to the environment." EPA vowed to "make progress in reducing violations and water pollution from these facilities."

Many received the plan with cautious optimism. "Obama has announced stepped up enforcement of the Clean Water Act, with specific reference to CAFOs, and it's making the meat industry quite nervous, of course," Nicolette Hahn-Niman, an environmental attorney who has successfully sued CAFOs, told me. "What I'd like to know is this: Will they now finally be forcing all CAFOs to get CWA permits? If not, they are not going nearly far enough."

And even if Obama takes on issues like water pollution, anti-competitive measures and boosting local food systems, many are still awaiting action on subsidies, a packer ban, antibiotic overuse, animal welfare, and stricter controls on air pollution.

In September, the Humane Society of the United States and several environmental and public health organizations filed a legal petition at EPA to regulate animal factory air pollution.

"Unregulated air pollution from massive factory farms has a devastating impact on human health and the environment," said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for Animal Protection Litigation and Research at The HSUS. "The EPA should hold these big agribusiness corporations accountable for the enormous harm they are inflicting on local communities, independent family farmers, and the environment."

Meanwhile, Obama's rhetoric reflects a vast departure in thinking from that of his predecessor. But thoughts and words are meaningless without action. Anti-CAFO activists who worked hard to elect Barack Obama are waiting for their return investment. Their candidate never did deliver on his promised Natonal Rural Summit, it's true, but reformers are finally starting to see some promising signs from Washington.

And, as they will relentlessly remind the President, he and his CAFO pledges are firmly on the record.

Are animal factories here to stay? Whatever the Obama team decides to do -- or not do -- could have a huge impact on the way we raise food animals in America for decades to come.

Adapted from Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Hog, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment, to be released by St. Martin's Press in early 2010.

Anthony D. Romero: Close it Right: Guantanamo Must Be Shut Down Quickly and Properly

2009-11-10T17:53:40Z

On January 22, 2009, his second full day in office, President Obama issued an executive order mandating that the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay be closed within a year. Well, the clock’s ticking and it’s not looking good. As January 22, 2010 fast approaches, the administration is signaling that it's unlikely to meet its own deadline.

Guantánamo has become a symbol of American lawlessness and human rights violations, and it is highly disturbing that it is taking so long to shutter it. The prison should be closed now.

While the administration has encountered diplomatic problems regarding the transfer of detainees to other countries, the potential delay has also been due to business as usual in the nation’s capital. Even with Democrats in power, we’ve once again seen the tail wagging the dog, with a slow and weak response to fear-mongering about the unfounded dangers of transferring detainees to maximum security prisons in the U.S. — the “Not In My Backyard” cry from obstructionist cynics. In fact, a Democratic-led Congress has voted four times to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the U.S. except for prosecution, making diplomatic efforts to convince other countries to accept detainees that much more difficult. Our very own elected officials who should be advocating for justice have essentially and shamelessly been obstructing it.

Unfortunately, instead of continuing to passionately pursue the quick closure of Guantánamo, some members of the administration have played right into the obstructionism, sacrificing principle on the altar of political expediency. In fact, there are reports that White House counsel Greg Craig, who courageously led the charge for setting a closure deadline, has been criticized rather than supported for advancing the cause of American values. It is hard to know who started all this cynical maneuvering and who caved into it, but it’s time for the administration to regain its moral footing. That means reigniting its passion for ridding the world of Guantánamo as soon as humanly possible.

But whether or not the administration breaks its deadline for closure, it must not break its commitment to American values. As important as closing Guantánamo soon is closing it right. That means putting an end not only to the prison itself, but also to the unconstitutional and inhumane policies that have come to define it.

Approximately 775 individuals have been held at Guantánamo since it opened in 2002, only five percent of whom were captured by U.S. forces, according to a study by Seton Hall University School of Law. The great majority were captured by Pakistani or Northern Alliance forces, or turned in by bounty hunters for well-publicized rewards.

At least one detainee was as old as 98 when he was brought to Guantánamo; several were teenagers. ACLU client Mohammed Jawad was only 14 or 15 when he was brought to the prison, where he spent the next seven years of his life — essentially growing up there — before a judge ordered his release when the U.S. government was unable could produce any legitimate evidence to continue holding him. It has become clear over time that, contrary to the Bush administration's assertions, not all Guantánamo detainees were the "worst of the worst." The ACLU has just released a video featuring interviews with five men who lost years of their lives at Guantánamo without any meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention, only to be released without ever having been charged with a crime.

About 220 men remain at Guantánamo today, including 75 who have been approved for release by a presidential task force but remain in custody while the administration figures out what to do with them. The administration says it will announce the fate of at least some Guantánamo detainees by November 16.

It is vitally important that each remaining case be handled correctly and according to the rule of law. No one should be tried in the illegitimate military commissions, a second class system of justice that will never shed the shameful legacy of Guantánamo. Detainees against whom there is enough evidence of criminal activity should be charged and prosecuted in federal courts. (See a new ACLU video featuring family members of 9/11 victims calling for prosecutions in federal court.) Detainees against whom there is not adequate evidence should be repatriated to their home countries whenever possible, in accordance with international law. Finally, detainees who can't be returned to their home countries because they could be tortured there should be resettled in other countries — including the U.S. After 7 1/2 years, no Guantánamo detainee should be indefinitely detained without charge or trial. In fact, the Obama administration’s decision to continue its predecessor’s indefinite detention policy has also contributed to the delay in closing Guantánamo; if it were charging or transferring detainees to other countries as it should be, it could be a lot further along in the process.

