http://www.newsecurityaction.org/ en Copyright 2010 2010-03-10T15:59:25+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/lindsey-graham-wants-to-put-detainees-slated-for-release-into-DHS-limb/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/lindsey-graham-wants-to-put-detainees-slated-for-release-into-DHS-limb/ South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has been in the news a lot lately about his work with the White House trying to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He's saying "close it" but let's keep the military commissions and keep holding people without charge or trial. Now he's suggesting that Homeland Security take over the detainees slated for release. He's got tons of ideas to close Guantanamo. All of them bad. According to an interview with The Hill, Graham says "released detainees should be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security until they can be sent to another country." What the article doesn't mention is the "released detainees" Graham is referring to have already won their court cases, were deemed not a threat and should be released as soon as possible. They should NOT be sent to yet another prison where they will sit for even longer waiting on the DHS to decide whether or not an innocent man should be set free. These individuals don't pose a threat and Graham's suggestion of putting cleared detainees in the hands of Homeland Security doesn't address the REAL problem -- that these detainees need to be freed. Adding further insult, Graham, and his horrible policy ideas are all over the press as the White House continues to negotiate with him. And if President Obama buys into any of this "compromise" to finally close the prison in Guantanamo Bay he'll just be capitulating to the fear-mongering wing of the Republican Party who wants indefinite detention and failed military commissions, while at the same time gaining no new votes to close Guantanamo. Graham, for whatever his intentions, is dealing with a Republican Party that is by-and-large FOR waterboarding, FOR Gitmo and FOR indefinite detention. It's Gitmo stays open or nothing. The White House has to realize that any compromise with Graham would be both short-sighted and fruitless. Don't believe me? Just take a look at what Graham's colleagues are saying about his special negotiating time with the White House: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "When a foreign national terrorist is captured in the United States like the Christmas bomber, or overseas—he should be sent to Guantánamo, detained there, interrogated there, and the case adjudicated there. They should be treated as military prisoners, not like U.S. citizens." Republican Rep. Lamar Smith: "Guantánamo Bay is best equipped for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, not a prison inside the U.S." Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House intelligence committee: "I think it’s crazy to be negotiating with the White House on this ... Lindsey didn’t want the detainees in South Carolina when it was under consideration." Michael Steel, a spokesperson for House Republican Leader John Boehner: “Our focus is keeping dangerous terrorists from being brought to this country, where they will have the same rights as American citizens." Liz Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe: 'We are concerned by reports that this will be part of a deal to close Guantanamo Bay and bring terrorists onto US soil," a statement sent over by the group says. "We continue to call on the President to reverse his decision to close the facility." "I’m getting a lot of grief," Sen. Graham admitted to Bob Schieffer, host of CBS News' "Face the Nation." And he's going to keep getting grief. Graham can't get the votes to close Gitmo no matter how many backwards, unconstitutional Bush-Cheney era policies he keeps in place. Right wingers want Gitmo. They've been clear about this. Any compromise with Graham is a setup for failure. It's better to get rid of the Bush-Cheney National Security mindset, the indefinite detention and release prisoners who are deemed not a threat AND close Gitmo, rather than play "let's make a really bad deal" with Graham. Said blogger Spencer Ackerman on this same subject: The White House can surely cave on its plan to try KSM in civilian court, but it’s doubtful Graham can actually deliver on his end of the deal. Greg Sargent asked around GOP circles and found that Graham has practically no levers of GOP authority supporting the deal, whether inside government or outside. This might be the most unsurprising aspect of the whole prospective deal. Graham hasn’t been able to bring over any significant GOP support for a climate bill. Rather than bring Republicans along or even provide the administration cover, Graham himself has earned rebuke from his party. That might be admirable from a progressive perspective on principle. But Graham is asking the administration to compromise its principles in exchange for delivering votes that he shows no sign of being able to deliver. Why would any administration take this deal? 2010-03-10T14:59:25+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/mccain-and-lieberman/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/mccain-and-lieberman/ Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have come out in favor for the indefinite detention of ... you. Not just foreign terrorism suspects, but now all American citizens.  Under the guise of "getting tough on terrorism," McCain and Lieberman have chosen to ignore the Bill of Rights and introduce a bill that would allow for U.S. citizens to be held, indefinitely, without charge or criminal trial for "the duration of hostilities against the United States." Conservatives have long claimed they are for the Bill of Rights and that they want less government in people's lives. But breaking the law and rounding up U.S. citizens to have their rights denied DOES NOT fit America's values. This bill undermines everything that Americans believe in and stand for. It's wrong. It's not constitutional. And it makes no sense. Here's what the bill actually says: SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS. An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities. This is as dangerous as it is illegal. We're already denying the rights of nearly 200 men in Guantanamo Bay. Now we want to spread that broken system and use it on American citizens. To what gain? There's no benefit in holding Americans without charge or trial indefinitely. This shows McCain and Lieberman's true feelings about our justice system and the rights of citizens -- they don't think we should have them. We're expendable, political capital to be used at will to gain points in the effort to appear "tough" on terrorism. It doesn't matter that this bill would impact every American's life by opening a door our Founding Father's thought they'd nailed shut when they created the Bill of Rights.  On top of this, if the President ever needed proof that working with Sen. Lindsey Graham to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay is a folly, this is it. These are two of Graham's closest colleagues and they have a bill wanting to take the illegal practices held in Guantanamo and apply them to citizens. From The Washington Independent: My emphasis. Lieberman is constantly described as a moderate. McCain — at least once upon a time — used to buck his party and is now taking a for-it-before-he-was-against-it position on closing Guantanamo. And they favor keeping U.S. citizens detained indefinitely, a position that wouldn’t withstand a second of judicial scrutiny. These are Graham’s closest allies in the Senate. They would be the very first people he would call to round up their votes for closing Guantanamo if the White House agrees to a deal. And they favor keeping American citizens detained forever! These are the people Graham would be reaching out to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. They "hate" the prison, but LOVE the denial of rights. 2010-03-09T14:52:15+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/welcome-to-washington-politics-at-its-worst-ksm-belongs-in-a-u.s.-crim/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/welcome-to-washington-politics-at-its-worst-ksm-belongs-in-a-u.s.-crim/ I didn't know we elected Sen. Lindsey Graham president? I didn't know White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was over the Department of Justice? Yet somehow the partisans have taken over what should be the domain of our independent criminal justice system. The Washington Post is reporting today that the President's advisers are pushing for Obama to hold KSM and other Gitmo detainees trials in military commissions. Flawed, failed, constantly challenged for their constitutionality -- military commissions. All this compromise to keep Bush-Cheney Era national security policies in place even if Gitmo is closed. This is wrong. And we need to tell the President it is wrong. (Join us at New Security Action. Right now we're sending letters to the White House demanding that KSM and other detainees have their day in court -- a U.S. court. Not a military commission. Click here to participate.) Attorney General Eric Holder was right when he said KSM would be tried in a U.S. criminal court and face justice. To reverse on this decision because of pressure from the right wing and to win the favor of Sen. Graham would be, in a word, horrendous. From The Washington Post: 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. Various news outlets have reported that Graham and Emanuel are in the middle of a tit-for-tat horse trade involving the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in turn for the continuation of the failed national security policies of the Bush-Cheney administration. Change the location, but keep the lawlessness -- that's what Graham wants. That's what Emanuel is bargaining for. And now we have this story in The Washington Post. Why are we even discussing the continuation of policies that were deemed unconstitutional? Why are we "staying the course" on Bush Era policies that didn't work the first time? Said Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham to Roll Call: We must try them in a court bound by our laws, according to our laws, because anything else is something less. A substitute for a court of law is not a lesser court but a lawless institution. It is, as former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, then chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, warned, a court created to convict as to which there can be no respect as to the outcome. We can't go back. Gitmo must close, but we also must end the policies that made Gitmo the horror show that is in the first place. We can't just change the address and continue to perpetuation the politicization of national security that happened under President Bush. No trade for Gitmo's closure, President Obama. Say no to Bush Era policies. 2010-03-05T17:17:41+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/deal-or-no-deal-no-deal-mr.-president/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/deal-or-no-deal-no-deal-mr.-president/ Sen. Lindsey Graham seems to think our issue with the prison at Guantanamo Bay is purely a "real estate" problem.According to various media reports, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is in talks with the South Carolina senator about closing the prison. Sen. Graham says he wants to end Gitmo's tragic legacy, yet his ideas on just how to do that seem to be little more than that old business truism of "location, location, location." Sen. Graham's conditions for the closure are disturbing. He's for indefinite detention and against criminal trials for detainees -- even though the New York-based trial of would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi proved that our civilian system works best. He's instead backing the heavily flawed and unsuccessful military commissions system, a system that has only convicted three suspects since 2001 and has been besieged by legal issues. Graham says he is for ending "Gitmo," as long as all the hyporcitical, hyper political and unethcial policies and practices surrounding Gitmo remain. He's proposing Gitmo by another name and address -- but it's still Gitmo. Methinks Graham doesn't get what the real issue is about the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Yes, it's a symbol of torture that needs to be closed. But what difference does it make to close Gitmo, only to continue the same wrong-headed, immoral policies that are affiliated with it?Our country was founded on the belief that it is wrong for the government to detain a person without charge. It's called habeas corpus and it's the principle pillar in our Democracy. It's that notion that you can't just be hauled off to jail and thrown into a dark hole, never to be heard of again. There must be charges. There must be due process. There must be public trials. But again, conservatives like Graham are charging that somehow terrorists are different. That because they claim they are warriors and they claim they are fighting for a higher cause we must take that into consideration and honor it -- ignoring the fact that most terrorists we've tried and prosecuted were often wannabe mass murderers who manipulate religion -- not "holy warriors." These are individuals, not countries. They aren't representing any fight bigger than themselves. When our troops are sent out to fight in the field they have the United States backing them up. When a lone gunman, bomber or murderer heads out, spreading fear in the name of religion, they are backed (just barely) by a pack disparate ideologues seeking to exploit these isolated actions in an effort to push their tortured agenda. Graham wants to ignore our constitution. He wants to hold people indefinitely. He wants to ignore habeas corpus. Why? Does he not understand that the perversion of our laws is what made Gitmo the lightning rod it is today? That if we keep in place the same practices we will have proven to the world that we've learned absolutely nothing? The problem with Gitmo was how the prison operated outside of the rule of law. So Graham's solution is the change the address, but keep the lawlessness? We can't go for that. We can't agree with that. If that's the best deal the Obama administration can muster to close the prison at Guantanamo, we say there should be no deal at all. If we're going to close the prison, if we're going to end the legacy of Gitmo, we have to end the broken policies that came with it. A gulag by any other name is still a gulag. 