Obama Administration: How About We Hold KSM Indefinitely Without Trial?
Here is a little news that Obama tried to bury with a Friday afternoon leak, that I think it appropriate to discuss on a Monday morning when more people are paying attention.
Over the weekend, Hot Air noted that the Obama administration floated a trial balloon by leaking word that the administration may hold Khalid Sheikh Muhammed indefinitely without trial. The reason? Politics:
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.
The administration has concluded that it cannot put Mohammed on trial in federal court because of the opposition of lawmakers in Congress and in New York. There is also little internal support for resurrecting a military prosecution at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The latter option would alienate liberal supporters.
So trying him in federal court is a critical necessity to maintain our credibility in the world (Obama’s former position) . . . unless there is political opposition. Meanwhile, the option that makes sense (a military tribunal) can’t be done because . . . we can’t upset the liberals.
Prosecution decisions based on politics. What could go wrong?
You mean that idiot Bush was right, again?
DWPittelli (2af301) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:29 amForget it, Patterico. I no longer know the difference between law and politics. I say I defend prisoners and I’m told I defend inmates.
nk (db4a41) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:37 amnk, turns out you were right about John H and I was wrong.
My opinion is that KSM should have a trial at some point. This just seems obvious that our government should have a mechanism for knowing it’s got the right man (which I think is pretty obvious, but that’s not the point).
Obama took this issue to the extreme in his rhetoric about how it would promote terrorism and kill our soldiers and undermine our nation’s status to do what Obama now has decided to do.
If we nominate someone with even a lick of sense, Obama is going to look awful in the debates when it’s shown how ridiculous he’s being.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:41 amEven ardent Obama defender Liasson was saying on Fox yesterday that the POTUS has put himself into a veritable Gordian knot at this point. I agree with Dustin that the GOP should force his hand and make Holder hold a trial immediately. They never shut up about the moral rightness of their POV, so let’s see them back up what they preached.
Dmac (498ece) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:46 amThis is what happened when the Levick Group, through their lies helped corrupt nearly two hundred years of precedent, relating to military
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:57 amcommissions, and enemy combatants. Now some want
a National Security Court, but the former is the only real solution, btw, KSM pled guilty already,
he is proud of what he did, and knows why he did it
I agree. And our military does a great job with this grim work. We have the tools we need, and the people who think this is a criminal court issue have actually pushed human rights in the wrong direction.
It’s fortunate that we actually do know this guy is surely guilty.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:01 amFunny how they don’t elaborate on why those lawmakers were opposed. Or their political party.
Isn’t Congress still majority Democrat?
This isn’t politics. This is ineptitude.
The administration has concluded that it cannot do whatever it wants.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:12 amAnd when he/they finally come to trial there will be a defense motion for dismissal for the government’s failure to provide a speedy trial.
Old Bob (679bc0) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:13 amIs there a term for anally raping yourself?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:27 amYet more proof that the Empty Suit(tm) is and was a clown. And more proof that the Democrats’ attacks on George Bush were dishonest, unserious, vile, partisan attacks that undermined our nation’s efforts at prosecuting the war.
SPQR (94a0ec) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:42 amThe stated rationale doesn’t make sense – liberals for whom this is an important issue will be just as angry, if not more so, at the notion of holding someone indefinitely without trial.
I voted for President Obama in the primary because I believed he would be better about such things than Secretary Clinton. I don’t know if I was wrong; but I’m increasingly of the opinion that the man is a coward unwilling to stand up for anything he claims to believe.
Look: if you believe holding people without trial is a violation of fundamental norms of behavior, you don’t do it. You find a way to hold a real trial – and if there’s political pressure not to hold it in the most reasonable place, you do it anyway, and you pay the price for acting on your principles.
If, on the other hand, you don’t actually really care all that much but are willing to make noises about it for political gain, you do what the Obama administration has been doing.
aphrael (9802d6) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:08 amaphrael, is your position that we are obligated to provide KSM a trial, or is it that we would be better served by providing KSM a trial? It seems that Obama & Holder staked their claim on the former, and are now trying to beat a hasty retreat to the latter.
JVW (eccfd6) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:13 amaphrael, Clinton would have been very pragmatic. I don’t think she would have made noises on this issue without being sure she could see it through (in other words, I suspect she wouldn’t have brought it up at all).
I think Obama can’t resist, but at the same time, he is challenged to see difficult issues through.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:14 amThe proper thing, would be to hold a military commission, admit you were wrong as with the surge, he satisfies no one with this stance, not on the right, certainly not on the left.
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:17 amBut… but… but… he promised to close gitmo!
