Meet Barack Obama’s new attorney general: Rahm Emanuel

[angelicwoman]

By Scott Horton, Harper's Magazine (March 5, 2010)

As long rumored, Emanuel appears to be pursuing his deal with South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, under which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and a group of prisoners tied to 9/11 will be tried before a military commission and not a federal court, in exchange for Graham’s support for closing Guantánamo.

Why is this effort such a big deal? After all, Obama has consistently said that cases could go either to the military commissions or to federal courts. Eric Holder has said that military commissions might also be appropriate for the 9/11 defendants. But these developments put the White House and its relationship with the Justice Department in a new light:

1) In sharp violation of rules of prosecutorial conduct and ethics, political figures in the White House are engaged in the micromanagement of decisions concerning the prosecution of individual criminal defendants. Rahm Emanuel is a political figure, without any serious legal expertise or abilities. He openly presented the question as a matter of political opportunity—thereby infecting the criminal justice system with political horse-trading. This is more than just unseemly. It presents a direct affront to the integrity of the criminal justice system. After eight years in which Karl Rove manipulated essential prosecutorial decisions at Justice, now his successor is engaged in the same type of misconduct. But unlike Rove, Emanuel does it openly.

2) The attorney general’s decision as to where and how to go about presenting these cases, which rested on the professional analysis of the Justice Department, is being overturned as part of a political deal. Emanuel is placing the attorney general in a humiliating position where the only honorable thing he can do is resign. That’s a masterstroke for a White House chief of staff.

3) Emanuel’s implicit assumption that this bargain will loosen up opposition to the closing of Guantánamo looks highly problematic and perhaps even foolish. By agreeing to try these high-profile cases before a military commission, he is actually strengthening the hand of those insisting that Guantánamo be kept open—because the infrastructure for these trials is already in place at Guantánamo.

4)Emanuel is reinforcing the growing public impression that the Obama White House isn’t serious about any of the high principles Obama articulated during the 2008 presidential campaign, and instead is prepared to compromise on any of them for some short-term and doubtful tactical advantage in Congressional votes.

Read the whole thing: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/03/hbc-90006644

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K and (offsetting) R

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. Number Four --

is the biggest problem for O. He is coming across as a fraud with zero willingness to stand up for any principle. That does gain confidence, and it sure as shit doesn't gain votes.

[Bette Noir]

25. +1

[inchhigh]

26. not just coming across as.......................

He IS a fraud with zero willingness to stand up for any principle.

[liberation]

30. "zero willingness to stand up for any principle" you mean "pragmatism?"

If anything, I just hope the last 2 or 3 decades of American politics start opening the eyes of more people. We elected Bush, one of the most intellectually lazy persons to ever hold any elected office in the Western world, and now Mr. Obama a person who displayed his lack of ideology with pride. Which points at a serious pattern in American politics, when people are willingly intellectually lazy individuals, or people not bounded by ideology. Two of the worst characteristics one can have in politics. And that is without taking into account the severe flaws displayed by Clinton, Papa Bush, and the grandaddy of them all: Reagan.

But then again, looking at the string of individuals we have elected for the presidency during the past 3 decades, it seems the American public is engaged in a quest to find and elect the people who display the exact worst characteristics a president should have. It is as depressing as it is fascinating really...

That being said, I don't consider Mr. Obama a fraud. He has been rather consistent on his stands as a center-right politician. He simply does not want to disclose his political leanings (or at least he was not willing to do so during the election) most likely because he was interested in people projecting their ideals on him as a way to earn more votes. In that case, I must say that it takes two to tango.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I just don't get it - this hands a propaganda victory to bin Laden

By trying KSM in a military tribunal, you are saying "yes, we are at war with this organisation". Bin Laden can thus say "see, America is waging war on Islam! America see us as a equal, and it trying to destroy us!"

Seriously, what is the claimed advantage of a military tribunal? Are they saying there's a lower standard of evidence or something, and they don't feel certain they have enough evidence to convict in a normal court?

[pscot]

11. Not to mention the Republicons

Let's face it. Rahm's a pussy. All that tough talk is just protective cover for a deeply frightened man.

[stillwaiting]

19. Rahm is not a pussy. He's just not our ally.

He's our ideological enemy because he doesn't strongly believe in pretty much anything we do.

And he strongly believes in supporting the status quo and corporate interests which once again pits him as our enemy.

