The WaPo continues is laundering operation for Rahm Emanuel today with regard to the KSM trial.
President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.
Those advisors would be: Rahm, Lindsey Graham and John McCain all of whom, as usual are off the record. This is not Deep Throat blowing the whistle and WaPo has no business granting anonymity to the purveyors of this spin. It’s the news equivalent of money laundering.
It’s pretty well established –ON the record– that the members of Obama’s administration who were responsible for crafting his winning campaign policies positions, favor Eric Holder’s plan to use criminal trials for KSM.
I mean really: how transparent is this?
If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.
The administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the president’s legal advisers are finalizing their review of the cases of Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators.
"Likely recommendation"? It’s already well known that Rahm is pushing hard to put KSM down some legal rabbit hole that would make Democrats equally guilty with republicans in Cheney’s war crimes. It’s not a likely recommendation–it’s something he has been pushing and spinning and orchestrating for months!
Oh, and "Obama’s legal advisors" a/k/a the Department of Justice FINISHED their review last November and Eric Holder announced the decision. Liar, liar, pant on fire.
The only knew and useful piece of information in this article is as follows:
Privately, administration officials are bracing for the ire of disappointed liberals and even some government lawyers should the administration back away from promises to use civilian courts to adjudicate the cases of some of the 188 detainees who remain at Guantanamo.
‘A sad day’
Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a "sad day for the rule of law" if Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. "I thought the decision where to put people on trial — whether federal court or military commissions — was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous," Colwell said.
Administration lawyers are upset? It does not surprise me, and I see an opportunity for them here.
What if government lawyers repeated the heroic mass resignation plan that Comey, Goldsmith and company did when the White House tried to overrule DOJ on warrantless wiretapping?
Only this time, it’s not just DOJ. It’s obviously DOD lawyers–who by the way, need to tell Lindsey to STFU– because this odious plan tarnishes their service. It’s also CIA lawyers–who are being held hostage and being used as scapegoats by Yoo, Cheney et al. Hell, it could be lawyers for the Fish and Wildlife service–Why?
Because you are all working for an administration that either believes in the Rule of Law or it does not. And every one of you has a stake in the ethics and integrity of the legal decisions made by this administration.
We have seen, to our horror, what happens when a White House politicizes purely legal decisions or allows politics into decisions making processes that are solely the purview of law. Just because you are Hatch Act employees does not mean you have lost the right to petition your government.
Here’s a sample petition, but feel free to improve upon it:
We, the undersigned, are lawyers employed by the various agencies of the federal government of the United States of America. We joined this Administration in part to restore the Rule of Law to our nation’s governance. Critical to this restoration is to keep politics out of charging decisions in criminal cases, otherwise all criminal prosecutions are subject to attacks on their legitimacy and the social contract is torn.
If need be, we the undersigned will resign from government service en mass should the legitimate charging and venue decisions made by the Department of Justice in the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed be tampered with for political purposes. No lawyer, in good conscience, can be a party to such a blatant politicization of the prosecutorial function or to such an attack upon prosecutorial integrity.
Signed
_________, Department of _____ ___________, Department of _____
_________, Department of _____ ___________, Department of _____
and so on.
BTW, it wouldn’t hurt the bar associations of any tier or any locale, to petition, nor the law schools, nor any civic groups, nor any 9-11 families who disagree with Liz Cheney’s business partner’s claim to speak for all of you to mount a petition of your own. We either are a nation that believes in the Rule of Law, or we are not. Period.



40 Comments







Terrific idea, Cynthia. I would imagine that getting the first few signatures will be the hardest part. Once a few people come out in favor of such a move, I think it would be a lovely sight to see it blossom to a hundred or so names in just a few days.
It’s a great sentiment and should go without saying that restoration of the rule of law was perhaps the greatest impetus behind the election of Obama. Sadly, this administration is all about ensuring his legacy on one piece of legislation and then passing the baton to the next liar-in-chief.
I don’t think there is anyone in government who has the moral grounding of Elliot Richardson or even the conscience of someone like Morton Halperin who was able to change his views on bombing Vietnam and eventually left the Nixon administration over it. Now we have people like Eric “Pardon Marc Rich” Holder who thinks torture is torture until it actually comes down to adhering to US and international law and charging people with it lest he lose his job and Margolis who changes findings in an investigation to absolve war criminals of guilt while at the same time nullifying the Nuremberg Principles.
