In yet another slap at civil liberties and civil libertarians, President Barack Obama signed an executive order Monday that will resume military tribunal proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Obama has ordered the resumption of these trials — denounced both domestically and internationally as trumped up proceedings designed to make convictions easier by omitting core constitutional and procedural protections. Indeed, these tribunals are being heralded as guaranteeing swift punishment — an implied recognition that we could not convict some of these individuals in a fair federal trial.
It is a cynical calculation by the Administration that civil libertarians have no where to go in the next election — a calculation that has been reaffirmed by many liberals who complain about Obama’s anti-civil liberties policies but still say that they have to support him. This support is continuing despite Obama’s blocking of any prosecution for torture or investigation of alleged war crimes.
The Republicans have complimented Obama on his decision and drawn the fair and obvious conclusion that he has once again reaffirmed Bush’s policies. Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, observed “the bottom line is that it affirms the Bush administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities.”
The Obama Administration’s position is perfectly incomprehensible. As with Bush, Obama will now choose Caesar-like between those who will receive a fair trial in federal court and those who are sent to military tribunals. The decision will be made on the need for the tribunals to secure conviction under “special” rules that deny the defendant core protections and rights.
Source: The Washington Post
Jonathan Turley
With due respect to SL, I no longer think that Obama is suffering from a lackof courage, I think he believes in this policy. He has been a great disappointment as President in most respects, but I’m beginning to suspect that my disappointment is not in his backbone, but in the seeming truth that this is who he is politically. We know that through the use of money our political center has shifted far to the right. In this climate, Obama is considered a liberal, but in truth is right wing even if compared to Richard Nixon.
Swarthmore mom,
“Meanwhile GOP chairman of the Homeland Security Committee begins anti-muslim hearings.”
King was on “Morning Joe” this morning (as was Eugene Robinson who wrote the below editorial), trying to defend his McCarthyish hearings. Mr. Robinson made a comment about King’s ties to the IRA which went unchallenged …
“WaPo: King’s IRA Ties Complicate Homeland Security Hearings
12:15 PM, Mar 7, 2011 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Excerpt:
The Washington Post ran a cover story in Saturday’s issue about New York Republican congressman Peter King, the chair of the House Homeland Security committee. King, who has started a series of hearings investigating homegrown terrorism and the federal government’s response to it, has been accused of holding “witch trials.” (The truth, however, is much less salacious; King’s hearings so far have focused on efficacy in government.) King has said he’s continuing with the hearings, even as some protest in New York this past weekend.
But the Post reminds readers of the Irish-American King’s past support of the Provisional Irish Republican Army during the height of the so-called “Troubles” in Northern Ireland:
In 1985, the Irish government boycotted the St. Patrick’s Day parade in New York City, the biggest celebration in the Irish-American calendar. The cause of its umbrage was Peter King, that year’s grand marshal and someone the Irish government said was an “avowed” supporter of a terrorist organization, the Irish Republican Army.
King, then a local politician on Long Island, was one of the most zealous American defenders of the militant IRA and its campaign to drive the British out of Northern Ireland. He argued that IRA violence was an inevitable response to British repression and that the organization had to be understood in the context of a centuries-long struggle for independence.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wapo-kings-ira-ties-complicate-homeland-security-hearings_553026.html
The American Inquisition of 2011
Posted on Mar 7, 2011
By Eugene Robinson
Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, is about to convene hearings whose premise offends our nation’s founding ideals and whose targets are law-abiding members of a religious minority. King has decided to investigate Islam.
A Republican from Long Island in his 10th term, King seems untroubled that the freedoms of religion and association are guaranteed by the Constitution. His public exercise in Islamophobia, scheduled to begin Thursday, can do no good—and much harm.
The legitimate-sounding goal of this exercise, King explained Sunday on CNN, is to investigate “self-radicalization going on within the Muslim community” and the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism. Who doesn’t want to uncover al-Qaida sleeper cells? Who doesn’t want to do everything that is possible—and legal—to prevent terrorist attacks?
But King further alleges that Muslim Americans have failed to demonstrate “sufficient cooperation” with law enforcement in uncovering potential terrorist plots. With this libel, King casts doubt on the loyalties of millions of Americans solely because of their faith. This is religious persecution—and it’s un-American and wrong.
