Daniel Pearl's Friend Remembers

If you don't read much else this weekend be sure to read Asra Nomani's courageous and reflective story about her friend Daniel Pearl and her quest to find answers which led her to Guantanamo and back:

And so it became clear, at Guantánamo, that the only work left for me to do was to heal my wound. 

“What is grief?” I recently asked psychologist Steven Stosny, posing the obvious question I’d avoided for so long. 

“It’s an expression of love,” he told me. “When you grieve, you allow yourself to love again.” 

“How do you grieve?” I asked him. 

“You celebrate a person’s life by living your life fully.”

Read the whole thing.

Perspective.

Don't Wave the Victory Flag Just Yet on New York Terror Trials

I think this is good news but I'm hesitant to get too excited just yet. News tonight is that The House of Obama has pulled the plug on holding the KSM terror trial in NYC. As opposition to the event picked up steam this week it seems that the pressure was too much to bear and now the word is that the plan is dead:

The Obama administration Friday abandoned plans to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan, following objections from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a senior administration official said. He will be tried domestically, but officials have not decided where. Options for the trial include a military base.

Other options may also include other domestic cities for all we know.

The New York Times reports:

By Friday, Justice Department officials were studying other locations, focusing especially on military bases and prison complexes, and no obvious new choice had emerged.

Begging the obvious, but what's wrong with Gitmo?

And even more obvious, shouldn't this have all just stayed in the hands of the military in the first place?

Ever the cynic, Allahpundit wisely wonders:

Exit question: Did Obama trade this concession for any congressional votes about closing Gitmo and funding a new prison? Someone call Mitch McConnell, quick.

Hmmmm.

I'm wondering what kind of pressure Eric Holder is feeling these days. Everything we learn about the handling of the Christmas Day terrorist reveals even more clusterfarks than one could imagine. Now this.

But somehow I don't feel we can rest easy on this one just yet.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Mixed Signals in the Terror Trials

There are a couple of conflicting stories floating about with regard to the terrorist trials.

Friday I started reading about the Obama administration's consideration of holding one of the trials in Washington D.C. - that of Riduan Isamuddin, or Hambali. Hambali was a high ranking al-Qaeda operative, supposedly the main link between al-Qaeda and a terror group responsible for a bombing in Bali in 2002 which killed more than 200 people and the 2000 attacks in Indonesia on Christmas Eve that killed 19. He was planning a second wave of attacks in America when he was captured. You can read more of his resume here or here.

Hambali is one of the high value detainees at Gitmo, along with KSM, who supposedly is going to be tried in New York City.

However, now Newsweek is reporting that KSM may not be coming to New York at all:

But because of shifting political winds in Congress, the trial is now "potentially in jeopardy," a senior official, who did not want to be named talking about a sensitive situation, tells NEWSWEEK. The chief concern: that Republicans will renew attempts to strip funding for the trial and, in the aftermath of the bombing attempt aboard Northwest Flight 253, pick up enough support from moderate Democrats to prevail.

It's not just the Republicans gumming up the works, either:

Another big factor? The price tag. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently sent a letter to the White House budget office seeking more than $216 million to provide security for the trial this year—and more than $200 million for each year after that. The figures have prompted some critics to say that, given the years a complex conspiracy case could take, the final cost could approach $1 billion.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a communications breakdown in information sharing between the administration and Congress. The Hill reports:

Ever since Obama announced plans to shutter the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in the first days of his presidency, members of Congress have complained about the lack of transparency on the backgrounds of detainees transferred overseas...

...There is no transparency when it comes to detainee transfers,” said Tom Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “The public doesn’t know how the Obama administration is deciding which detainees can be transferred or which detainees are transferred until after the fact. This makes congressional notifications, and passing on those notifications in short order to members of Congress, all the more important.” Even when they receive the classified notifications from the State Department, some lawmakers complain about the quality of the information in the reports and the 15-day window for Congress to request additional information and raise concerns.

There doesn't seem to be a lot of open communication about this going on between the people that should be paying attention. That includes the American people. And it doesn't seem as if the decision makers in Washington are all on the same page.

It might be too expensive to hold a trial for KSM + 4 in New York, but we can maybe try Hambali in D.C.?