I’m sure we’re only a few years away from Attorney General Monica Goodling signing off on orders to intern anyone who voted Democrat in the 2008 election.
The part where Obama, as an ex-Constitutional Law professor defers to to the legal expertise of Rahm Emanuel, Lindsey Graham and John McCain to make his policy decisions seems to come right out of the playbook from the previous administration. At least with Bush we hoped he didn’t have a lot of preconceived opinions on the off-chance that he would listen to experts. In the case of Obama we are being asked to accept that he wasn’t paying attention when he was teaching class. Using some other group of people as political cover, whether inside or outside of the echo chamber, is not going to allow a self-admitted expert to wash his hands.
As far as the gesture, I suspect that in a climate where reports like the OPR-Final-Report come out listing some part of Yoo’s many legal mistakes and shortcomings the message seems fairly clear. There is very little a person like Yoo will be held accountable for if it is done in the name of fighting for freedom from the mythically proportioned threat of terror from abroad. That probably includes fifth columnists. I agree that the idea has merit but it would be a very courageous deed in the current economic climate. After that, the question is whether the White House echo chamber would even take note.
A tree in the forest.
Advice from professional ballet-dancer and Wall Street thug Rahm Emanuel . . . and five-time fighter-plane-crashing professional Navy Ace Johm McCain.
In reply to Loo Hoo @8, “What does it take to piss Obama off?” Just be opposed to his POS HCR bill from the left.
The whole McCain Lieberman Rahm Obama Graham parade is pure Shock Doctrine at work, imo.
It’s all just trial balloons and spin. Which means the balloons can be popped iwth a little pricipled push back
Anne Kornblut strikes again.
“Come in From The Cold” Friends.
What does it take to piss Obama off?
Cynthia, the Obama Administration is to all intents and purposes the Bush Administration. All that has happened is that the string pulling has passed from the Vice President’s office (Cheney) to the Chief of Staff (Emanuel) and that, using Emanuel as a foil, Obama is probably doing a lot of the string pulling himself.
Try to get between Obama and the corporations and you will find out.
Place a healthcare bill on his desk with a public option in it.
Z
good post, fine idea.
I love this idea, Cynthia.
Cynthia, were are a nation which believes in the Rule of Lawiness.
“Look forward not backward” Ho, ho. Try that on your next IRS audit.
I got to tell you, a LOT of the Admin’s top lawyers came on board because they really beleived inthe Hope/CHange thingy.
A lot of good laywers who hug in there through the Bush years ans thought they had come through the dark tunnel and back to the light are going to be crushed.
Just think about the risk to his career that Col. Colwell, quoted above, takes to explain his dismay. The tone of his comments have him sounding either shocked or outraged.
AND THIS IS A GUY WHO KNOWS MILITARY COMMISSION UP CLOSE ANS PERSONAL.
Unlike Rahm, Lindsey or Gluehorse
If he has his 20 years in his pension is protected, and at an O7 maybe at his career peak.
It’s good the hear that these people have the belief in Rule of Law. I believe Rule of Law is the foundation of our society, for without it we all become bandits, and living in fear of others.
Which, of course, is EXACTLY what the GOP and the Blue Dogs (if not being redundant) want.
Or murder trial.
What is Restorative Justice?
“Restorative justice is a broad term which encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights.
These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa to innovations within our criminal justice system, schools, social services and communities.
Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities.
Restorative approaches seek a balanced approach to the needs of the victim, wrongdoer and community through processes that preserve the safety and dignity of all.
[snip]
Restorative justice is a value-based approach to conflict and harm. These values are often identified as inclusion, democracy, responsibility, reparation, safety, healing and reintegration. But one value is more essential than any other—Respect.
[snip]
For Victims. Restorative responses empower victims by offering them a voice in the process, an opportunity to ask questions and seek answers, afford them a role in decision-making and avenues for healing, restitution and emotional support.
For Wrongdoers. Restorative responses enable wrongdoers to be accountable for their conduct; affords opportunities to make amends and express remorse; offers constructive ways to repair harm; supports making responsible choices; and creates forums for forgiveness, reconciliation and reintegration.