[liberation]

34. He's a pussy because he is too chickenshit to register Republican

just like the rest of the DLCers, all of them talk, quack, and walk like their fellows at the GOP. But are too intellectually dishonest to register Republicans because, among other things, the conservative brand is damaged beyond repair in the general case. And in the particular case of Rahm Emmanuel (or even people like Lieberman), they wont' register republican due to their history of antisemitism displayed by the GOP even though in almost every item of policy they (Rahm et al) are in complete agreement with the GOP. Same could be said of Herald Ford or Mr. Obama, who chances are did not register republican due to the GOP's recent history of embracing racism at every platform level, and not because they disagree in any significant way with the ideological platform of the GOP.


That is why to me Emmanuel et al will always be a bunch of chickenshits. They only talk and act tough when it comes to undermine liberals, you know the nice quiet ones. Can you imagine Emmanuel calling the GOP "retards" openly? Neither can I.

[The Wielding Truth]

27. It is the right thing to take this to court and trust our laws. Why are they afraid?

They are. It takes guts to not be wishy washy. We have laws in place. Lets use them.We can't be afraid to use them to correct the abuses of the republican personal profit meme.

[ProSense]

4. White House Won't Make Decision On KSM Trial For Weeks

White House Won't Make Decision On KSM Trial For Weeks

Rachel Slajda

The White House said today the Obama administration won't make a decision "for weeks" on whether to hold a civilian trial or military tribunal, or where to hold it, for self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

"The White House is continuing to review what the available options are that would bring the 9/11 detainees to justice," an administration official said in a statement. "No decision has been made, and we do not expect a decision for weeks as the review process is ongoing."

The administration originally planned to hold a civilian trial for Mohammed and other suspected terrorists in New York City, near the site of the World Trade Center. But opposition, from state and city officials as well as national lawmakers, has caused them to reconsider.

The announcement comes after news reports that the White House was backing off of holding a civilian trial, citing anonymous officials. Those officials said advisers were close to advising the president against such a trial.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Glad to see some quotes in the Huff Post that say what I think:

A The Washington Post report on Thursday evening that the White House has already put the wheels in motion to hold military trials for the suspected terrorist, spurred an intense amount of pushback from human rights activists and military leaders. In a conference call with reporters on Friday, Major General William L. Nash (Ret.), declared that it was "not the time to be scared" into treating these suspected terrorists to a military court hearing.

"I would be deeply saddened if this thing would be reversed... It would give aid to our enemies. It would lessen our relationship with allies who have been extremely happy with the reversal of course we have taken," he said. "This is not the time to accommodate those who have led this country under fear for eight years, and it's time to do the right thing and persevere through."

Nash was seconded by Elisa Massimino, CEO of the organization Human Rights First. "To put these cases in military commissions reinforces the narrative of Al-Qaeda, that it is a global army, and that KSM is a warrior in that army," Massimino said. "And that goes directly against the strategy that is laid out by Gen. (David) Petraeus and others in the counterinsurgency manual."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/white-house-on-ksm-trial_n_488065.html

[annabanana]

12. Is this another case of "conventional wisdom" teaming up with

the RW echo chamber to announce as a fait accompli something that just isn't that far along??

They do that kind of thing a lot.

[MadHound]

32. There should be no delay or review,

Obama should simply say that this is the way it is and proceed with the civilian trial. He is allowing himself to be influenced far too much by both the 'Pugs and his corporate masters.

[kristopher]

5. k&r

[jgraz]

6. By waffling on this, they've already lost.

I thought these guys were supposed to be smart. :shrug:

[laughingliberal]

7. I don't know why he needs that whole big cabinet when Rahm seems to be handling it all

singlehandedly. And WaPo already told us how much better Obama's presidency would be if he had just listened to him and not all those other advisors.

[madrchsod]

9. up to three! but i digress....

the first bunch were convicted in new york city.. it would seem that obama-rahm thinks these murders are enemy soldiers instead of being just plain old murders. the american people and more importantly the world will not see how we conduct a civil murder trial in this country.

have we become a nation of cowards who are afraid to expose evil to the world? have we lost faith in our civil justice system and do not trust our security and our rights and those of the accused?

i`m beginning to think the man in the whitehouse is and where would that leave us?

[bvar22]

10. Does ANYONE here STILL insist that the Justice Dept is separate from the President?

That particular fallacy appeared a lot on DU when people were calling for the investigation of the Bush Administration for Torture and War Crimes.