King says he only wants to root out potential terrorists and bears no animus toward the vast majority of Muslim Americans. But he once complained that “unfortunately, we have too many mosques in this country,” and on another occasion offered the ludicrous opinion that “80 to 85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists.” His claim to be free of anti-Muslim bias lacks credibility.
The irony is that it would be perfectly appropriate for King and his committee to look into any and all potential sources of domestic terrorism, emphasis on any and all. Before the 9/11 attacks, people seem to forget, the deadliest single act of terrorism on U.S. soil had been perpetrated by a right-wing loser named Timothy McVeigh—who was not, as it happened, a follower of Islam. For more than a century, the most remorseless and violent terrorist organization in the nation was the Ku Klux Klan. Watchdogs such as the Southern Poverty Law Center would be happy to share with King voluminous information about heavily armed militia groups out in the backwoods, training for some imagined Armageddon.
But the fact is that the 9/11 atrocities were indeed committed by men who espoused a version of Islam—one that the vast majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims reject as warped and blasphemous. It’s also true that al-Qaida and its affiliates continue to mount attacks against the United States and the West, and that jihadist ideology is a deadly weapon.
Some conservatives make a frank argument for ethnic and religious profiling as an anti-terrorism tool. They scoff that failing to single out Muslims for extra scrutiny is nothing but political correctness.
These self-styled “realists” are stoking irrational fears while ignoring rational ones. King offers no support for his insinuation that Muslim Americans are giving aid and comfort to terrorists; to the contrary, Muslim clerics and worshipers in this country have been vocal in their rejection of jihadist rhetoric and violence. And unless King believes Muslims are clairvoyant, why would he expect them to be any better than Christians, Jews or anyone else in identifying lone-wolf gunmen or bombers whose private torment becomes obvious only in retrospect?
Security hearings that focus exclusively on Muslim Americans serve only to amplify the rumblings of Islamophobia that seem to become louder and crazier by the day.
Bad enough is the ridiculous controversy over the proposed Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan that became known as the “Ground Zero Mosque.” This episode taught Muslim Americans that even a mainstream cleric, specifically bent on building an institution for interfaith outreach and understanding, is not welcome to enjoy the nation’s guarantee of religious freedom.
Worse is all the ugly noise—it doesn’t qualify as debate—about the imagined encroachment of Islamic Shariah law. As a threat to the American way of life, the chance that our justice system would be taken over by “creeping” Shariah is less likely than the emergence of Godzilla from New York Harbor. Yet state legislatures are taking up actual legislation to guard against this imaginary Islamic threat.
The narrative that al-Qaeda uses to recruit suicide bombers is that the United States and the West are not fighting terrorism but trying to destroy Islam. Peter King, with his little hearings, is about to make it harder to refute the jihadists’ big lie.
Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.
© 2011, Washington Post Writers Group
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_american_inquisition_of_2011_20110307/
raff,
I disagree that the Military Courts are fair…. They are slanted….and like Trials in Federal Court…..they can delay and not give you requested discovery…..in the Federal Courts….they will give you discovery on the day of trial and have their case built around it and claim that they just received it…..and therefor comply with discovery…… In the Military Courts…..it is what the Jag says it is…… and who appoints and pays for the JAGs…. Lets not fool ourselves……..
Yes, I agree that these Hybrid Courts are much worse….the only thing that they have is what it is used too….
rafflaw, One would hope so but with Peter king’s ant-muslim hearings starting I am very cynical.
AY,
Generally, the UCMJ is a fair method of trying defendants, but the military tribunals are not using the UCMJ. The defendant does not have the same rights that any normal defendant might have or that a soldier would have under the UCMJ. The tribunals are kangaroo courts with lights of bells and whistles.
Swarthmore Mom,
Great link to Greenwald. He tells it like it is. The stench from these kangaroo courts will haunt this country for decades to come.
Pres. Obama has once again succumbed to fear, bigotry and lawlessness. This moral and constitutional evil will forever taint his administration.
rafflaw,
May I ask how much they could have really changed….If they want a conviction…it is so….. This is true even in other country’s…..