2010-03-03T18:04:15+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rahm-emanuel-lindsey-graham-form-unlikely-alliance-on-guantanamo-bay/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rahm-emanuel-lindsey-graham-form-unlikely-alliance-on-guantanamo-bay/ Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is in talks with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel about closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. While both Graham and the White House agree the prison should be closed, they differ on what to do with the detainees. Graham is for military commissions, while the White House is fighting to try some detainees in U.S. court. Military Commissions don't work. They've been frought with problems from the very beginning regarding their legality. Criminal courts, on the other hand, have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism suspects since 2001. From Newser: Rahm Emanuel and Lindsey Graham have become unlikely friends, and the most visible fruit of that friendship may be a new agreement on Guantanamo Bay. Emanuel hasn’t officially endorsed Graham’s plan—which would close the prison, but put the kibosh on civilian 9/11 trials, and allow the indefinite detention of terror suspects—but the two speak about it frequently. Emanuel recently commented, “You can’t close Guantanamo without Sen. Graham.” Graham’s Guantanamo plan, for example, has elements the White House dislikes, but Emanuel “understands what I’m trying to do,” Graham says. “He understands you can only go so far by yourself.” We don't know where this partnership will lead. We hope it leads to the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but detainees need to be tried in U.S. courts where we already have a good history of trying terrorists. Read more about Graham and Emanuel here at Politico. 2010-03-02T14:05:01+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/and-justice-for-none/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/and-justice-for-none/ "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon Recently the Department of Justice released a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility regarding the torture memos written by Bush-Cheney era attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee. The report condemned the duo for their "poor judgment," but did not offer any further insight on whether or not anyone would ever be held accountable for committing torture during the eight years Bush administration. The slap on the wrist results of the report pose some disturbing questions:1. Will anyone ever be held responsible for torture committed during the Bush presidency? From former Vice President Dick Cheney openly admitting that he pushed for water-boarding in the second Bush term on national television, well after the President had turned sour on the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, to the case of Yoo and Bybee who continue to argue that there was nothing illegal about their memos which authorized the torture to begin with -- It is obvious that torture of detainees was authorized at the highest levels, yet no one is expecting anyone from the Bush-Cheney administration to be hauled in for questioning, to be detained, arrested or put on trial. There is no public outcry for justice. There is no internal movement for justice within the DOJ. 2. Was Richard Nixon right? In the famed interview with David Frost in 1977, former President Richard Nixon said, that when the President does something, it's not illegal. More and more, history seems to be proving Nixon right. Whereas there was a partisan fervor to punish President Bill Clinton for lies he made about an extramarital relationship in the late 1990s, there was little to no movement from any political party to hold the Bush administration accountable for possible war crimes. What kind of precedent does this set when a President can face impeachment for perjury in a civil sexual harassment lawsuit that was largely forgotten the minute he was no longer in office, but another President, accused of authorizing torture, can have lawyers write memos promoting it, can have a Secy. of Defense in Donald Rumsfeld to execute it, can have it as the most open secret in Washington and have NO ONE ever face any sort of punishment? What does that mean for our country? What does that mean for future presidential administrations? In school we are taught that Congress -- the legislative branch -- writes the laws. The judicial branch ensures the law. And the executive branch -- where the office of the President lies -- executes the law. Perhaps this office now has a second purpose. It is the one branch that can operate outside of the law. The one branch that is above the law. Above accountability. If the public doesn't care that the executive branch may have broken the law and if Congress and the current administration doesn't care if the law was broken, who can prove Nixon's words wrong? 2010-03-01T14:56:20+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/grassley-gets-the-numbers-wrong-on-guantanamo/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/grassley-gets-the-numbers-wrong-on-guantanamo/ Sen. Chuck Grassley says he wants to save the taxpayers money by not prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts. Strange. I didn't know the prison at Guantanamo Bay and military commissions were paid for in Monopoly money? Said Grassley in his latest letter to President Obama: “Given the current fiscal constraints facing the federal government, the President could help the American people’s anxiety with many of his budget and national security decisions by holding the trials by military commission at the existing facilities built at Guantanamo Bay and saving half a billion dollars,” Grassley said. “To spend our taxpayer dollars to defend these terrorists in our courts is a slap in the face to the American people.” Nice try. Maybe Grassley doesn't realize that the prison at Guantanamo Bay has operating costs from an estimated $90 to $118 million. The prison the White House is eyeing to hold detainees in Thomson, Ill. would cost between $40 and $50 million to operate annually. Once again the debate over closing Guantanamo is being glossed over by nonsensical arguments about paying for defense attorneys. We already pay for the defense of Guantanamo Bay detainees. This is a shadow argument meant to obscure the fact that Gitmo has been nothing but a legal nightmare for the United States. The prison is tainted by torture and its legacy of holding prisoners indefinitely without charge. And Military Commissions have always been flawed as they are purely political by nature. Despite the fact that our legal system has traditionally dealt with terrorists and done fantastic work prosecuting and sentencing them, an extrajudicial structure was created. The result was a system that has been challenged numerous times on its legality, leading to many Supreme Court rulings finding that military commission trials were NOT legal. While our government continues to fiddle around with these trials, attempting to make them "more" legal, we're ignoring the fact that we already have the best tool possible to prosecute terrorists and it's right here, in the United States, and it's called our system of justice. It's called our criminal courts. Why, just this Monday, the 73rd terrorist with al Qaeda ties was prosecuted in a New York court! As I wrote then: "Najibullah Zazi pleaded guilty Monday to plotting to bomb the New York Subway system. He was never held in Guantanamo Bay. He was held in U.S. custody. He wasn't tried by military commission. He was tried in a U.S. court. And his trial was held in New York City, the same city he plotted his attack. He has offered to give up his contacts. He is giving up intelligence. And all this happened following the rule of law. How much more proof do people need that the right wing argument against criminal trials for terrorists is a purely political one? It's not grounded in any facts or logic or sound reasoning. It's just about creating a wedge issue to drive people apart and win votes in the fall." Let's use the justice we have, Sen. Grassley. The justice that works -- our criminal courts. Let's spread misinformation about Gitmo and criminal trials on the grounds of cost efficiency. 2010-02-25T14:32:48+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/glenn-beck-gets-the-gold-in-our-cpac-olympics/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/glenn-beck-gets-the-gold-in-our-cpac-olympics/ "It is still morning in America. It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting for four hours kind of a morning in America. And it's shaping up to be kind of a nasty day, but it's still morning in America." -- Glenn Beck in his keynote speech to CPAC Speak for yourself, buddy. I've been having nothing but GREAT mornings since the annual Right Wing Olympics ended! CPAC finished with Glenn Beck as the keynote speaker and he ended our competition last night with the gold. (With Dick Cheney winning the silver and Michele Bachmann taking home the bronze.) But the thing that really took a beating this week was not the competition at the Right Wing Olympics -- but the rhetoric they used. Celebrating harsh interrogation techniques and pushing for flawed military commissions over criminal trials for terrorists, their ideas were not just wrong, but terribly old hat. General Colin Powell came out for civilian trials. General David Petraeus is (still) against torture and wants to close Guantanamo. Democrats are pushing back, pointing out that Republican criticism was strangely absent during the trial and conviction of the would-be New York Subway bomber and the Republicans responded with ... well, does saying it can't count because he wasn't an illegal alien make sense? Because the underwear bomber came here on a plane, the 9/11 plotters were all here by some legal means and we picked up Khalid Shiekh Mohammed abroad. Who knew that real estate was so IMPORTANT when it comes to collecting and prosecuting terrorists! (Only it isn't really that important.) Aw, who said it had to make sense when you're playing politics with national security! From The Hill: House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) brushed aside Holder’s assertions that the Zazi case demonstrates the ability of federal courts to handle terrorism trials. "I think that terrorists ought to be treated like terrorists, not like common criminals,” Boehner told reporters Tuesday. Others vocal opponents of trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts said the administration was comparing apples to oranges in using the Zazi case as an example of a successful federal court prosecution. “The attorney general claims that the plea of Zazi is proof that federal courts can handle the trials of terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). “But comparing the prosecution of Zazi — a legal permanent resident of the U.S. — to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — who engaged in an act of war against the U.S. by plotting the mass murder of Americans on 9/11 — is misleading at best.” So, for the record -- plotting to blow up the New York subway system is NOT "real" terrorism. Actually destroying the Twin Towers, also in New York, is. Even if the known terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, was tried peacefully in lower Manhattan and was, actually, the 73rd al Qaeda-linked terrorist to be tried in New York City. I just want to keep track of the rules of what a terrorist is and isn't according to the illustrious Rep. Lamar Smith. After all, Republicans did a lot of moaning over the underwear bomber being read his Miranda Rights and called his actions "an act of war." It's soooo hard to keep these loosey-goosey, whatever-fits-our-line-of-attack-this-week definitions in tact. Attempting to blow up subways. Attempting to blow up planes. Actually blowing up buildings and planes. All different! if you listen to the hole-riddled arguments from some Republicans. All different as in "the truth is totally messing up my lie" about military commissions and Guantanamo Bay. How can you argue against the prison's closure and against stateside criminal trials when we're already holding terrorists here and trying them in this country successfully? It's actually easy when the public is largely in the dark about the truth surrounding military commissions (*cough!