Democrats and the Rule of Law

[de novo]

Sunday, Nov 14, 2010 05:15 ET
Democrats and the rule of law
By Glenn Greenwald

On November 13 of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants would be put on trial in a New York federal courthouse and tried for perpetrating the 9/11 attack. This produced a shrill and predictable backlash from the Right as well as from many leading national Democrats, who argued that civilian trials were unnecessary because Mohammed could simply be held indefinitely under "the law of war" or at least put before a military tribunal at Guantanamo. But virtually all liberal commentators vehemently defended the administration's decision as compelled by the Constitution, the rule of law and our values.

As but a few examples, The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wrote that "it's always reassuring when the Obama administration, knowing that intense far-right blowback is inevitable, does the right thing anyway," and weeks later, Benen added that giving civilian trials for accused terrorists is merely "following the rule of law." Barbara Morrill of Daily Kos hailed the decision to try Mohammed in a civilian court this way: "the Attorney General announced that the United States follows the rule of law." Responding to opponents of Holder's announcement, Josh Marshall asked: "am I so alone in having confidence in this country and what it stands for?" The day Holder's decision was announced, Marshall proclaimed that a civilian trial "vindicates our system of justice and values" and that a refusal to grant trials comes from "voices of cowardice and fear." He also wrote:

What we seem to be forgetting here is that trials are not simply for judging guilt and meting out punishment. We hold trials in public not only because we want a check on the government's behavior but because a key part of the exercise is a public accounting and condemnation of wrongs. Especially in great trials for the worst crimes they are public displays pitting one set of values against another.

I could spend all day citing similar defenses from the liberal commentariat defending the Obama administration on the ground that by giving Mohammed a civilian trial, they were merely obeying the dictates of our Constitution, the rule of law, and our values. And Obama himself voiced similar defenses to justify Holder's decision, leading The Washington Post's Greg Sargent to note "what an epic cave it would be if Obama" reversed Holder's decision (and that's to say nothing of the hordes of Democrats in the political and media class during the Bush years who dramatically condemned imprisonment-without-charges as the embodiment of tyranny, creating a "legal black hole," "shredding the Constitution," etc. etc.).

But that was back when civilian trials for the 9/11 defendants was the official position of the Obama administration. Shortly thereafter, it was reported that Obama had taken away decision-making authority from the Attorney General on this issue and would re-consider Holder's decision, and now we have this, from yesterday's Washington Post:

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, will probably remain in military detention without trial for the foreseeable future, according to Obama administration officials.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/14/trials/index.html

[de novo]

1. The final paragraph, driving it home:

Obviously, those who screamed bloody murder over Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies but now justify or at least acquiesce to the same policies when implemented by Obama have serious issues with partisan loyalties trumping honest advocacy. But it's when the Obama administration reverses itself -- such as with the torture photos -- that one's intellectual honesty is most conclusively tested: one's beliefs and principles can't shift with Obama's reversals if they're to be meaningful or credible. The same issue applies here: shouldn't anyone who defended Holder's original decision on the ground that it was compelled by the Constitution, the rule of law and our values now vocally denounce Obama for his profound violations of those same doctrines? If the Obama administration merited praise last November for upholding the Constitution, the rule of law and our values with civilian trials, then it must be true that they're now violating the Constitution, the rule of law and our values by denying them. Isn't that a rather serious offense?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/14/trials/index.html

[Creative]

2. The only people who would benefit from these civilian trials are the blood-sucking team of

"public defenders" that the government would have to pay to defend these guys.

That's what this all about (a huge rip-off of the people in American who pay taxes).

Nothing more, nothing less.

[de novo]

3. We would all benefit from civilian trials. This is a civil rights issue.

It is about the rule of law and the protections (ostensibly) guaranteed in the Constitution.