Soldiers are “Generally” the only things which are subject to the Military Courts…..except in time of conflict or perceived harm to such ….. then all bets are off……
However, from my study…. soldiers who are charged with an offense which is punishable by the Military would much rather be tried and held here than in other country’s…Pvt. Manning is the exception at the moment….. There is a quicker avenue for rights violation and appeals than in foreign lands…..
This decision is irksome….
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html
AY,
To make matters worse, the military tribunals are not even using the normal UCMJ rules, but a hybrid designed to convict everyone brought in front of it.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-06/peter-kings-anti-muslim-bigotry-haunts-terrorism-hearings/ Meanwhile GOP chairman of the Homeland Security Committee begins anti-muslim hearings.
This really sucks….it is the God Damned continuation or is that spreading the contamination of the Bush Policy’s irrespective of what the UN says or our Constitution….
I do not think that they will be able to be afforded a decent trial nor fair…. If any of you think that that is a Just system….. The minds of the Jurors are made before they are even called….. The are generally ranking officers that are quite adept in the MCJ…. If you think this is justice let them decide your fate…. Please and with all due haste….. It is one of the Most FUCKED up systems anywhere unless you want the person convicted………..
UN war crimes tribunals appeal to General Assembly for resources, staffing support
******
In spite of the difficulties, Judge Robinson highlighted some of the achievements of the Tribunal, which is based in The Hague and set up to try those responsible for the atrocities committed during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, and called on Member States to assist efforts to bring its work to a close expeditiously and fairly.
“It was not so long ago that international criminal justice was but a dream in the minds of those striving for a safer and more just world. But now the dream has been realized,” he noted.
“The Tribunal has demonstrated to the international community that international humanitarian law is an enforceable body of law; that it binds the conduct of the most senior State officials; and that the rule of law is a living, breathing reality that forms part of the fabric of our civilization.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36379&Cr=tribunal&Cr1
“… denounced both domestically and internationally as trumped up proceedings designed to make convictions easier by omitting core constitutional and procedural protections.”
My disappointment with Obama over this sham knows no bounds. As he has pointed out on many ocassions, our system of justice has successfully indicted and prosecuted terrorists in all forms over the years. So what changed? His spine – it seems to have softened significantly. Why? Dog forbid he should beat the fear-mongering Republicans and their Democratic enablers over the head with facts. No, it’s much easier to bend to their cowardly whims than actually following the rule of law.
What Frank said.
The decision between the Article 3 courts and the military tribunals will come down to one issue. Did we torture this detainee? If so, he goes to the Military show trials so that the torture won’t be an impediment to conviction. If we did not torture the detainee, he has a chance at a trial in an Article 3 court. While I am glad that the trials will be resumed, I am disgusted that the military show trials will continue for some. How does the Obama Administration believe that the indefinite incarceration of detainees is constitutional? What happens to the detainees that get acquitted by either the Article 3 court or the military tribunal and DOD doesn’t want them released? That will create a constitutional showdown. Of course, Obama’s ace in the hole may be the Supremes. The Republican majority is bought and sold so they just may play ball on this issue.
Once again my government embarrasses the hell out of me. They’re the crazy uncle that nobody wants to invite to the reunion but always shows up anyway.
Sadly, as long as the Republicans will only nominate irrational buffoons and cynical manipulators this is the best we can expect. No Democrat need bother doing the right thing because we all know it would only be worse with the Republican. The two-party system works great when adults pay attention and vote but we now have 27% of the nation that is distracted by shiny objects and believes they can get something for nothing.
We are well and truly screwed.
SWM makes a good point. From here:
To ensure that KSM is tried by a military commission, Graham said he plans to offer legislation preventing any money from being spent on a civilian trials for him and any of his co-conspirators “soon,” …
Since Congress closed off the avenue for civilian trials, how would they conduct the trials? I am seriously asking this. They can not hold these people forever.
“The Republicans have complimented Obama on his decision and drawn the fair and obvious conclusion that he has once again reaffirmed Bush’s policies. Rep. Peter King, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, observed “the bottom line is that it affirms the Bush administration policy that our government has the right to detain dangerous terrorists until the cessation of hostilities.”
“Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it.
Douglas MacArthur”