* only three convictions! *cough!*) versus civilian trials (more than 300 convictions since 2001). Here's what a retired brigadier general had to say about the milcoms versus criminal trials debate: From The New York Times: Mr. Zazi, who pleaded guilty on Monday and has been cooperating with federal authorities, is typical, said James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general who served as chief judge of the Army’s Court of Criminal Appeals in the Judge Advocate General Corps. “When these guys get caught, any defense counsel is going to recommend that they make a deal with the feds,” said Mr. Cullen, who spent 27 years in the Army and is now a lawyer in private practice in New York City. While military investigators are skilled at getting information in battlefield situations, he said, prosecutors and F.B.I. agents are better able to link intelligence to track down other suspects. MOREOVER, Mr. Cullen said, military commissions are not as effective as federal courts in delivering justice. “You’ve had about 800 cases that were supposed to be run through the military commissions in Guantánamo, and there have only been three convictions,” he said. “You have three-eighths of 1 percent return on military commissions, versus 90 percent plus when they are tried in the federal court.” Talk about your "inconvenient truths" for right wingers. 2010-02-24T13:34:57+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/criminal-trials-work-the-case-of-the-would-be-new-york-subway-bomber/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/criminal-trials-work-the-case-of-the-would-be-new-york-subway-bomber/ Watch CBS News Videos Online Military commissions don't work. If you thought they worked you're off to a pretty bad week. First, on Sunday, General Colin Powell came out in favor of stateside, criminal trials for Gitmo detainees and other terrorism suspects. Then, on Monday, Najibullah Zazi, the would-be subway bomber in New York, plead guilty, in a U.S. criminal court, to terrorism charges. Zazi, despite being accused of attempting to blow up the New York subway transit system and being an Afghan immigrant, was never held at Guantanamo and his trial was peacefully held in New York City where he was tried as a criminal in our federal courts. Further proof that federal courts work. Federal courts are the bedrock of our Constitution. They prevail where military commissions fail. Routinely beset with legal problems and challenges, military commissions have only convicted three suspects since 2001. Proving that by using federal courts we aren't just talking about promoting some lofty principle, but it's about keeping us safe and delivering justice.  While in federal custody, prosecutors were able to utilize methods that a military commission couldn't -- like working with immigration officials to threaten deportation of Zazi's mother -- to get the suspect to cooperate. It was a win for the federal system and our way of justice. And it was further proof that right wing opposition to terrorism trials in the U.S. is about politics, not justice. From The Washington Post: Zazi agreed to plead guilty to three criminal charges and to share information about confederates overseas. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the deal demonstrated anew the ability of the U.S. court system to dispense justice to terrorists. "In this case, as it has in so many other cases, the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with the intelligence community and our military," Holder said at a news conference. Law enforcement sources, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the investigation continues, said Zazi began to accelerate his cooperation after authorities charged his Afghan-born father with crimes and threatened to charge his mother with immigration offenses -- options that are not available in the military justice system. Powell was very blunt in his feelings about stateside, criminal trials. As in, they should happen. Said Powell on CBS's Face the Nation: In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail. Meanwhile the federal courts, our Article 3 regular legal court system has put dozens of terrorists in jail. They’re fully capable of doing it. So the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn’t borne out by the history of the military commission. Right wingers could try to argue against Powell's statement, but the only inaccuracy there is that Powell understated how successful our federal system is. Instead of dozens, more than 300 people have been convicted as terrorists since 2001 in the federal criminal system. And earlier that same day, Gen. David Petraeus spoke out against torture and reiterated that the prison at Guantanamo Bay should be closed on NBC's Meet the Press: "I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we've perhaps taken expedient measures, they've turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on, in the 101st airborne division, we just said, we decided to obey the Geneva Conventions... "In the cases where that is not true [where torture takes place or international human rights groups aren't granted access to detention sites] we end up paying a price for it, ultimately," he added. "Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are non biodegradable. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick.... Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of interrogation methods in the army field manual that was given the force of law by Congress, that that works." And they're not the only one's talking. On Feb. 20, ex-CIA General Counsel John Rizzo told a group of Ohio attorneys that the creation of the military commissions was always political. From The Toledo Blade: "This whole process has been political from the beginning and it is going to remain political," Mr. Rizzo told lawyers and judges at the University of Toledo college of law. Mr. Rizzo, who left the CIA last year after a 34-year career with the agency, was on a panel that addressed revisions enacted last year to the Military Commissions Act. "Many of the key decisions that have been made and that are going to be made are going to be based largely on political considerations," he said. Mr. Rizzo said the trial process was developed without consulting the CIA or seeking input from the agency, and that political indecisiveness and bureaucratic inertia have dramatically slowed the prosecution of terrorism cases. Here's a weapon that the president and members of Congress can use to fight back -- it's called "the truth." The truth that criminal trials for terrorism suspects work. The case of the would-be subway bomber demonstrates that. Gen. Colin Powell agrees that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a criminal court is the best idea. Gen. Petraeus STILL believes in the rule of law and that we should close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And an ex-CIA official is shedding light on the politicization of military commissions. Yet you still have Republicans, like South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, threatening to cut any funding for stateside trials. Why? Why would he push for a system that doesn't work? Politics. From The Washington Post: "To take this tool out of our hands, to denigrate this tool flies in the face of facts and is more about politics than it is about facts," Holder said. Holder is opposing a bill introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined by about half the Senate's Republicans and a few Democrats, that would prohibit any of the conspirators charged in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks from being tried in civilian courts. Neither Sen. Graham, nor any other Republicans were in the streets protesting Zazi's trial. A matter of fact, they've had nothing to say about the trial at all. And why would they? It doesn't fit their political narrative. Criminal trials are supposed to be bad (accept for the glaring fact that they work) and military commissions are supposed to be good (even though they've been beset with legal problems from the start and have only convicted three people since 2001) and Guantanamo is supposed to stay open (even if the experts say it should be closed). The President and members of Congress need to tell the story of how our justice system works. Polls have shown that many people are misinformed about military commissions. They don't know or don't realize how poorly they've performed in prosecuting terrorists. They don't know or don't realize that most detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been released because of lack of evidence or misinformation. Right wingers are counting on the ignorance of many to manipulate them into believing in a military tribunal system that doesn't deliver results. Federal courts do. Said AG Eric Holder in The New York Times: "In this case, as it has been in so many other ones, the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with our intelligence community and in concert with our military. We will continue to use it to protect the American people from terrorism. As I have stated on other occasions, the criminal justice system also contains powerful incentives to induce pleas that yield long sentences and that gain intelligence that can be used in the fight in the war against Al Qaeda. We will use all available tools whenever possible against suspected terrorists." It's time we stood up and told the story. We have to continue to push back. 2010-02-23T13:22:23+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/glenn-beck-going-for-the-gold-in-cpac-olympics-vote/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/glenn-beck-going-for-the-gold-in-cpac-olympics-vote/ Have you voted yet? Right now conservative talk crazy pants person Glenn Beck is in the forefront, going for the CPAC gold followed by a grimacing Dick Cheney coming up for the silver. The real battle is going on for the bronze as Rep. Michele Bachmann is only two points ahead of Dick Armey. Who will bring home the medals? It's up to you! Vote below. To see all the contestants, click here. 2010-02-22T21:36:05+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/colin-powell-backs-criminal-trials-for-gitmo-detainees-video/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/colin-powell-backs-criminal-trials-for-gitmo-detainees-video/ Former Secy. of State Colin Powell appeared on CBS's Face the Nation Sunday and came out in favor of stateside, criminal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. One has to wonder -- how will the Cheneys respond to that? We're guessing first a round of crickets chirping to be quickly followed up with a lot of blustering, bloviating and the usual shilling of fear-mongering hype. From CBS: Claims that the United States is less safe under President Obama are not credible, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on "Face the Nation" Sunday. He also challenged criticism by some (including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who say that by not using extreme interrogation techniques such as waterboarding on terror suspects the United States is more vulnerable. "The point is made, 'We don't waterboard anymore or use extreme interrogation techniques.' Most of those extreme interrogation techniques and waterboarding were done away with in the Bush administration," Powell said. "They've been made officially done away with in this current administration." 