I am beginning to think this obama fellow is not trustworthy.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:29 amYou detain enemy combatants, etc to prevent them committing acts of war against you. When hostilities are over, both sides repatriate their prisoners. You don’t charge legitimate combatants for committing acts of war, only for war crimes, and then only after hostilities are over. It’s not hard to understand. War pretty much falls outside the sphere of law enforcement. If there is any doubt about a detainees actually being an enemy, that’s what military commissions are for. But it is in no legal sense a trial, because being an enemy isn’t criminalized.
The Left refuses to understand because either they can’t stomach the concepts of war, or because they are trying to help (aid and comfort) America’s enemies. Crazy or traitors, take your pick.
LarryD (f22286) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:38 amCould they give KSM swimming lessons out in the bay?
AD-RtR/OS! (e9ff94) — 11/15/2010 @ 9:51 am…please disregard those guys over in the other boat chumming for sharks…
JVW: it is my position that we should not hold people indefinitely without trial, full stop.
I understand the point about enemy combatants and holding them to prevent them from committing acts of war. But it seems to me that this point depends on the people involved being legitimate combatants, and that it runs aground in a situation where the war has no determinate end. (We’ll never know when this war is over; there will be no surrender).
In the circumstances we’re currently facing, once the precedent is established, there is nothing to stop the administration from holding anyone indefinitely without trial, against an unreviewable claim that they are an enemy combatant. I think that’s a striking threat to liberty: it’s the unrestrained power of the executive, bound by nothing other than the executive’s word.
I’m in a bit of a quandary, though: I’ve clearly lost this argument. The leadership of neither major political party seems to be the least bit concerned in practice about the risk. I can turn into a bitter old lunatic railing against the system, or I can accept that I’ve lost and figure out how to make the best of it.
So I guess the next question is: given that we’re willing to live with the executive simply having the power to declare anyone he wants an enemy combatant and have it not be subject to independent court review, how can the power be restrained?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:04 amIt’s interesting that the options provided essentially allow Obama to vote present. While convenient now, it would appear he will end up the loser as this will alienate those whose support he is in desperate need of.
He cannot go with the Military Commission because it points straight back to Bush (who is currently polling higher than the president) – can’t have that; he can’t go through the Federal Courts, there goes congressional support; so what’s left – sit it out. Vote present. And this suits this president just fine.
I was also interested to read this quote at the Examiner link, if anything, to be reminded that in President Obama’s eyes, this is so much more than bringing to trial a self-confessed terrorist.
And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”
Dana (8ba2fb) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:07 amVoting present is something he is very good at.
His statements and promises cease having meaning the moment the words pass over his lips.
JD (c25ec2) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:11 am“But it seems to me that this point depends on the people involved being legitimate combatants”
aphrael – It makes absolutely no sense to me that because one side of the conflict is blatantly violating the laws of war that the left believes we should not be able to hold them indefinitely, while if they were wearing a uniform and adhering to the rules of war that would be OK with them. Sheer lunacy.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:23 amDaleyrocks: my concern is not what happens to the people on the other side of the conflict. My concern is making sure that we have a process to ensure that those who the administration claims are on the other side of the conflict actually are.
Without that process, there’s nothing to prevent abuse, other than the goodness of the hearts of the people in power. History is replete with examples of people who have abused such power; I see no reason to presume that we are immune to it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:25 am“My concern is making sure that we have a process to ensure that those who the administration claims are on the other side of the conflict actually are.”
aphrael – Basically what you are saying is that you have no trust in the military’s ability to get thing’s right. Why would your attitude be any different in this conflict than any other?
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:44 amDaleyrocks: it’s not about trusting the military getting things right.
It’s about someone in the oval office deciding to use the power against people who aren’t actually enemy combatants.
This *kind* of power is one of the things which caused the Venetian republic to stop being a republic. It took centuries, to be sure. But surely we have a responsibility to look at the policies we adopt out of the expediency of the moment and think about what their long-term effects are.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/15/2010 @ 10:47 amCompared to say the 65 or so that have been released
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:13 amand return to their position of leadership in either
the Taliban, or various sundry AQ affiliates
“Daleyrocks: it’s not about trusting the military getting things right.”
Sure it is. An active propaganda program from the left sought to undermine the detention and review process put in place by Congress and the military and sow doubts about the legitimacy of the process.
“It’s about someone in the oval office deciding to use the power against people who aren’t actually enemy combatants.”
Those are different issues than people captured by the military overseas and you should differentiate them.
