Guantanamo

9/11, Barack Obama, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Military Commissions

No deal done on 9/11 trial; Obama and Graham hoping to win back votes for closing Gitmo

by  • 

The Washington Post (and many others) is reporting that Obama advisers will recommend that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow conspirators be tried by military commission for the 9/11 attacks:

The president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York and demands, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.

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.

As Andy McCarthy puts it, “Hold the Champagne on Military Commissions – It’s a Head Fake.” And it is. As early as last summer, there were signs that Senator Lindsey Graham was negotiating with the White House over making changes to the Military Commissions Act and closing the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay. (That is also why the White House no longer hosts conference calls with the families of the victims of terror before significant announcements. More about that in a moment). McCarthy explains:

The real agenda here is to close Gitmo. That’s the ball to keep your eye on. The Post is trying to soften the opposition to shuttering the detention camp by portraying beleaguered, reasonable Obama as making a great compromise that will exasperate the Left. The idea is to strengthen Sen. Lindsey Graham’s hand in seeking reciprocal compromise from our side.

This, however, is a matter of national security, not horse-trading over a highway bill. You don’t agree to do a stupid thing that endangers the country just because your opposition has magnanimously come off its insistence that you do two stupid things that endanger the country.

If a deal to grant military commissions in exchange for closing Gitmo happens, it is a major win for the Obama Left and an enormous loss for public safety.

We were headed inexorably toward military commissions for the 9/11 plotters. We don’t need to cut a bad deal to get it. Congress was not going to approve funding to transport trained terrorists to the U.S., nor to hold civilian trials. As I said, we’ve already got military commissions for some enemy combatants, and if we play this out, we are likely to get them for most if not all of the combatant war crimes trials. And we are likely to get them at Gitmo — the best place to have them, and the place on which the public has expended hundreds of millions of dollars to construct a safe, humane, fastidiously Islamo-friendly prison with state of the art trial facilities. … READ THE REST

Last June was the last time the White House hosted a conference call with family members of the victims of 9/11 and the Cole bombing. During that call, the briefer said Senator Patrick Leahy would propose changes in the Military Commission Act, using the “Warner-McCain-Graham bill of 2006.”

Only, no such bill ever existed. Yet it did reveal that Senator Graham was already secretly negotiating with the White House. The actual bill was one by Senator John Warner, with no co-sponsors, that four Republicans voted in committee to allow to be brought to the Senate floor as a substitute amendment for the Military Commissions Act. When the substitute was put forward, even Warner voted against it (as did Graham) and both McCain and Snowe did not vote.

We have been conned before by this White House so do not believe everything you read in the newspaper. We need to soon hear from Senator Graham the details of what he is proposing.

Update: I neglected to mention Thomson prison is “still on the table” and the wrong place for detainees. Thankfully, Michelle Malkin reminded us, “So, even as they pull back from civilian trials in NYC, Obama is still trying to bring the Gitmolympics home to Illinois.”

9/11, al Qaeda, Barack Obama, detainees, Eric Holder, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Military Commissions, USS Cole

New York Daily News: Keep 9/11 trial ‘the hell out’ of New York City (we say ‘not in America’)

by  • 

The New York Daily News nearly matched their title ‘Keep the hell out: Obama must stop waffling and move 9/11 terror trial’ with the content of their editorial:

One of the most astonishing aspects of Obama’s struggle to find a location for perhaps the most important trial in American history is that the Justice Department got around to considering those “practical, logistical issues” only after Attorney General Eric Holder decided on New York.

Without consulting Mayor Bloomberg or Police Commissioner Ray Kelly in advance.

Without figuring the cost of security, estimated at $200 million a year, or making provision to pick up the city’s tab.

Without taking into account the extreme, long-term disruptions a trial would visit on downtown neighborhoods.

Without remembering the elemental truth that New Yorkers refuse to be played for chumps — a fact that puts Obama deep in the hole.

We’d be near full agreement with the Daily News had they not hedged by using ‘preferably’ in their closing line.

Since AG Eric Holder’s November 13, 2009 announcement, all major, national polls have shown a wide majority of Americans think that not only should the 9/11 trial not be conducted in New York City, foreign terrorists should not be afforded the Constitutional rights a federal court trial would provide them. Yes, some politicians would foolishly endanger the safety of their constituents and disrupt thousands of lives in their communities for years by inviting terror trials and detentions; they are the exception, not the rule.

Gitmo is no “black eye” on America; it is a uniquely suited, heavily defended, remote terrorist detention facility. Last year, during a meeting with 9/11 and U.S.S. Cole families, President Obama said Gitmo has been “confused with Abu Ghraib.” Our troops there are closely supervised by the DOJ and highly disciplined. The propaganda from the Left and al Qaeda would only move to the new locale if it is closed.

DOD sources have told us that had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four fellow 9/11 conspirators been allowed to plead guilty and refused to appeal, the remaining prosecution costs for them would have been approximately $50,000. Had they not pled guilty and if they and all the other prosecutions were done by military commission at Gitmo, it would likely add tens of millions of additional dollars. Yet the total costs of prosecuting and detaining those now at Gitmo in the United States would run into the billions of dollars.

Detaining America’s enemies should never become a jobs program. Our valiant troops are already doing that tough and thankless duty for a hell of a lot less; it costs $100 million per year to operate the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Thomson Correctional Center alone will cost three times that much to purchase and twice as much to operate as a detention facility.

Last February, President Obama promised 9/11 and U.S.S. Cole families that “swift and certain justice” would be brought against those who had slaughtered our loved ones. Yet no one credible has disputed former U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White saying it will likely take three years just to prepare federal trials against the 9/11 conspirators. And last July, it was reported that military commissions for 66 detainees there were ready to proceed. Even with the revisions Congress made to military commissions, which the President signed into law this past October, they would surely get underway much sooner, at Gitmo, than by a federal trial.

We keep hearing that military commissions are untested. They’ve been around in some form since General George Washington used them during the Revolutionary War. Lincoln used them. Not including the Nurnberg trials, more than 1,100 were tried by military tribunal during and after WWII with an 89% conviction rate. The judges, lawyers on both sides, and legal assistants are well-experienced at conducting military trials.

What is really untested is successfully trying dozens of Gitmo’s terrorists in federal court, with trial and appeal judges accustomed to applying our Constitution. Why? Because there will be hundreds perhaps thousands of motions about delaying “their” speedy trial due to national security concerns, not reading them “their” rights, and not offering them “their” right to remain silent and the opportunity to speak with “their” attorneys before deciding if to speak at all. And here is news that perhaps you have read nowhere else: All those same Constitutional challenges would occur if military commissions are conducted on U.S. soil.

Non-New Yorkers are also not chumps.

With thanks for their editorial and due respect to the New York Daily News, the vast majority of those out here in fly-over country say no federal trial for those at Gitmo should ever happen inside the United States; all their trials should be by military commission, at Guantanamo Bay.