2010-02-21T16:57:43+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/welcome-to-cpac-the-right-wing-olympics/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/welcome-to-cpac-the-right-wing-olympics/ Who Will Win the Gold in the CPAC Right-Wing Olympics? The Games are on! We’re not talking about the ones in Vancouver, but the ones in Washington, D.C. The Conservative Political Action Conference is underway in the land of the wicked to showcase their best to the nation and rally the faithful. The right-wing is on a roll in American politics as right-wing Members of the House and Senate beat back such socialist ideas as access to health care for all Americans; a sustainable planet; and the U.S. criminal justice system. Would-be right-wing leaders are now in competition to build their own base among the faithful. They are bringing their best to Washington to try and win Gold in the hearts and minds of potential right-wing followers. Some are seeking to lay groundwork for a campaign for Congress or the White House, while others want to lay claim to more listeners, readers and bloggers, so that they might move the direction of their movement and the Republican party ever more to the right. So, as our skiers, skaters and hockey players compete for the gold in Vancouver, right wing bomb throwers, bloviators and fear mongers have assembled to go for right-wing gold in Washington DC, inspiring their base and informing the rest of the country as to what is in store if they get their way in November. We think that this is a good idea. The more Americans know the truth about those being showcased at CPAC, the more they might think twice before being taken in by their focus group driven campaign commercials and casting their votes this fall. AND, we would like you to help out. Who among these right-wingers deserve to win the Gold Medal in the Right-Wing Olympics? Unlike the ELITE, Perrier sipping judges at the Olympics – most of who are not even American – we thought that we would let YOU, the PEOPLE decide who wins our Gold Medal competition. The competitors caught a break when they learned that Gold Medalist extraordinaire Sarah Palin would be a CPAC no-show. Maybe this will be their chance to draw attention to themselves and prove to their base and to the country that there are even wackier right-wingers than Ex-Governor Palin. Let’s help them out! Here is our line-up of finalists for a medal in the Wacky Right-Wing Olympics. Please help by casting YOUR vote for who you think is the wackiest of them all. OR, if you think that there is someone who is deserving of being on the list of finalists, please make a pitch and we will include them in the voting. (After all, we are NOT elitists and there is not a drop of latte to be found around this Web site!) We will announce who wins the Gold, Silver and Bronze medals and feature their wackiest comments next week! RICHARD ARMEY Richard Army went from being Majority Leader in the House of Representatives under Newt Gingrich, to a lobbyist for a firm representing the largest and most powerful insurance, pharmaceutical and stock brokerage firms in the nation. This credentialed him to become a leader in the “populist” “anti-Washington establishment” “Tea-Party movement.” He brought his A Game to the Wacky Right Olympics, swinging away at President Obama before an adoring crowd. He called Obama “the most incompetent president perhaps in our lifetime." And went on even further to impress the judges with these messages to the President: “You're intellectually shallow. You're a romantic. You're self-indulgent. You have no ability," He capped it all off with a triple axle of right-wing venom: "There's nothing so arrogant as a self-righteous income-redistributor." MICHELE BACHMANN Rep. Michele Bachmann, conservative warrior woman, has been a fire-brand of late with her heated battles against the U.S. census and calling out the Obama Administration as some sort of "gangsta government" during a brief flirtation with that hippity-hoppity language the kids use. At CPAC she's wowed the crowd with her breathy, conservative rendition of "Reach Out and Touch Some Liberals Hand (And Turn Them Into A Conservative)," challenging the crowd to convert a liberal into a "Pat Buchanan, WorldNetDaily-reading conservative." NEWT GINGRICH Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, has been bringing the right wing thunder since 1994. With a sparkling rhetoric that hints to only the most finest grade of bile and bitterness. Gingrich has proudly stayed in the spotlight, even contemplating presidential runs, with such illuminating turns of phrase as the Democrats believe "The time for socialism has finally arrived" and declaring "victory or death" in the name of conservatism. DICK CHENEY Dick Cheney can't get much love in the polls or from the public, but at CPAC he is a rock star worthy of standing ovations, cheers of "Cheney! Cheney!" and waves upon waves of fawning adoration. He's the king of the conservatives, the dark lord of the Sith. At CPAC he made a strong, pithy opening, calling out Barack Obama as a "one-term president." He honestly didn't have to say or do much. Often his grouchy, half-grin smirk is enough to secure him high placement on the podium. After all, he's been going strong all 2009 and well into 2010, openly admitting to pushing for waterbaording in his first term as Vice President and generally being ... well ... very Dick Cheney about everything from pushing to keep the Gitmo gulag open to just making up facts as they suit him. GLENN BECK Glenn Beck. Need we say more? Beck enters this competition a strong favorite, and has really stepped up his performance over the last year or two. His stardom has already been secured, having won gold at the 2009 World Championships for truly graceless performance in which he called the President a racist who "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people." True fans of this rising star, however, fondly remember how he contemplated killing filmmaker Michael Moore, saying "I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out" as well perhaps the most introspective, and accurate, statement of his career: "You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one – I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show." LIZ CHENEY Liz Cheney is scion of one of the nation's most prominent dynasties and eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney. Although less practiced than some of her competitors, expectations are high that she will one day fill her father's formidable shoes and proudly admit to committing her own war crimes. She's well on her way to that glory, having recently founded an organization whose mission is to defend her father and save that international symbol of torture, Gitmo. Last summer, she signaled her intent to compete in these Olympics by refusing to repudiate the truly ludicrous and racist birther movement, explaining away the crazy by demurring that it simply shows that "people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas ..." JOHN ASHCROFT John Ashcroft was once described this way when he served as US Attorney General: “John Ashcroft believes that the best way to protect the American way of life from religious fanatics is to eliminate the civil liberties that define the American way of life – is himself a religious fanatic.” Ashcroft opened his remarks by telling the CPAC crowd that he was the only US Senator in history to lose an election to a dead man. He then went on to lose SERIOUS right-wing points by telling a Huffington Post reporter covering the convention: "When you have a person in the criminal justice system, you Mirandize them," This will needless to say infuriate those frothing at the mouth about following the rule of law and not elevating the status of would be mass murderers like the underwear bomber to enemy combatant. MITT ROMNEY Mitt Romney in the past has attacked President Obama for “failing America” and contrasted this “failed” administration with that of George W. Bush (and we are NOT making this up!): “… he pulled us from a deepening recession following the attack of 9-11, he overcame teachers unions to test school children and evaluate schools, he took down the Taliban, waged a war against the jihadists and was not afraid to call it what it is -- a war. And he kept us safe." GROVER NORQUIST Grover Norquist, the D.C. based leader of “Americans for Tax Reform” and a weekly gathering of right-wing DC operatives, generates heated opinions, including those with whom he will share the spotlight at CPAC. CPAC speaker Tucker Carlson once called him “a mean spirited, humorless, dishonest little creep.” Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, described him as “the single most effective conservative activist in the country.” And then there was the attempt at humor at CPAC by Jeff Babbin, editor of Human Events: "And let me just say, I'm really happy to see Grover today," said Babbin. "He was getting a little testy in the past couple of weeks. And I was just really, really glad that it was not him identified as flying that airplane into the IRS building." MARC THIESSEN Marc Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter and pro-torture cheerleader, is slated to speak at this year's CPAC, but he's been hitting the slopes of distortion, half-truths and other undesirables all year long. He's ripped with love of water boarding and ready to go, calling CIA members who tortured people "heroes," claiming people who were tortured LOVED IT and declaring that it's our patriotic duty as Americans to torture terrorists who just happen to be Muslim because ... um ... apparently he thinks their faith dictates that they can't talk unless they've been waterboarded 83 times. 2010-02-20T14:10:58+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/is-the-washington-post-pro-torture/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/is-the-washington-post-pro-torture/ "They're not torturers. They're heroes." -- Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter and soon-to-be editorial writer for The Washington Post Video courtesy of Crooks & Liars Washington Post Editor Fred Hiatt has just announced he plans to hire pro-torture ideologue and former Bush White House speechwriter Marc Thiessen for his influential paper’s editorial page. The same Marc Thiessen who called those who tortured suspects in American custody "heroes." Tell Fred Hiatt that Marc Thiessen is too extreme for The Washington Post. Why is he too extreme? Thiessen has vigorously defended the draconian Bush-Cheney era practice of water boarding. He has called President Obama “dangerous” for ending the CIA’s torture program -- even though that program was in violation of the law, both U.S. and international. Thiessen claims that terrorism suspect Abu Zubaydah “thanked” those who tortured him. And in his own twisted logic, Thiessen believes all Muslims held in U.S. custody want to be tortured as dictated by how Thiessen interprets their faith. Said Thiessen: The terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely. Sign the petition and stand with us. Tell Fred Hiatt that Marc Thiessen doesn’t belong on the pages of The Washington Post. 2010-02-19T13:42:30+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/join-us-tell-democrats-to-fight-back/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/join-us-tell-democrats-to-fight-back/ "He either is misinformed or he is misinforming. But the facts are that his assertions are not accurate." -- Vice President Joe Biden on former Vice President Dick Cheney and his attacks on the Obama Administration for wanting to try terrorism suspects in criminal courts. Tell President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid to fight back against right wing attacks on our justice system. On Sunday, Feb. 14, Vice President Joe Biden went on NBC's Meet the Press and slapped down criticisms from former Vice President Dick Cheney about President Obama's efforts to try terrorism suspects. Here's some of what Biden had to say: Dick Cheney's a fine fellow. He's entitled to his own opinions. He's not entitled to rewrite history. He's not entitled to his own facts. The Christmas Day bomber was treated the exact way that he suggested that the shoe bomber was treated, absolutely the same way. Under the Bush administration, there were three trials in military courts. Two of those people are now walking the streets; they are free. There were 300 trials of so-called terrorists and those who had engaged in terror against the United States of America who are in federal prison and have not seen the light of day, prosecuted under the last administration. Dick Cheney's a fine fellow, but he is not entitled to rewrite history without it being challenged. I don't know where he has been. Where was he the last four years of the last administration? This is the exact response we want to see more of from Democrats to counter the right wing Republican attacks on holding criminal trials for terrorism suspects. President Obama and our justice system are under a blistering attack from Republican Congressional leaders and right wingers who want to stop the U.S. criminal trail of 9/11 suspect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees. Some Congressional Democrats have already caved on the issue and now the White House and Congressional leaders are pausing to re-assess their position. The right wing is counting on two things to succeed: 1) that Americans will be freightened into abandoning our system of justice, and 2) that President Obama and Democrats in Congress will back down. Join us and tell President Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid to keep up the fight.  