No amount of process is going to remove fundamental trust issues aphrael, whatever administration is in office.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:18 amJust in case, you need a little reminder;
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:29 amhttp://www.911familiesforamerica.org/?p=36
And along the same lines, of lunacy;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8132345/Taliban-prisoners-would-be-freed-from-Guantanamo-to-join-Afghan-peace-negotiations.html
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:49 am#24, that is certainly a valid concern, in theory. But that theoretical concern can’t be allowed to get in the way of winning the war; that’s like refusing to be vaccinated because it’s possible for vaccines to be tampered with, or keeping the windows open in a blizzard because if you close the windows it’s theoretically possible for a Carbon Monoxide leak to happen and kill everyone inside.
The time to worry about abuse of the military’s power to detain enemy combatants will be the first time a political opponent of the administration is arrested as one. When and if that ever happens, vigilant patriots should demand a transparent process for evaluating the evidence against that prisoner; it’s certainly possible for someone to be both an enemy combatant and a political actor, and such a person should indeed be arrested and held until the war is over, but once we start down that road it will be far too easy for an administration to arrest its opponents and merely claim that they were fighting with the enemy.
However, nothing like that happened under the Bush administration, and so far nothing like it has happened under the Obama administration. Of all the enemy combatants detained, not a single one was active in domestic politics, or could be seen in any way as an opponent of the administration of the time, as opposed to an opponent of the whole USA. So it’s too early to be taking preventive measures against a danger that may never manifest itself, while hampering our fight against a danger that’s extremely manifest.
Milhouse (1448a4) — 11/15/2010 @ 11:54 am“The time to worry about abuse of the military’s power to detain enemy combatants will be the first time a political opponent of the administration is arrested as one.”
At some point people have to stop the endless conspiracy theory circle jerk and trust the process, any process.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 12:12 pmIf you can’t believe in the process, then you can’t believe in the political entity that created the process….
The Congress of the United States!
And, if you don’t believe in The Congress, just how much to you believe in the ideals of this Republic, and what are you willing to do to support them, and it?
AD-RtR/OS! (e9ff94) — 11/15/2010 @ 12:20 pmAt some point people have to stop the endless conspiracy theory circle jerk and trust the process, any process.
But you realize they won’t and they never will, because to make a decision on it would mean to actually take some responsibility for it, something they abhor. Much better to carp from the sidelines and feel all morally superior.
Dmac (498ece) — 11/15/2010 @ 12:37 pmThis is tied in part to the other thread, because cow college grad Olbermann was one of those who
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 12:39 pmdemagogued against the Military Commissions Act
#31, since when is it an ideal of this republic to believe in the Congress?! On the contrary, our constitution is built on not trusting authority, and aphrael’s concerns are entirely consistent with that. What she’s missing is that War Is Different. Wars can’t be fought with one hand behind our backs, and some of the usual safeguards must give way. Which is why the conduct of war is entrusted to the president, and not to the legislature or the judiciary.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 11/15/2010 @ 1:19 pmWe entrust to the Congress the responsibility to write law – that is the ideal (contained in the Constitution) of which I write.
If you do not like the product that ensues, change the Congress, and repeal the offending law.
They (the Left) did not like the original format of the Military Commission process (as used by FDR in WW-2, and subsequently),
so they went to Court to have it declared Unconstitutional;
whereby, the Congress rewrote the rules for the Commission/Tribunal process to reflect the reservations of the Court.
If these rules are still objectionable, after passing scrutiny of the Court, change the Congress to change the rule.
But, instead, we have the President saying:
“Well, I can’t do what Congress has said because my base won’t like it, and I can’t do what my base says because Congress won’t like; so, I’ll just do nothing!”
It is the President who betrays the ideals of the Republic that he is elected to lead,
since he substitutes his own preferences (The Rule of Man) for those of Constitutional Authority (The Rule of Law).
In supporting the President in this action, one has disavowed any belief in the ideals of a Republic (The Rule of Law)!
AD-RtR/OS! (e9ff94) — 11/15/2010 @ 1:37 pmMr. Smarty Pants has himself cornered by an issue. I’m starting to hope he’s at least half as bright as we were told he was.
Birdbath (8501d4) — 11/15/2010 @ 3:09 pm#29, a latin phrase comes to mind. Inter arma enim silent leges.
Felipe (02954a) — 11/15/2010 @ 3:16 pmAD – I’d certainly support Congress changing the rule and would vote for a candidate who promised to do so.
I agree that the President’s position at the moment is indefensible. I’m probably more angry with him about it than you are.
Those of us on the left who cared about this issue were played for fools.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/15/2010 @ 3:18 pmSigh. I forgot to paste this in.
Felipe (02954a) — 11/15/2010 @ 3:24 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=387EEt_GeVU
At some point people have to stop the endless conspiracy theory circle jerk and trust the process, any process.
But you realize they won’t and they never will, because to make a decision on it would mean to actually take some responsibility for it, something they abhor. Much better to carp from the sidelines and feel all morally superior.