It is true that the Supreme Court has held that prisoners captured while fighting against U.S. forces in Afghanistan can legally be detained until the "end of hostilities" under the laws of war. But the Obama administration has sought to expand that authority to include individuals picked up across the globe as part of a so-called "war on terror" — a war with no borders or any definable "end of hostilities." (See our new map that illustrates this borderless "war zone.") The laws of war do not contemplate indefinite detention in a conflict that takes place everywhere and forever. We already know that there are detainees being held indefinitely at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan who were not picked up in that country or near any battlefield, but in locations around the world. Some of them were swept up with no evidence of a connection to terrorist activity and should be released; others are being detained for activities for which they can and should be prosecuted in criminal courts.

While the battle over whether detainees can be legitimately detained under the laws of war will be fought on a case-by-case basis in habeas proceedings in federal court, administration officials have stated publicly that there are dozens of prisoners who must be indefinitely detained without charge or trial because they are allegedly too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted in our legal system. This is a faulty premise. Our existing laws cover a wide range of terrorism-related acts, including assault and homicide, the use of weapons of mass destruction, harboring or concealing terrorists and, most far-reaching of all, “material support” laws. Moreover, our existing criminal justice system is more than capable of prosecuting terrorism suspects, having successfully prosecuted scores of terrorism suspects both before and after September 11.

Proponents of this faulty narrative often say evidence against some detainees might be too "tainted" to use in federal court. In plain speak, they mean evidence was garnered through torture or abuse. But the reason such evidence is rejected in our courtrooms is not only because it is obtained illegally and immorally, but also because it is inherently unreliable. If this evidence is too unreliable to be used in court, it is certainly too unreliable to justify imprisoning an individual indefinitely.

President Obama's promise to close Guantánamo was an important commitment that must be honored, and quickly. But it will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its shameful policies elsewhere. We can't go back in time and stop the tragedy of Guantánamo from happening. We can, however, stop it from happening again.

Jerry Zezima: The Mustache Movement

2009-11-10T11:35:38Z

I may not be British, even though my favorite breakfast cereal is Cheerios, but for the past three decades, I have kept a stiff upper lip. Now, after all these years of hair-raising adventure, I am celebrating the 30th anniversary of my mustache.

I had never thought to grow one because mustaches are not common in my family. Two of the only relatives who ever had them were my Uncle Bill, who sported a dapper mustache, and my grandmother, who wasn't dapper but had inner beauty and made a mean dish of spaghetti and meatballs.

Then, in 1979, I had surgery to correct a deviated septum, which in my case was like repairing the Lincoln Tunnel. For more than a week, I was wrapped in bandages and couldn't shave. When the bandages came off, I had a mustache.

My wife liked the new look (anything was better than the old one), so I kept it.

Ever since, I have been told I look like Groucho Marx, who is dead and can't sue me. In fact, I like to go out on Halloween dressed as Groucho so I can get candy and beer from startled neighbors. I also was once mistaken (by friends, co-workers and even my own mother) for the infamous Groucho Robber, who struck several banks in Stamford, Conn., until his photo, showing him in a Groucho disguise, appeared on the front page of the paper. He was subsequently caught and I, saying the secret word ("innocent"), was exonerated.

So you can imagine my surprise and delight when I recently found out about the American Mustache Institute, a St. Louis-based advocacy organization that, according to its Web site is dedicated to "protecting the rights of, and fighting discrimination against, mustached Americans by promoting the growth, care and culture of the mustache."

"We are the ACLU of downtrodden mustached people," Dr. Aaron Perlut, the group's chairman, told me over the phone, adding that AMI is "the only mustache think tank in the United States." Its slogan: "A mustache is a terrible thing to shave."

I quickly realized the immense value of the American Mustache Institute because, as I had long suspected, there is a lot of discrimination against mustached Americans. For example, the last U.S. president to wear a mustache was William Howard Taft, who left office in 1913. Perlut said that the last mustached major-party presidential candidate was Thomas E. Dewey, who did not, despite a famous newspaper headline, defeat Harry S. Truman in 1948.

Mustaches made a comeback in the 1970s, when, according to Perlut, "every man had three things: a mustache, a perm and a turtleneck." But lip hair suffered a big blow in 1981, when, said Perlut, two things happened: "Ronald Reagan became president and ushered in a clean-cut, corporate culture, leaving mustaches to the fields of nail technicianry, motorcycle repair and refuse disposal. And Walter Cronkite, who just died, God rest his soul, left the air. From that time on, it became unfashionable for TV newsmen to wear mustaches."

Now, however, mustaches are on the upswing. "When people like Brad Pitt and George Clooney grow them, it's good for the movement," said Perlut. "And the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder has a mustache is very important to our way of life."

To keep the momentum going, AMI hosts the Robert Goulet Memorial Mustached American of the Year Award. This year's contest had a field of 100, including 18 finalists, and drew almost 100,000 votes. The winner was Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Clay Zavada, who sports a handlebar mustache. He beat out the likes of hero pilot Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. I voted for journalism's only representative, hirsute humorist Bill Geist, whose neatly trimmed mustache gets plenty of face time on "CBS News Sunday Morning."

Perlut, who has a doctorate in international studies and, he said, "nuclear mustacheology," congratulated me on the 30th anniversary of my mustache.

"Since you represent our way of life so well," he said, "you should nominate yourself for next year's Goulet Award. And if you win," Perlut added, presumably with a straight, mustached face, "it won't be lip service."

Stamford Advocate columnist Jerry Zezima can be reached at JerryZ111@optonline.net. His blog is www.jerryzezima.blogspot.com.

Copyright 2009 by Jerry Zezima