2010-02-18T14:00:54+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-real-fight-for-criminal-trials/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-real-fight-for-criminal-trials/ Let right wingers tell it and you'd think the FBI was run by amateurs who can't handle terrorists. That terrorists are some how different from other mass murderers and killers that the FBI pursues and our courts prosecute. The reality is -- they aren't. Terrorists aren't super humans. They aren't "warriors." That's what they want to be. Terrorists want us to elevate their status to that of soldiers on a battlefield to add something nobel to an act that is anything but. The pending trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees were supposed to take place in Manhattan. That now will not happen after the relentless attack from the right wing and Mayor Bloomberg's flip-flop after initially saying he was fine with the trials being held in New York City. The President is now looking for other venues, but the reality is, if we want justice for the victims of 9/11 and if we want to show the world that we believe in the rule of law we MUST try KSM and other terrorism suspects in criminal court. We have the tools to deal with these individuals and we've used them many, many times before. Here are the facts: FACT: According to the Bush Administration criminal trials of terrorists have resulted in 318 convictions since 2001. In the same time period there have only been three convictions by military commissions. FACT: Of those three cases prosecuted by military commissions one suspect received a life sentence after refusing to attend his own trial. The other two are presently free in their home countries. FACT: When criminal courts convicted terrorists they often received substantial sentences -- like “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh who received a 20 year sentence; the so-called “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla who got a 17 year sentence; and alleged “20th hijacker” Zaccarias Moussaoui who wound up with a life sentence. On average, convicted terrorists received sentences of 16 years. FACT: Bush’s military commissions were continuously beset with legal issues, as they were created in a hurried manner from a non-existent legal structure. Before President Bush invented them there was no legal foundation in place within the military meant to handle the prosecution of terrorists. Routinely the U.S. Supreme Court found Constitutional issues that exposed the many flaws in military commissions. Republicans are pushing for military commissions for political reasons only. This isn’t about results -- it’s about votes. And they are will to say anything to scare the public into going along with a flawed system. We can't let them rule this debate. Our criminal courts have been tested and they work. From the first World Trade Center bombing to the tragedy in Oklahoma City -- these incidents resulted in arrests, prosecutions, lengthy prison sentences and, in some cases, the death penalty for the perpetrators. If we want to see justice for the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 the only place where that justice can be had within a reliable, proven legal framework is within the criminal court system. We also have to remember that the world is watching. By trying KSM and other terrorism suspects in criminal courts we are reaffirming our belief in our Democracy. That we walk the walk as well as talk the talk when it comes to justice. This is a chance to show that we don't need extra-judicial measures of questionable legality to deal with international terrorism. We already have the tools here at home. Let's use them. 2010-02-17T14:41:56+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/biden-goes-after-dick-cheney-on-terror-trials/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/biden-goes-after-dick-cheney-on-terror-trials/ Watch the video below to see Biden take on Cheney. Who are you going to believe? The vice president who wants to work within our laws to prosecute terrorists or the vice president who was STILL for torture even after his boss had shied away from it? I'm putting my money on Vice President Joe Biden who said this about his predecessor Sunday: I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing, again, to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about? The current vice president went all in on Sunday, hitting former Vice President Dick Cheney hard for his criticism of the Obama Administration and how they've handled terrorism suspects. Biden was on Meet the Press on NBC Sunday while former Vice President Dick Cheney went on ABC's This Week. What unfolded was a virtual VP debate where Biden represented common sense and upholding the rule of law while Cheney attempted to defend his legacy of torture and subverting the law to detain terrorism suspects. Biden went on the attack -- hard -- as he repeatedly questioned if Cheney had forgotten that more than 300 terrorists were prosecuted in criminal court during the Bush-Cheney Administration, that they were convicted and are sitting in federal prisons and that the Bush Administration read "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid his Miranda Rights. By pointing out that the Bush-Cheney Administration had operated both inside and outside the law to prosecute terrorists and had more success working within the law, Biden wrecked Cheney's contradictory arguments. Cheney, on the other hand, admitted that he'd pushed for waterboarding even after President Bush became resistant to "harsh interrogation techniques" in the second term. Cheney said he was against Richard Reid being read his rights. Cheney repeatedly made statements that demonstrated he was almost always for jettisoning the rule of law when it came to national security. Dick Cheney was out to defend his legacy of torture and indefinite detention, proving again, for him, that this has little to do with keeping Americans safe and everything to do with rewriting history to favor his irresponsible policies. Biden didn't let him get away with distorting the truth. He pushed back hard, giving the real facts on how when it comes to prosecuting terrorists it's always best to work within the law, rather than subvert and pervert it. Our system works and Dick Cheney is wrong. 2010-02-16T15:09:36+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-politics-of-justice/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-politics-of-justice/ In Friday's Washington Post, the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice appeared to be scrambling as they tried to deal with the negative political fallout from the decision to finally try 9/11 terror suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as well as four others, in New York City. A fallout pushed by many Republicans and conservatives despite the fact that the Bush Administration had also tried terrorism suspects in US courts. Now the president is becoming personally involved in selecting where the trials will be held. Why would he get that deep in the details, you ask? From the Washington Post: At first blush, the choice of New York made sense to many lawyers inside and outside of the administration: Judges and prosecutors there have handled serious national security trials, the Manhattan courthouse and tunneled detention complex would not require any of the suspects to move aboveground, and security costs would be lower than building a new facility. But several sources questioned why the administration -- especially one replete with political veterans -- has not done a better job of managing the complex politics of national security. "How did this happen?" asked Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.). "It was being blind to political realities." (Emphasis mine) The problem here is that the DOJ looked at the terror trials from the view of -- shock, shock -- prosecutors and law enforcement officials. They were simply doing what they'd always done -- try to bring people to justice and then deliver that justice to victims. But that apolitical decision was blind to Peter King’s politicization of our national security. You see, it's not about doing the "right" thing. It doesn't matter that civil courts have more experience trying terrorists, or that the Bush Administration touted their successful prosecution of over 300 terrorists in their last DOJ budget request. No, it's about how people "feel." It's about emotion, not rationality. It's about politics, not priorities. Republicans want to know why Holder and the President didn't consider what their political reaction would be. But maybe Holder and Obama didn't think right wing Republicans would stoop so low as to attack the rule of law and the DOJ's stellar reputation for successfully prosecuting terrorists. Maybe they didn't think these Chicken Little Hawks would attack the Obama Administration for doing something the Bush Administration did hundreds of times over -- try and convict terrorists in civil court. Well, lesson learned, by Obama and the American people. Here’s the political reality - some conservatives aren’t above politicizing national security to win votes in the fall. Just ask Sen. Mitch McConnell. New Security Action is tired of the games, and we’re doing something about it. Click HERE to join us and put Republicans like Peter King and Mitch McConnell on notice - when Republicans play games with our national security, it puts our nation at risk. 2010-02-16T12:04:33+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/new-yorker-magazine-looks-at-tough-times-for-holder-terrorism-trials/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/new-yorker-magazine-looks-at-tough-times-for-holder-terrorism-trials/ Jane Mayer of The New Yorker put together an incredible piece on the politicization of the Justice Department and any future trials for terrorists by the right wing. She writes about the tough hill Attorney General Eric Holder has to climb in his efforts to prosecute terrorists. Here's an excerpt: The Bush Administration obtained life sentences in the criminal courts for two terror suspects arrested inside the U.S.: Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was planning a second wave of plane attacks. (Reid was read his Miranda rights four times.) When the Bush Justice Department obtained these convictions, the process was celebrated by some of the same people now criticizing Holder. Giuliani, after the Moussaoui trial, said, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” Holder told me that he was “distressed” that people “who know better” were claiming that the courts were not up to the job of trying terrorists. He added that he found it “exceedingly strange” to hear this argument from Giuliani, who had been a zealous prosecutor. “If Giuliani was still the U.S. Attorney in New York, my guess is that, by now, I would already have gotten ten phone calls from him telling me why these cases needed to be tried not only in civilian court but at Foley Square,” Holder said. There is no evidence suggesting that military commissions would be tougher on suspected terrorists than criminal courts would. Of the three cases adjudicated at Guantánamo, one defendant received a life sentence after boycotting his own trial; another served only six months, in addition to the time he had already served at the detention camp; the third struck a plea bargain and received just nine months. Read the rest by clicking here. 2010-02-11T13:47:47+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/fear-the-wedge-issue-for-all-political-seasons/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/fear-the-wedge-issue-for-all-political-seasons/ The Senate Minority Leader has picked his poison. Sen. Mitch McConnell, quite proudly, told Politico that Republicans would be using national security as the issue du jour -- namely the Obama Administration's efforts to try terrorism suspects in civil court -- as a wedge to drive Democrats apart and secure victory for Republicans. Replicating his pattern of relentless, blistering speeches against President Barack Obama’s health care proposal and his plan to shutter the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, McConnell has begun attacking Obama’s plan to try terrorism suspects in civilian courts — and he’s taking aim directly at Attorney General Eric Holder. “The core question is whether the attorney general of the United States ought to be in charge of the war on terror,” McConnell said. “And the answer is no.” McConnell hopes moderate Democrats will join Republicans in blocking funding for any civilian trials of terrorism suspects — a would-be GOP victory the party’s candidates could trumpet on the campaign trail throughout this election year. Once again, McConnell and conservatives aren't offering better ideas or new solutions to our woes. Their goals are steeped in political expediency. It's funny that McConnell would announce this as the official strategy. Most of us could have swore that this has been the GOP's point of attack for years now -- calling Democrats weak on National Security. Tackling that political football must be fun, so much more fun than making the real tough decisions about governing. McConnell would prefer to play politics and position Republicans as the "Party of No" rather than have a constructive debate on national security. Meaning? Attacking law enforcement will continue to be a hallmark of the conservative strategy to defeat Democrats. Anything for a vote even at the expense of FBI, which according to reports from the New York Times has actually had some success in their questioning of the "Mirandized," would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber. It doesn't matter that we already have more than 300 terrorists in our prisons, that 195 terrorists have been prosecuted and convicted in civil courts (compared to that FANTASTIC number of three military tribunals have prosecuted). Following the law doesn't matter. Supporting our law enforcement who fight terrorism doesn't matter. Votes matter. Polls matter. And McConnell has found himself a hot button issue that he's going to press over and over until election results fall out like Casino tokens. From Politico: McConnell seems to sense that keeping his party united against controversial elements of the Democratic agenda could be his key to success this year — even if the political dynamic shifts in the next nine months. “Would I love to have the election tomorrow? I sure would,” McConnell said. “Early signs are that this could be a good year, but we have a long way to go.” A good year! Unless, you know, you actually care about national security and want to make America safe by acting smarter, rather than being loud and reactionary, screaming the sky is falling at every turn just to see the public jump. But it works to stimulate the base -- the base being the trembling mass of bed-wetting, "tea" aficionados with their fear of any variation of National Security Word Salad -- Kenya? Muslim? Black helicopters? Immigrant!?! SAVE ME, MITCH MCCONNELL! 