It seems as if the Obama administration is just throwing ideas out there to see what gets the least public outcry and that's the one they go with.

It doesn't instill a lot of confidence in the process.

Eric Holder Attends Security Summit for 9/11 Terror Trials

ABC News reports tonight that Attorney General Eric Holder is in New York for a sort of security summit "with federal prosecutors, the New York City police commissioner and other key officials" in anticipation of the upcoming 9/11 terrorist trials. A federal grand jury is already supposedly hearing evidence and presumably will come back with an indictment. One would hope.

Elements of trial prep underway are reportedly:

* Beefed up counter terrorism and intelligence operations

* Deployment of sniper teams

* Heavy weapons deployment

* Barricades

* Traffic diversions

* Use of undercover officers and surveillance measures

* Coordination with FBI, U.S. Marshalls, and intelligence divisions

All at a price tag of well over the initial $75 million estimate. The cost be damned! Chuck Schumer issued the following statement:

"The bottom line is these are federal terror cases that will bring to justice, in federal court, the evil men behind the attack on our nation on 9-11," Schumer said today. " It's common sense that the federal government pay for security costs because these trials will place a significant burden on the NYPD and the city to keep lower Manhattan safe and secure. Additionally, the tools and resources needed for a trial of this scale are enormous. Attorney General Holder told me he will press to fully reimburse the city's security expenses and I will hold the Administration's feet to the fire to do just that – no matter what the cost."

And all this is for what? For a grandstand for terrorists who hate us, who engaged in activities to kill nearly 3,000 Americans, who can't wait to spew anti-American venom in their now public forum. They will claim that they've been tortured and abused. Poor things. Evil Americans.

Dick Cheney rightly points out that "holding the trial in a lower Manhattan courtroom near ground zero will make Mohammed 'a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world.'"

It's all even more absurd when you recall that KSM had already tried to plead guilty and asked for execution. End of story.

But, no. The man-child Obama and the left-of-liberal Eric Holder want to hold this circus in New York City.

Amateurs. Incompetence. Disgrace.

Update: Donald Douglas has more at American Power.

Thomas Wilner's Weak Argument for Civilian Trials

With regard to the upcoming KSM trial in New York, Thomas Wilner has an Op-Ed in today's Wall Street Journal in which he attempts to make the case that Eric Holder's decision to hold criminal trials for these five terrorists is a good idea. Better, even, than a military tribunal. There are some problems with Mr. Wilner's argument, however, at least as I see it.

He begins his argument by attempting to make the case that these guys were captured "far from any battlefield":

The premeditated murder of innocent civilians far from any battlefield is not the act of a warrior, but of a criminal. The prior administration detained these men indefinitely as "enemy combatants." But the laws of war allow only temporary detention of combatants until the end of the armed conflict in which they were captured. They were never intended to authorize the detention of people for terrorist activities far from the battlefield.

I have to differ with him on that. In the first place, the war on terrorism is a world stage; the entire would could be seen as a battlefield in such a war. Secondly, the terrorists brought the battlefield to the United States when they attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and when they flew into that field in Shanksville. And thirdly, KSM was captured in Pakistan, which is definitely part of the "battlefield" as a neighbor to Afghanistan and a harbor to al Qaeda; it's been believed that bin Laden escaped the hills of Tora Bora to Pakistan when he was nearly captured by our military.

Wilner then attempts to make the case that there is some difference between a "terrorist" and an "enemy combatant" to the degree that a terrorist shouldn't be taken as seriously as an enemy combatant. His reasoning seems to be that the terrorist does not wear the uniform of his country and the enemy combatant does. Again, this is a different kind of war; in a sense, KSM and friends ARE wearing the uniform of their cause because they are fighting for radical Islam and their uniform is their hatred for Americans. Just because this is a different kind of war does not make it any less of a war.

Wilner cites the high conviction rate of terrorists in civilian courts:

In a detailed study prepared in 2006 under the Bush administration, the Justice Department reported "impressive success" in convicting terrorists. Between September 2001 and June 2006, it obtained convictions against more than 250 people for terrorism-related offenses, covering a range of activities, from completed acts of terrorism to the "early stages of terrorist planning."