"Oh NO. You can't hold Obama responsible for that! The Attorney General is completely independent from the President! You don't know how government works! If Obama stepped in, THAT would be just like Bush!"

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Over, and over, and over again.


So, does ANYONE now want to tell us about how "independent" the Justice Department is from the President?
Anyone want to tell us How Obama can't tell Holder what to do "because that would be just like Bush"?

Anyone?

[truedelphi]

13. What does this have to do with Obama? I mean, is this not one of Rahm's

calls?

Obama is like Bush in that while Rove/Cheney ran the WH under Bush, Rahm runs the WH under Obama.

[bvar22]

31. I don't buy the "Rahm is the big villan" defense.

Rahm is merely Obama's loyal Consigliore.
He is Obama's Hit Man.
He follows orders.
That is all.
Obama is neither a fool nor an idiot.
He KNOWS what is going on, and approves.

[truedelphi]

37. That could very well be.

I still find myself in shock every monrning when I wake up and realize how snookered we all were.

[bullwinkle428]

14. If the Republicans didn't kick and scream like bratty kids, this

flip-flop would never have occurred! Obama appears to be turning into the typical weak parent, where the parent does everything they can in an effort to make their unruly kid their friend, rather than actually be their father and attempt to bring some structure and rules into their lives...

[pundaint]

16. We didn't elect dad, we elected the Change we were promised.

[bbgrunt]

24. sounds like he needs some supernanny!

[pundaint]

15. Obama is responsible for the Executive Branch. Rahm functions at Obama's pleasure.

That said, I wouldn't vote for Rahm in future either, I also couldn't type "serves."

[aquart]

29. So either Obama is a puppet or Rahm is doing what the President wants.

Which would you prefer? There is no plausible deniability here.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. But The Torture Crowd Is Not Being Prosecuted Because Holder Is Independent Of Obama

So it's not like the Bush Administration.

Got it.

[tango-tee]

18. Amen for Point # 4:

"... the Obama White House isn’t serious about any of the high principles Obama articulated during the 2008 presidential campaign, and instead is prepared to compromise on any of them for some short-term and doubtful tactical advantage in Congressional votes."

No further words are necessary.

[SHRED]

20. When will this stop?

When will Obama stop compromising with the Fascists??

[nankerphelge]

21. If this happens...

I'm done.

[tekisui]

22. Dems support Kangaroo Courts.

It's not even clear if it is legal to try non-POWs in military courts.

[aquart]

28. Not this Dem.

Although everything about the Guantanamo detentions has been so extra-legal that my impulse is to throw every case out of court and send our victims home.

But we don't have that much justice in the United States.

New York is the proper venue and that crap about security costs is crap.

[slipslidingaway]

23. knr nt

[Mike K]

33. I don't blame Rahm Emanuel for anything.

He is known to be a devious, cunning, overly aggressive little serpent with questionable motivations. Clinton was forced to get rid of Emanuel because of his well-documented loyalties to Israel and all who follow Emanuel's history have cause to believe that many of his controversial maneuvers are made with what is best for Israel in mind.

With all of that information readily available to him Obama appointed Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. So who do you blame for being snake-bitten, the snake or the person who put it in the bed?

[liberation]

35. Clinton got rid of Emmanuel because of the clusterf*ck which he brought in the 94 elections

Mr. Emmanuel et al are the very same people who screwed things so bad during the first 2 years of Clinton in office, that he managed to alienate the traditional Dem base to the point that Gingrich et al could get in and take both houses and force fed us their "contract on America." Of course Clinton reacted in the DLC way: by hiring Dick Norris during the 96 elections in order to turn the Dems further to the right.

You are correct, that ultimately the responsibility for his choice of Chief of Staff resides on the president. A lot of people are living in a weird denial process, in which somehow Obama is beholden as an innocent victim of Emmanuel's grasp. Which is probably due to the fact that a lot of people are more interested in preserving the narrative they bought from the Obama electoral campaign, than they are in dealing with reality and facts.

[mazzarro]

36. I Will Encourage AG Holder To Resign - If This BS Should Happen

I President Obama needs a had kick to the rear if he should allow this BS to happen - over stepping his own AG for a political hack like Rahm. This is unacceptable and Holder should make it clearly known to Obama and the country and not be a lackey like his two previous predecessors.

[earcandle]

38. Are these actions legal democratic processes? Or are these actions part of a corrupt monarchy?

[SlingBlade]

39. Drip, Drip, Drip ...Deja Vu All over again