2010-02-10T13:37:54+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/brennan-republicans-playing-political-football-on-national-security/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/brennan-republicans-playing-political-football-on-national-security/ It's about time someone said it. National security has become just another political wedge issue for Republicans to score points on. Sunday on Meet the Press, White House officials continued their push back against Republican fearmongering on the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Counterterrorism chief John Brennan went on the record and scolded Republicans for their overly political response to terrorism. From Politico: "There's been quite a bit of an outcry after the fact," Brennan said. "I'm just very concerned, on behalf of counterterrorism professionals throughout our government, that politicians continue to make this a political football, and are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes. ... I think those counterterrorism professionals deserve the support of our Congress. And rather than second-guessing what they're doing on the ground, with a 500-mile screwdriver from Washington to Detroit, I think they have to have confidence in the knowledge and the experience of these counterterrorism professionals." Here are the facts: On the day the bombing attempt occured, four Republicans, leaders in the House and Senate, were briefed that Abdulmutallab was in the custody of the FBI. These Republicans included Obama Administration critics Rep. Pete Hoekstra (who sits on the House Premanent Select Committee on Intelligence), Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, House minority leader John Boehner and Sen. Kit Bond, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Their first concerns were NOT about Miranda Rights or whether or not Abdulmutallab should be sent off to Guantanamo Bay. They didn't demand he be placed in military custody instead. They didn't demand anything. Yet weeks after the incident, Republicans are busy politicizing how our law enforcement does its job. "None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point," Brennan said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "They didn't say, 'Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be Mirandized?' They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did." "I explained to them that he was in FBI custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking, that he was cooperating at that point. They knew that 'in FBI custody' means that there's a process then you follow as far as Mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate." Ever since the White House and Department of Justice did the obvious thing and followed the rule of law after apprehending Abdulmutallab, Republicans have been up in arms, exclaiming that the rule of law makes us less safe. That Miranda Rights are like Red Bull and magically give terrorists the wings to skirt interrogation -- even though the Bush Administration followed the rule of law when faced with their own foreign, wannabe airplane bomber in "the shoe bomber," Richard Reid. But everything about what right wingers have done since the attempt have reeked of political gamesmanship. The right's politicization of the incident began quickly with the first attacks being on the President's response to the bombing and have only recently shifted to attacking law enforcement. McConnell didn't begin his attacks on Miranda Rights until mid-January. Now we have McConnell penning critical letters to the Department of Justice and insulting the FBI's ability to interrogate terrorists. He claims Larry King would be a better interrogator. Hoekstra was among the chorus of politicians decrying terrorists being tried in New York courts and using the Christmas Day bombing to scare the public into thinking our law enforcement isn't capable of handling terrorists (even though we've prosecuted and convicted 195 terrorists since 2001 and our prisons presently hold more than 300 terrorists). He claimed that we'd lost valuable intelligence because Abdulmutallab was read his rights ... even though the FBI recently reported that Abdulmutallab is cooperating, talking and giving up useful information. Naturally, those who have worked counterterrorism aren't too enthused about McConnell and crews maligning of the FBI in order to get an uptick in the polls. Ex-FBI interrogator Jack Cloonan has been especially vocal about the latest conservative chorus of "the FBI is too weak to handle terrorism." Cloonan's response? “They just don’t know what they’re talking about. They really don’t.” From the Washington Independent: “People keep talking about Mirandizing as if it’s a preventive measure, getting someone to shut up, but most critics have never been in position have to Mirandize one,” Cloonan said. “It’s to keep pristine information you’ve already gotten and to have a prosecutable case. It’s not the end of an interview.” “A lot of people make big a deal out of Mirandizing Abdulmutallab, thinking he’ll clam up and will never talk,” Cloonan said. “What’s gonna work, over the next several weeks, is a bit of gamesmanship. Here’s what we’re looking for — from both the FBI and the attorney — and the U.S. Attorney in Detroit will say this is what he’s got to do. They’ll put together a proffer agreement outlining what his obligations are.” If it comes out that Abdulmutallab “exaggerated or lied about any of it, then it’s void.” But trust our law enforcement? That's a bridge of common sense too far for most right wingers. Afterall, playing politics is their favorite past-time. What's in it for them, politically, to support the rule of law and let law enforcement do their jobs? Nothing – and that’s the point. They learned years ago that fear works. Not to mention attacking Democrats as WEAK on national security. Senator Scott Browns’ campaign attack line that we should be paying for weapons to fight terrorists rather than lawyers to defend them was a home run on the campaign trail. Pollsters report it scored. So, Republicans are looking for any opportunity to cash in on the attack politically regardless of what it means for our law enforcement officers, the law or our Constitution. Do you think maybe that’s why Sarah Palin got into the act by using this very same poll tested argument at the so-called “Tea Party” convention in Nashville over the weekend? In a case of "Oh-No-The-Truth-Is-Making-Us-Look-Bad," Hoekstra and company are now all complaining that Brennan's assessment was unfair. That they didn't know from the briefing that Abdulmutallab would be "Mirandized." Of course, they KNEW he was in FBI custody and they were AWARE of standard legal procedures done everyday by our law enforcement. Or, at least I would hope they would know that our law enforcement officials always read everyone their Miranda Rights because that's the law. Otherwise, well, what are they doing in government trying to write laws? But playing dumb is a nice attempt to get around the fact that what was just dandy under the Bush Administration is suddenly not good enough when Obama is in office. A point not missed by President Obama himself. From the New York Times: "The most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush administration handled them all through 9/11," the president said in an interview with CBS. "They prosecuted 190 folks in these Article Three courts," referring to civilian courts. "Got convictions. And those folks are in maximum security prisons right now. And there have been no escapes." Hypocrisy -- Hoekstra, McConnell, Bond and Boehner are your names. 2010-02-08T13:01:30+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/democrats-take-up-fight-for-national-security/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/democrats-take-up-fight-for-national-security/ Finally. Some common sense. After months of hearing nothing but how we have to slaughter our principles on the alter of national security, government officials, Democrats and others are finally pushing back against the right wing tactics of fear and distortion with a little something I like to call "facts." As The American Prospect's Adam Serwer would say, "more please!": Yesterday, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said that all the former Guantanamo Bay inmates suspected of engaging in terrorist activity were released by the prior administration. Top law enforcement and intelligence officials also told the Senate yesterday that Umar Abdulmutallab was providing valuable intelligence, despite having been read his rights after he initially stopped talking. This afternoon, Attorney General Eric Holder blasted Republican hypocrisy over the administration's handling of Abdulmutallab, pointing out that the procedure that had been followed was "[T]he practice of the U.S. government, followed by prior and current Administrations without a single exception." You have people pushing back against Republican Dan Coates as he gears up to run against Sen. Evan Byah in Indiana, pointing out that Coates once accused then President Bill Clinton of focusing on capturing Osama bin Laden for purely political reasons. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder is pushing back against Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell in the many, many ways McConnell is truly clueless in his attacks on the FBI. McConnell recently said TV talker Larry King was a better interrogator than the FBI in response to their questioning of the Christmas Day bomber. Why McConnell has it suddenly out for the FBI, one of our greatest defenses against future terrorism attacks is beyond me -- unless you factor in the realization that he's probably only smearing the reputations of G-Men for political expediency. From ThinkProgress: It seems McConnell would rather try to score political points by undermining the work American counterterror officials are doing in the field, particularly in Abdulmutallab’s case, where key information has actually been gleaned. In fact, reports surfaced this week that Abdulmutallab “has been cooperating for days” with the FBI. But this isn’t the first time a Republican has tried to attack the administration by insulting U.S. agents. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that getting information from Abdulmutallab was “blind luck. Well, Holder didn't take those jabs lying down. From TAPPED blog: Holder writes that Abdulmutallab was "questioned by experienced counterterrorism agents from the FBI in the hours immediately after the failed bombing attempt and provided intelligence, and more recently, he has provided additional intelligence to the FBI that we are actively using to help protect our country." Holder adds, "In keeping with this policy, the Bush Administration used the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges," citing several convicted terrorists, referring to shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui by name. Holder, of course, was more diplomatic than I. They're hypocrites, pure and simple, looking to gain any political ground that they can and if right wingers have to trash our entire system of justice, law and order to get it, they will. Good to see the fight picking up again. 