For Communities. Restorative responses re-invest citizens with the power to contribute meaningfully to the resolution of community problems; allows citizens to articulate and affirm the moral standards of the community; provides a forum for addressing the underlying conditions which generate harm; and contributes towards the building of safe, thriving and peaceful communities.”
– from “What is Restorative Justice?” (accessible at http://www.suffolk.edu/research)/6953.html
Cynthia, are you LHP?
If this threatened overruling by President Obama of the Justice Department’s exercise of prosecutorial independence, and straightforward application of the rule of law, actually happens (midnight massacre-wise), this nation must demand a public examination by Congress of a way to remedy the dependent and compromised position of the Department of Justice within the Executive Branch of government, short of impeachment of the president, with a view to creating shared oversight and control of the DOJ by two or more branches of government to (re-)establish its independence from the President. Impeachment as the sole remedy for the abandonment of the faithful exercise of the rule of law by the President and our DOJ has obviously failed the nation given the corruption and undermining of Congress created by Party dominance of that institution. A Constitutional amendment, along with one to remedy the Citizens United decision, may very well be called for here.
Otherwise, grossly-unprincipled and self-serving politicians will continue to be able to make themselves immune from the rule of federal law, while manipulating the enforcement of the law to serve their own political and personal ends, as it is now screamingly obvious has been the (successful) objective of many at the highest levels of our Executive Branch (for themselves and/or for others) over the last decade and more, without the slightest effective response or effort by Members of Congress, or Congressional oversight, to re-establish minimum standards of basic integrity at our DOJ, or elsewhere in our Executive Branch of government.
Quoting from Page 136 [PDF Page 150 of 213] of last year’s report “Assessing Damage, Urging Action” by the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, established by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ):
And from Page 123 [PDF Page 137 of 213]:
In addition to urging the resignations of people like Eric Holder, David Kris, David Barron, and Marty Lederman at the Department of Justice, and others at the Department of Defense and elsewhere, as Cynthia recommends if this transpires, this nation must focus on bringing a halt to both Congressional and Executive efforts, aided by the national media, which are becoming increasingly ingrained, to undermine the absolutely-indispensable role of an independent judiciary [Judicial Branch of government] if we want the rule of law, not men, in this nation – whether that undermining is in service to selfish politics and Party, or merely fronting, as for Cheney & Graham & apparently Emanuel, for a seething hostility to the fundamental human and Constitutional rights that form the foundation of this nation and its (limited, accordingly) government.
[For an example of Congress and the Executive quietly working in tandem to undermine long-established safeguards for the rights of all persons accused and brought to trial before our independent judiciary, via military commissions (for non-citizens only, at least for now, whether genuine "armed conflict" fighters, or not, at the unchallenged whim of the President and his military chain of command), see this successful 2009 MCA rewording that created a cleverly-written loophole to allow coerced (in all but name) detainee statements into evidence in Guantanamo Military Commissions - where the Executive Branch alone is prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.]
Wow–Powwow
What an information filled comment.Thank you
Thanks for the post, Cynthia, and for this additional material, powwow.
As others have made clear, this isn’t just about “terror” defendants, this is an attack on the civilian judiciary, and a clear step towards making everything military, controlled by the executive.
Obama is either a fool or a criminal, if he goes back on this.
Totally with you on the props for Cynthia and powwow.
Not completely with you on Obama on fool *or* criminal: I vote for both. Oh – and sociopath.
Beware the Ides of March!
Is this ESPN and deja vue all over again?
Damn, I was just rereading a Jason Leopold article regarding much of the backstory involving Comey and the Ashcroft hospital bed memoirs circa 2004, just moments ago. Here’s a link:
Newly Released E-Mails Reveal Cheney Pressured DOJ to Approve TortureNewly Released E-Mails Reveal Cheney Pressured DOJ to Approve Torture. by Jason Leopold. Global Research, August 28, 2009. Public Record – 2009-06-07. Email …
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14944 – Cached
Oops,I am about 10 days ahead of schedule-the ides is the fifteenth.
Make that a first -I’m usually behind schedule not ahead of schedule!