F-word Shrub and f-word AG AG tried to reinvent the wheel. The UCMJ already provided courts martial for unlawful combatants.
nk (db4a41) — 11/15/2010 @ 3:41 pmAnd, the Geneva Conventions provided for dealing with them also, with great finality!
To paraphrase Horace McCoy:
AD-RtR/OS! (e9ff94) — 11/15/2010 @ 4:05 pm“They Shoot Unlawful Combatants, Don’t They?”
Slightly off-topic, but related:
AD-RtR/OS! (e9ff94) — 11/15/2010 @ 4:32 pmPutative Speaker Boehner has announced that he will continue flying commercial (no Gulfstream for him) during his term.
Question:
Will the Speaker of the House, and those travelling with him, be groped by TSA, or will this new proceedure be dumped before he attains his new office?
No, military commission were used for Dasch and the other parties to Quirin and Gen, Yamashita, if memory serves
narciso (82637e) — 11/15/2010 @ 4:55 pmI am beginning to think this obama fellow is not trustworthy.
Comment by Aaron Worthing
It is easy to forget, amongst everything, that his first elected position was obtained by back-stabbing an established civil rights activist. I’d say he has at least one admirable quality, consistency. (If consistancy is measured in terms of doing the politicially expedient thing to forward his own career.)
Process is important, but the people are important as well, which is why they take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Whether the process is in place or not, those individuals in office, elected and appointed, need to be held personally accountable. Hopefully, if an administration ever starts putting political opponents in detention, the members of Congress will uphold its oath and impeach the president, no matter what party they are with.
I would suggest as a start, that we do not elect to office people who do not respect the Constitution in the first place, who think it is fundamentally flawed. I have no problem with someone who thinks the Constitution needs to be amended (though I might disagree on the particular issue), but I do have a problem with someone who thinks the Constitution is “fundamentally” flawed, which I take to mean it is so wrong that the amendment process is inadequate to bring the necessary change. I think it is a question whether it is logically consistent to take an oath to uphold something you think is fundamentally flawed.
Those of us on the left who cared about this issue were played for fools.
Comment by aphrael — 11/15/2010 @ 3:18 pm
There are many not on the left who were played for fools as well (“no more partisan politics”, “bills on the internet for all to read for days before being voted on”, and an “ocean returning to its former levels”).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/15/2010 @ 6:12 pmI am not happy or pleased with your situation, but I ask you to remember who it was that played you.
One thing the whole contretemps of Gitmo has taught me is this:
People on the left really don’t give a rat’s ass about who is imprisoned in Gitmo, they only care about scoring political points.
Every war-time president before Bush imprisoned enemy combatants. Usually, they were released after the conflict was settled. Some were tried for crimes in either military courts or by international jurisprudence in the case of the Nazis.
No president, ever, before Bush, was criticized or condemned for doing exactly what he did.
But, that stupid cowboy has to pay a price for offending the sensibilities of a self-appointed elite of right-thinkers.
All, of which, would cheer if the very same treatment were applied to their political appoints as opposed to the people in the world who would actually kill them.
The dirty little secret of the left is that they would cheer the water-boarding of Bush, his advisers and anyone who supported him. Hell, they would cheer if Obama himself used pliers to exract Bush’s fingernails.
The dirtier little secret is that in their fetid, little hearts, they wish to see Bush hang along with Cheney without trial.
You don’t have to believe me or argue with me. Their words, signs and actions are freely available on left-wing Web sites — or daily, on MSNBC.
Somewhere in hell, Stalin is smiling.
Their swamp-fever logic quite clearly says that opposition cannot be tolerated. It must be extinguished.
Ag80 (827a00) — 11/15/2010 @ 7:59 pm“It is easy to forget, amongst everything, that his first elected position was obtained by back-stabbing an established civil rights activist.”
MD in Philly – Wasn’t Alice Palmer also a communist? She endorsed Obama for her seat when she chose to run for Congress if I recall correctly and then asked him to drop out after she lost in the primary. He said NFW.
daleyrocks (940075) — 11/15/2010 @ 8:34 pmI don’t know if she was a communist. I only know she had been “in the fight” for a few years already- maybe as far back as when it really was a tough and necessary thing to do, had more or less hand picked the one to fill her seat, and had that nasty show of gratitude. My understanding is, true to the Chicago/ DC/ whatever way, her candidacy for her seat was rejected at the last minute because the one and his gang claimed a number of signatures on her petition to file were invalid. Of course, he timed it so the election committee would have time to rule on the unverifiable signatures, but she would have no, zero, zip, nada time to correct the issue prior to the election.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 11/16/2010 @ 9:20 am