2010-02-05T17:02:38+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/video-obama-talks-about-closing-guantanamo-youtube/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/video-obama-talks-about-closing-guantanamo-youtube/ In an interview that aired on YouTube Feb. 1 President Barack Obama talks about the obstacles he faces in trying to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He describes some of the opposition as "pretty rank politics." Which I would argue is a nice way of putting it. 2010-02-04T13:44:47+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-party-of-no-goes-nutty-over-miranda-rights-rule-of-law/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-party-of-no-goes-nutty-over-miranda-rights-rule-of-law/ Never have I seen so many people feigning fear over something as rote and commonplace as the reading of Miranda rights. Listen to Sen. Susan Collins and you get the impression that every time a terrorist is read his or her Miranda Rights, they get their legal "wings" and fly far far away from the clutches of justice. Collins recently went on a tear about the Christmas Day underpants bomber, charging that the Obama Administration is making us "less safe" by treating a criminal like a criminal and seeking to prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. Sen. Collins, falsely, is under the impression that Mirandizing someone keeps you from interrogating them properly even though all "Mirandizing" does is tell someone you have a right to an attorney and can choose whether or not to talk. Shocking. Of course, Sen. Collins' caterwauling has appeared to be for naught as -- surprise, surprise -- the FBI's very legal and very constitutional interrogation methods appear to be working just dandy. From Politico: The “underwear bomber” has resumed cooperating with FBI counterterrorism agents and has provided “useful, current” intelligence, a law enforcement source told POLITICO on Tuesday. The Obama administration has been criticized for reading Miranda rights to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the fizzled airborne bombing attempt on Christmas Day. The suspect, now being held in a federal prison outside Detroit, was questioned by the FBI for 50 minutes on the day of the attack, then was read his rights. “Since then, the FBI and Justice Department have been pressing him to cooperate,” the source said. “It started last week, and has continued for several days. The information has been active, useful, and we have been following up. The intelligence is not stale. He certainly sees that there are incentives provided by the criminal justice system to cooperate.” Strangely, without Jack Bauer holding a pen to his eye and threatening to pluck it out, Abdulmutallab is talking to agents again. Will Sen. Collins be issuing an apology to the DOJ for acting like they were incapable of doing their jobs? Atty. General Eric Holder probably shouldn't hold his breath. Maybe this is just a rough concept for Sen. Collins and other Republicans to grasp but ... ahem ... Abdulmutallab IS NOT the first terrorist of any kind that the FBI has ever dealt with. The Department of Justice has an extensive history of being able to interrogate, detain, arrest, disrupt and counteract terrorism suspects. From Ramzay Yousef, the first World Trade Center bomber, to domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and the Beltway Snipers -- the FBI KNOWS their way around a terrorist. They know what interrogation methods work and what doesn't work. And they know that reading "Miranda Rights" doesn't create some alternative legal universe that makes a subject untouchable. Joan Walsh of Salon pointed out the following regarding the Susan Collinses of the right: Has anyone else noticed that the once-fierce GOP ... lately seems like a bunch of bed-wetters, afraid to let our Democratic institutions work to keep us safe? We've tried hundreds of terrorists in criminal court and convicted them, and they sit in supermax American prisons. Not one has gotten out to terrorize again. But now Republicans are claiming that the policies pursued by Bush and Cheney regarding criminal trials for terrorists aren't enough. We have to be kept even safer! But if we agree to be terrorized by the thought of using our institutions to protect us from terror, well, haven't the terrorists won? I get that Republicans see National Security as their strong suit. But arguing that our legal system is too weak, attacking law enforcement for doing their jobs -- correctly -- out of the desire to score a few cheap political points is appalling. While it's understandable that the American public would be fearful of individuals like Abdulmutallab, that they would be concerned, it's pretty shallow to use that legitimate concern and exploit it for the sake of political posturing. Because that's what this is. We didn't just wake up one day and suddenly have a "weak" justice system. In the Supermax prison where Ramzay Yousef is held he's on lock down 23 hours of the day in solitary confinement. There's never been an escape from a Supermax prison. And our justice system has tried and convicted 195 terrorists since 2001. And we convicted them here, in the U.S. Not at Gitmo, where military tribunals have only managed to try and prosecute THREE people. But if you listen to Republicans you'd think you were watching some cheap Hollywood B-movie where the bad guy gets away because someone forget to cross a "t" and dot an "i" in some Byzantine police report. Why attack our justice system? Because fear is a great motivator. If you convince people that something strong is actually weak, you just opened a new vein for votes. In the end, this has much more to do with attacking and stymieing the President rather than keeping American safe. This has a lot more to do with hampering the President's ability to govern than doing the right thing. This about being the Party of No. About holding up progress for the sake of muddying a few eyes. This isn't about justice or security. It's about elections and wedge issues. Will fear get your vote in the fall? 2010-02-03T19:29:31+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/fear-of-the-familiar/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/fear-of-the-familiar/ This was the news that broke towards the end of January, another obstacle to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay: From the Washington Post: The Obama administration has all but abandoned its plan to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, on trial in Lower Manhattan, according to administration officials. A senior administration official said no decision has been formalized, but the Justice Department is already considering other venues. Said another official close to the discussions: "New York is out." The reversal would mark the latest setback for an administration that has been buffeted at every turn as it seeks to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Its options for closing the prison had already been dwindling, and without the backdrop of Ground Zero for a trial, the administration would lose some of the rich symbolism associated with its attempt to forge a new approach to handling high-profile al-Qaeda detainees. Fear wins again. Right now Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is talking about defunding any money in the federal budget that would go towards either purchasing the prison in Thomson, Ill. that would house Gitmo detainees, or any funds that would go towards the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Others, like Sen. Lindsay Graham, are actively working to put up legislation that would block the trials from ever happening. The talk on the right wing is that it's too dangerous and too costly to try terrorism suspects like Khalid Shiekh Mohammad in New York City. Of course, this flies in the face of the reality that we've tried terrorism suspects on U.S. soil before -- during the Bush Administration -- and there were no complaints from the right. From CNN.com: Gibbs and Axelrod criticized Republican opposition to the plan to hold the trial in a criminal court, saying no one complained when the previous administration of Republican President George W. Bush put terrorism suspects such as "shoe bomber" Richard Reid on trial in U.S. criminal courts. "Now we have a Democratic president and suddenly we hear these protests," Axelrod said. "What has changed between now and then that would cause people to reverse positions?" Naturally, politicians like McConnell are now saying that Bush did the wrong thing by trying terrorists in the U.S. -- forgetting that nothing happened to terrorists tried here other than convictions and sentencings. There was no massive civil unrest. No attacks. No jihadist flocking to civil trial sites. Just media satellite trucks, people and reporters. But how soon we forget when we want to manipulate the American public through fear, telling them they have to sacrifice our country's principles for security. That's simply not true. We've tried suspects here before. We're trying suspects now. To close Gitmo we need to either charge or release the men who remain there. You can't believe in justice, then change out of fear. That's what the true terrorists want. They want us to be hypocritical and abandon our beliefs. We can't let that happen.  2010-02-02T14:06:20+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-great-retreat-democrats-need-to-fight-for-national-security/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-great-retreat-democrats-need-to-fight-for-national-security/ In the great game of political chicken on national defense are the Democrats balking -- again? During the President's first State of the Union, he came out swinging, telling Democrats to stop running for the hills on issues when they have the majority. But was President Obama talking about national security when he threw out that remark? Because from all appearances, not only do Democrats on the Hill need to heed his advice, Obama may need to play a little "doctor heal thyself" on this one too. There was NO mention of Guantanamo Bay in the State of the Union. Afghanistan and other national security issues were skirted around and other than reminding people of his promise to pull troops out of Iraq come August, he largely punted the issue. And then there was the talk of the domestic spending freeze, but no talk of any kind of examination of the bloated defense budget. But what if Democrats decided to take a page out of the Republican playbook and go after what pollsters say is their strength – national security? What would happen if Democrats did to them what they did to John Kerry in 2004? Only in this case, they wouldn’t have to make things up about what Republicans did to weaken the country and make us less secure. What if Democrats refused to, in the president’s words, “run for the hills” when it comes to taking this issue right to the Repubulicans, defining the national security issue and debate? Why should the Democrats play more offense? Let's face it. Republicans don't have any credibility when it comes to most issues in the eyes of the public. Economics? We saw how well no regulations, tax cuts for the rich went. Republicans are abscent on most domestic fronts. All they have left is their hold card -- their "fear" card on national defense -- and technically, after eight years of the Bush-Cheney Administration, that card should be shot full of holes. From 9/11 to the Anthrax attacks to greatest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States -- the Iraq War and the incredible, imaginary "weapons of mass destruction." That all happened on their watch and Democrats should be calling Republicans on the carpet for it. They should be reminding the public that unless you like a "shoot first, go-into-debt-and-death-fighting-a-poorly-thought-out-war later" you can't trust Republicans with national security. Yet instead of standing and fighting, we fear the great retreat is upon us. A retreat on national security. A retreat on closing Guantanamo Bay. A "partial" retreat on the trial of Khalid Shiekh Mohammad and other high level terrorists in New York City. A retreat on cutting the bloated defense budget, a budget even individuals inside the Pentagon agree needs to be wrangled with. Democrats want to talk "jobs, jobs, jobs" but as the economy improves, the Republicans, just like Senator-elect Scott Brown did in Massachusetts, will use national security as a cudgel to beat the opposition with because that's all they have. Conservatives are holding tight to their fear cards and they will play them over and over, telling the public that domestic issues don't matter if you're dead. Instead of letting Republicans rule the debate on defense, Democrats should challenge them on their own record of death and disappointment. The Democrats should define the Republicans on foreign policy by the garbage they created during the days of George W. Bush and remind the public that the Democrats were elected to take out that garbage. 2010-01-29T15:18:16+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/watch-veterans-tell-congress-its-time-to-close-gitmo/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/watch-veterans-tell-congress-its-time-to-close-gitmo/ 2010-01-28T22:26:17+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/watch-tom-andrews-talks-the-state-of-the-union-on-msnbc/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/watch-tom-andrews-talks-the-state-of-the-union-on-msnbc/ 2010-01-28T16:19:30+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/live-from-capitol-hill-its-the-state-of-the-union-live-blog/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/live-from-capitol-hill-its-the-state-of-the-union-live-blog/ New Security Action's Live Blog of the President's State of the Union is being hosted by NSAction blogger Danielle Belton and New Security Action's Executive Director Tom Andrews. Overall coverage begins at 9 PM EST. You can also follow us on Twitter at NSAction. 10:23 PM: Thanks for joining us for our live blog everyone! 10:21 PM: President ends on the note that "We don't quit. I don't quit." Good speech, but ... Afghanistan and Gitmo were no shows. 10:19 PM: "The spirit that has sustained this nation for more that two centuries lives on in you." 10:16 PM: "I campaigned on the promise of change." "I never suggested that change would be easy or that I could do it alone. A democracy of 300 million peopel can be noisy and messy." 