About Time
You know those secret CIA prisons?
The ones revealed in a Washington Post story last November that had the administration up-in-arms about how damaging it was to our national security, and making noises about investigating and maybe imprisoning journalists? Well, guess what?
Curiously, the President didn't say anything about what's been keeping these men from standing trial. But Senator Harry Reid seems to have an idea about that:
The President's speech was mostly about the proposal he's sent to Congress to replace the tribunal system that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. Senator Frist is planning to have the debate, and a vote, before the November elections. The President just raised the rhetorical stakes, by ensuring that opposition to his plan can be portrayed as opposition to his attempts at bringing 9/11 terrorists to justice.
Are you worried that the President's proposal shares many flaws that led to the first one being unconstitutional? Don't you want to see the terrorists brought to justice?! Concerned that the tribunals not accept evidence gained by torture? What's wrong with you, don't you want to see the terrorists brought to justice?!Any attempt to propose amendments or alternate approaches will be vulnerable to attack. And after the last rounds of elections, can there be any doubt that shameless, inflammatory ads accusing candidates of supporting terrorists, or wanting terrorists to go free, would blanket the airwaves?
The President could have made this speech months ago, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling. If he'd been really concerned, as he claimed to be today, about the families of 9/11 waiting for justice, he could have been talking about tribunals all summer. He's in control, and there's no reason this couldn't have happened sooner.
But that wouldn't have been a good way to jam up the Democrats, to set them up as being "soft" on terrorists right before the elections. So it happened today.
With a ju-jitsu flip, it's suddenly OK to talk about the secret prisons. (I hope Dana Priest gets to start breathing easier, at least.) The administration has no problem with revealing national security secrets for its own political benefit, as we've seen before.
With a clever twist, the President makes sure the ugly pictures of terrorists are on everyone's TV, while he proudly announces they are going to Gitmo. I guess we're just supposed to ignore the fact that in the process, the President acknowledged that we've been breaking international law and several treaties. And only in topsy-turvy world that Bush has brought us to is being sent to Guantanamo a step toward justice. Guantanamo isn't quite the proud apex of American jurisprudence, after all.
Sadly, the irony of a man claiming he wants justice while at the same time implicitly admitting on-going crimes seems to have missed the early media coverage.
It also seems likely to me that the treatment of these detainees in the CIA's hands could prevent their conviction in any civilized judicial process. In fact, that may become an argument for why the tribunals should do without such niceties. Any attempt to include the protections of modern law will be portrayed as an attempt to keep the terrorists from 'justice.'
Frankly, I was disappointed that the President's recent fondness for WWII analogies seems to have failed him today. As the estimable Digby points out, if we're interested in trying 'fascists', the gold standard is the Nuremberg trials. They were, unlike the President's tribunals, held in public, without secret prisons or secret evidence. Because once upon a time, Americans were better than that.
The ones revealed in a Washington Post story last November that had the administration up-in-arms about how damaging it was to our national security, and making noises about investigating and maybe imprisoning journalists? Well, guess what?
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 – President Bush said today that 14 suspected terrorists held in secret locations by the C.I.A., including some who were deeply involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and other notorious assaults on Americans, have been transferred to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba to stand trial.I agree.
Mr. Bush said in a speech at the White House that he welcomed the transfers as a way to provide a measure of justice for relatives of the nearly 3,000 people who died in the attacks five years ago next Monday. "They should have to wait no longer," he said.
Curiously, the President didn't say anything about what's been keeping these men from standing trial. But Senator Harry Reid seems to have an idea about that:
"Democrats welcome the Bush Administration’s long-overdue decision to try some of the alleged masterminds of the September 11th attacks and other hideous terrorist acts," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader.Ah, yes, that's right, it's the Bush administration that's been keeping these men away from trial. But with classic Rovean ju-jitsu, they are turning their own great flaw into strength!
"For five years, Democrats have stood ready to work with the President and the Republican Congress to establish sound procedures to bring terrorists to justice," Mr. Reid said. "Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the advice of our uniformed military and set up a flawed system that failed to prosecute a single terrorist and was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court."
The President's speech was mostly about the proposal he's sent to Congress to replace the tribunal system that the Supreme Court found unconstitutional. Senator Frist is planning to have the debate, and a vote, before the November elections. The President just raised the rhetorical stakes, by ensuring that opposition to his plan can be portrayed as opposition to his attempts at bringing 9/11 terrorists to justice.
Are you worried that the President's proposal shares many flaws that led to the first one being unconstitutional? Don't you want to see the terrorists brought to justice?! Concerned that the tribunals not accept evidence gained by torture? What's wrong with you, don't you want to see the terrorists brought to justice?!Any attempt to propose amendments or alternate approaches will be vulnerable to attack. And after the last rounds of elections, can there be any doubt that shameless, inflammatory ads accusing candidates of supporting terrorists, or wanting terrorists to go free, would blanket the airwaves?
The President could have made this speech months ago, when the Supreme Court issued its ruling. If he'd been really concerned, as he claimed to be today, about the families of 9/11 waiting for justice, he could have been talking about tribunals all summer. He's in control, and there's no reason this couldn't have happened sooner.
But that wouldn't have been a good way to jam up the Democrats, to set them up as being "soft" on terrorists right before the elections. So it happened today.
With a ju-jitsu flip, it's suddenly OK to talk about the secret prisons. (I hope Dana Priest gets to start breathing easier, at least.) The administration has no problem with revealing national security secrets for its own political benefit, as we've seen before.
With a clever twist, the President makes sure the ugly pictures of terrorists are on everyone's TV, while he proudly announces they are going to Gitmo. I guess we're just supposed to ignore the fact that in the process, the President acknowledged that we've been breaking international law and several treaties. And only in topsy-turvy world that Bush has brought us to is being sent to Guantanamo a step toward justice. Guantanamo isn't quite the proud apex of American jurisprudence, after all.
Sadly, the irony of a man claiming he wants justice while at the same time implicitly admitting on-going crimes seems to have missed the early media coverage.
It also seems likely to me that the treatment of these detainees in the CIA's hands could prevent their conviction in any civilized judicial process. In fact, that may become an argument for why the tribunals should do without such niceties. Any attempt to include the protections of modern law will be portrayed as an attempt to keep the terrorists from 'justice.'
Frankly, I was disappointed that the President's recent fondness for WWII analogies seems to have failed him today. As the estimable Digby points out, if we're interested in trying 'fascists', the gold standard is the Nuremberg trials. They were, unlike the President's tribunals, held in public, without secret prisons or secret evidence. Because once upon a time, Americans were better than that.
posted by Paul at 5:01 PM |
|
email this