Possibly related: McCain, Lieberman, Graham today:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR McCAIN ON
THE ENEMY BELLIGERENT INTERROGATION, DETENTION, AND PROSECUTION ACT OF 2010
March 4, 2010
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=2af60f3a-05dc-cdf6-7dc9-6501a995c17c
While I think it’s a good idea, I don’t think we have those kinds of people in DOJ. Maybe a few in DoD, but resignations may be more problematic for them.
I also don’t think it will have the impact that such a thing would have had 4 years or so ago. There has been too much mass conditioning of the nation and national narrative.
I think the only way you really get the right outcome is for Obama to step up to the plate and reset the narrative. Otherwise, we’ll just keep watching him put judges and lawyers in the crosshairs of the crazies while he finger steeples away and Fox berates him for doing what they want, but they berate him a little less than if he hadn’t done what they wanted.
Holder has already committed in print that he will – a la Gonzales – go along with any decision Obama makes no matter how bad it is.
If no one seized the narrative, we’re permanently off the rails. I think mass resignations won’t seize that narrative – it will still be about “rights for terrorists” and “al-Qaeda 7 lefty lawyers” resigning bc we won’t mollycoddle terrorists. I don’t think, even if you had anyone with decency left (and I just don’t see how there can be any such person – DOJ has been too firmly entrenched with torture for too long, too firmly entrenched with defending the Presidential Perogative to kidnap, maim, encourage depravity, etc. to the exclusion of anything decent.)
I’m ready for Romney or Palin – at least then maybe someone will stand up and be about something.
Or not.
Alas, this may how Obama wanted to reset the narrative. Alas and alack.
Hey Mary–just when think there is no hope in the world…. The right is pushing back about that disgusting Al Qaeda 7 commercial the Liz Cheney made
There’s more at HuffPo
I remember having the discussion with someone awhile back, when I was having such a difficult time voting for and supporting Democrats, about this concept that you could somehow change the party from within – by pushing them to be better. But they are all such weenies, my response was why wouldn’t we do better trying to change some of the Republicans – who at least aren’t such cowards – from within. ;)
26/30 – huge agreement at the genius of that approach. No one is locked in, those like me who want to de-register anyway could make it count for something and it would be worth a shot.
Time for mass resignations?
From the Democratic Party?
What about a National Month of De-Registration from the Democratic Party—maybe, just maybe, then they might pay attention to we, the people?
You may be a genius
Rahm’s Master Stroke; Scott Horton; 3/5/10
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/hbc-90006644
I’ve always had one major issue with the act of resignation in protest; it only leaves the malefactors and incompetents behind to carrying on unabated. I learned this first hand when I resigned as President of an organization, and the entire “wing” of the Board that supported my argumentation fell away shortly after. Now, I don’t know if I’d have stuck it out that the organization would have been able to overcome its institutional hurdles, but it absolutely was going to fail in short-order once the lot of us left the irrational romantics to twist in the wind. They did, and it did.
If it’s a big enough and powerful enough mass resignation, the willingness to do it is often enough to change things.
Think Elliot Richardson–yes, the Saturday Night Massacre happened anyway, but his integrity highlighted what was wrong.
Cyrus Vance resigning in protest
Comey, Mueller and company offering to resign
This kind of integrity captures the public consciousness
I completely agree. It’s just a very tough balance.
I guess what one would have to ask is, “Even with increased public awareness, is there really anything the public can do to change anything to keep the people, who already don’t mind replacing principle with fealty to authority, from pressing forward; especially so once there’s no intra-institutional push-back left intact?”
I say that’s the question, because it seems pretty clear that the top of the pyramid isn’t going to buckle on this issue.
Concur with Powwow completely and such an idea ‘ought’ to floated like the ‘trial balloons’ floated by politicians all the time.
But is anyone else seeing this as a clash between those who desire the ‘permanent war’ modus operandi for the U.S. and those who would like to see it end?
I think part of the problem is that is politics is allowed to influence ANY prosecution decision, it then taints ALL prosecution decisions.
So, the next time we want to hold a civilian trial for a abnk robber, or an mafia guy, or drug lord, or a gang banger–the defense will have a legitimate angle to pursue about “what are the politics of this prosecution”
And I won’t even begin to think about what this will do to anti-trust, insider trading and public corruption prosecutions.
Charging decisions HAVE to be made SOLELY on the merits.
Rahm does not seem to grasp what a Pandora’s Box he is trying to pry open here