10:14 PM: President calls for Congress to end Don't Ask Don't Tell, praises a DOJ that has a civil rights division that acutally enforces civil rights laws. Apparently we've reached the full-on, feel good part of the speech. 10:12 PM: The wifi here is getting glitchy. I appear to have lost contact with Tom. Oh no! 10:09 PM: Hmm. We've called for an end to the Iraq War. We're talking about increased consequences for Iran. Talks with North Korea. Are we going to get to Gitmo in this speech? 10:05 PM: Obama says we'll have all our troops out of Iraq by August. 10:03 PM: Obama calls out Republican obfuscation as the party of no. BUT also calls on Democrats, who are the majority, to stop cowering and put up their dukes for once. I'm starting to like this part of the speech. 9:58 PM: Obama points out how clearly wrong the recent Surpreme Ct. decision on campaign finance to their faces. Someone sitting there in their robe didn't like that. 9:56 PM: More from Tom -- Punting to a commission to figure out how to save money. 9:53 PM: Spending freeze without touching defense? Tom's take -- The federal government SHOULD tighten its belt. Let’s start where there is the most FAT – defense contractors run amok. No – there it is – the president will take defense contractors off the table of fiscal responsibility. Relax. The cigars are being lit as we listen… 9:51 PM: Obama points out the whole "no money" situation. We has a surplus. We lost a surplus. We got more debt. We didn't pay for wars. Another reminder that we were broke before he even came here. "Just statin' facts!" he says. 9:49 PM: More from Tom -- The stakes of not passing health care reform… By the way, those of us in the middle class with employer provided health care will pay twice as much for our health care policy in the next seven years if Congress fails to act. 9:48 PM: President asks if anyone has a better idea to lower healthcare premiums he wants to hear it. I'm not going to hold my breath although someone in the restaurant I'm in shouted "Public Option!" 9:47 PM: Tom is excited about that the President is addressing health care -- Yea! Health insurance reform is in the speech! 9:45 PM: A shout-out to the First Lady who is going to tackle childhood obesity. Yay for Michelle. She motions for the applause to stop. The President explains: "She gets embarassed." 9:44 PM: From Tom -- Failing schools kills futures. Right again. As we have learned over the last seven years, successful schools need more than hot air from Washington to succeed. 9:41 PM: From Tom -- “The nation that leads the clean energy economy will lead the global economy.” A fact that is as irrefutable as the fact that Republicans in Congress will do whatever they can to kill legislation that seeks to advance it. 9:39 PM: From Tom on all that off-shore drilling, nuclear power plant talk -- More nuclear power plants? Where is the waste going, Mr. President? 9:28 PM: From Tom -- WE cannot allow the lobbyists to win this fight! Declares the president. Yes. And the challenge to Congress – I will send legislation that does not get it right back to you. Yes, get that passion working – challenge the Congress. 9:32 PM: From Tom -- Infrastructure. Yes. $8 billion is going to high speed rail like the site where the president will visit tomorrow in Florida. Good idea. But we have an infrastructure deficit of $2.2 trillion. Literally one quarter of our bridges are structurally unsound. Every dollar invested in these types of challenges generates several more dollars in economic activity. 9:28 PM: President calls for light rail and green jobs. Slash tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. 9:24 PM: President calls for a new jobs bill. Standing ovation. I have a feeling we're going to have a return of "pop-up Pelosi" this year. 9:21 PM: President gets some applause for tax cuts. Camera pans to the Day-Glo Orange shine of Republican John Boehner laughing heartily. 9:20 PM: More comments from Tom -- The stakes are laid out. The greatness of America’s past laid out America expects us to work out our differences, the president tells the chamber.  Well, the Republicans watching you in the chamber, Mr. President, did not get that memo. 9:19 PM: Obama admits that the bailout didn't go over very well. "I hated it. You hated it." Hilariously, camera shows Tim Giethner whom, as everyone knows, no one particuarly cares for right now. 9:16 PM: Obama still trying to find hope among our myriad of problems. Reaffirming his belief in our country's resiliancy. "Despite our hardships our union is strong." "In this new decade it's time this country get a government that matches their decency." I'm ready to hear how exactly we're going to get that! 9:14 PM: Obama opens with the seriousness of our problems -- "The burdeon of working harder and longer for less." "I know the anxieties that are out there right now." "These struggles are the reason why I ran for president." 9:13 PM: Tom offers the follow insider tidbit on what members of Congress go through to get those seats -- The Congressional handshakers now greeting the president as he enters the chamber grabbed these seats at 9:00 this morning. That’s right – just like hanging out for a good seat at a rock concert – these members spent their day camping out in the House Chamber to claim and secure one of the glad-handing seats. Will we see sleeping bags next year? 9:12 PM: The President kicks things off with a history lesson of the Nation's past struggles, contrasting with our current troubles. 9:10 PM: President begins speech. Rumor has it the speech will last well over an hour. 9:04 PM: Tom makes some points about the speech and those in the House watching -- It’s President Obama’s first SOU speech. But for many in the crowd he is addressing in the House Chamber, it’s the last speech he will deliver before for mid-term election  where their political lives will be on the line. Many of the voters who will go to the polls in those mid-term elections will be listening tonight. 9:02 PM: Watching the MSNBC feed here at Busboys & Poets. Hopefully their Internet will stop kicking me off! 8:57 PM: Some more preliminary thoughts from Tom -- There is an old saying – you dance with the one who brought you. Well, millions of Americans from every walk of life in communities large and small brought President Obama to this dance. WE did so because we passionately believe in the need for fundamental change in how Washington works – that we need a president who will fearlessly take on the powers that so often reign supreme in this town – the special interests that sock it to us whenever they finagle their way into another piece of largess from those who we elect or who they appoint to look after our interests.   There are no more powerful special interests in Washington that defense contractors and their army of lobbyists. They are able to secure billions of dollars of federal funding every year that even the Pentagon says it doesn’t want and that our country doesn’t need (and, by the way, cannot afford) Last summer the Government Accountability Office reported that the cost overruns for the top 75 percent of military procurement programs were over $295 billion. A July Wall Street Journal story of the GAO bombshell that never went off in Washington concluded: “We are rapidly disarming ourselves, even as defense spending grows.” In other words, they have misspent more in cost overruns in projects that are in the defense pipeline right now than the president is going to try and squeeze out in domestic spending cuts in ten years. BUT, they are off the fiscal responsibility table. No chopping block for them. They are exempt. So, the president is reportedly going to include fiscal responsibility in his speech tonight and the need to reign in federal spending with a spending freeze. That is, unless you are a defense contractor. The largest ten of which reported that they spent $29 million to lobby Congress and the administration in the final quarter of last year.  The largest defense budget in the history of the nation, chocked full of items that have absolutely nothing to do with the national security interests of the nation and everything to do with the financial interests of defense contractors and the pork barrel political interests of Members of Congress will be off limits tonight. For many of us dance partners the question is, why?  Apparently we will not have that question answered tonight. 8:38 PM: Tom's first dispatch -- Getting from point A to point B here on Capitol Hill tonight is almost as difficult as getting a  genuine health care bill passed by this Congress. Streets around the Capitol are blocked with barricades and red flairs. I had to maneuver around several such barricades as I made my way to the Hill for tonight’s SOU speech that is this neighborhood’s version of the Super Bowl, second only to the truly Super Spectacular Bowl called the Inauguration of Barack Obama a mere one year ago. Then, like now, the air is abuzz with anticipation of a momentous event, an incredibly important speech by a young president and the rotors of a federal helicopter hovering overhead. But oh how things have changed since the historic occasion  that rocked this part of town one year ago. 8:36 PM: Right now I've got my laptop up and running at Busboys and Poets in downtown Washington, D.C. Tom will be sending his dispatches from Captiol Hill tonight. 2010-01-27T17:02:00+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/50-detainees-to-be-forever-trapped-on-gitmos-isle-of-no-return/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/50-detainees-to-be-forever-trapped-on-gitmos-isle-of-no-return/ The Washington Post is reporting that "nearly 50 of the 196 detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war, according to Obama administration officials." More from WashPo: The task force's findings represent the first time that the administration has clarified how many detainees it considers too dangerous to release but unprosecutable because officials fear trials could compromise intelligence-gathering and because detainees could challenge evidence obtained through coercion. Fifty. That's fifty people trapped on Gitmo's isle of no return. This is disturbing, concerning news. How did the Obama Administration decide this and on what grounds did they determine that 50 of the 196 could not be charged and tried in a court of law? The Administration didn't release many details on the ill-fated fifty and are instead just asking us to trust their judgment on a matter that runs counter to everything America claims to stand for. It flouts the rule of law leading to a troubling implication that the Executive Branch can simply hold people, indefinitely, without charge -- something that was first expressed under the Bush-Cheney Administration. It's scary to see it resurface in this way. From the American Prospect's TAPPED blog: The mess Bush left for Obama on national security rivals the economic crisis in complexity. But that's no excuse for perpetuating a lawless system in which the government can imprison people indefinitely without charge, based on the unprovable assumption that they committed a crime, or worse, based on one that hasn't been committed yet. The strategic national security benefits of closing Gitmo will be fleeting if the U.S. continues to maintain a lawless detention regime. The one silver lining in this news report is that 110 people have been determined by the task force to be not a threat at all and are recommended to be released. But there's even a treacherous flip side to that. About ninety of those individuals are Yemenis who are facing their own increasingly extended stay on Gitmo because we've halted sending detainees to Yemen. These are individuals who have been determined to not be a threat (just like the hundreds of former detainees released before them). These individuals are not being charged with any crime. If the U.S. government doesn't believe these individuals are a threat then why are we continuing to hold them? It makes you wonder. Does our government intend to create a new category of detention where someone is held indefinitely just because of where they were born? Just because of the nationality on their passports happens to be Yemeni? By refusing to return detainees to Yemen were are creating a dangerous precedent where we make simple citizenry of Yemen a crime. Are we comfortable with that knowledge as Americans? Are we comfortable with that being the new norm against our standards of right and wrong, justice and fairness? In holding these individuals we are arming our adversaries with a powerful weapon. Yet more evidence of hypocrisy to be exploited by those who mean us harm, to point and say that Americans may talk justice, but they don't deliver it if you're Yemeni. How will giving our enemies this tool help us win the "hearts and minds" of a public where groups like al Qaeda are trying to convince them that our war against terrorism is really a war on Muslims? These are problems, questions that need to be addressed. We're waiting for the answers. 2010-01-22T18:13:36+00:00 http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/veteran-speaks-out-about-gitmo/ http://www.newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/veteran-speaks-out-about-gitmo/ 2010-01-22T15:50:51+00:00