Nobody really doubts that a conviction could be obtained, but as Andrew McCarthy said last week, "The problem on this ride is not the destination, but the journey." KSM and his attorneys will have access to a plethora of sensitive information.

Wilner tries to make the case that sensitive information will be protected, but there are no guarantees of that. In fact, as Wilner himself says, KSM and friends will have access to that information because "as the Supreme Court emphasized in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush (2008), detainees must be given the opportunity to confront the evidence against them." Wilner says that the Classified Information Procedures Act will protect that information, but it didn't in the case of the Blind Sheikh trial.

Again, I cite Andrew McCarthy, who has some experience in trying enemy combatants in civilian courts, who says, "Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witnesses — intelligence sources — must expose themselves and their secrets."

And there are real problems with Wilner's argument in his next paragraph:

Military tribunals may be appropriate when the perpetrators are combatants or the targets are military, as with the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. But they have a lower conviction rate and do not have the same international credibility as trials in the federal courts. Moreover, federal judges have extensive experience dealing with these cases, with attempts to disrupt the process, and with keeping the focus on the key issue of guilt or innocence, rather than on the legitimacy of the forum being used.

One of the targets on 9/11 was the Pentagon which is most assuredly a military target, so Wilner's first sentence is discounted. A military tribunal is absolutely in order for KSM on those grounds. As far as a lower conviction rate for military tribunals, that's not relevant in the case of KSM either as he had already plead guilty in his military commission. Military commissions are absolutely legitimate forums as Eric Holder even agrees by moving the trial of the USS Cole bombers there. So, I don't see the sense of Wilner's argument here.

Wilner seems to be saying that KSM ought be tried in a civilian court because he wasn't captured on any battlefield and he didn't attack a military target - and both premises are incorrect. Wilner's attempts to support his argument by claiming that we're more likely to get a conviction for KSM in a civilian court is also a non sequitur as KSM had already pled guilty. And at least if KSM and friends attempt to use the courtroom as a forum for their hatred of America then a military commission would be the most appropriate place for that as the American people wouldn't have to listen to it. It removes the forum.

The way I see it, if there IS a case to be made for KSM to be tried in New York, Mr. Wilner didn't make it.

“You are going to hear a lot of United States government propaganda.”

If you can get all the way through this video without spewing your coffee, let me know:



I'm speechless right now, but I'll have more later.

"The problem on this ride is not the destination; it's the journey."

Andrew McCarthy has an OpEd in The New York Daily News regarding the decision to bring KSM to New York for trial. I consider McCarthy a worthy source on this subject as he was one of the prosecutors on the Blind Sheikh trial in 1995.

McCarthy argues against this move for the same reason I have been trying to convey. He says "The problem on this ride is not the destination; it's the journey."

That's exactly why this is such a bad decision. The left keeps accusing opponents of this decision of "having no faith" in the American justice system. That is NOT the case. Nobody doubts that a conviction can be obtained. Well, barring a crazy, off the reservation kind of judge who decides to "go rouge" and throw out everything.

No, the problem is what will be revealed in the mean time. We're still at war. We still have American soldiers in harm's way fighting this enemy every single day. We're putting them at risk by turning over our intelligence gathering secrets and information to KSM and his attorneys.

McCarthy points out:

Now, our enemies will be given a full-blown civilian trial with all the rights of the American citizens they are sworn to kill. They will get a year or more to sift through our national defense secrets. They will have wide latitude to turn the case into a trial of the Bush administration - publicizing information about anti-terrorism tactics that leftist lawyers will exploit in their quest for war crimes prosecutions in foreign courts against current and former U.S. officials.

As these guys had already confessed and had asked for the death penalty in a military commission, why back up and start all over in a civilian court? You must ask why, ALWAYS, with Obama.

In a military trial, McCarthy says, "we could have denied them access to classified information, forcing them to accept military lawyers with security clearances who could see such intelligence but not share it with our enemies."

Holder and the Obama administration are knowingly putting American citizens, national security, and American soldiers under undue risk.

Even worse, it sends a message to other terrorists out there that "If you kill thousands of civilians, we will give you better rights than if you attack military assets. That is dangerously irresponsible."

Why?

Eric Holder Defends His Decision to Bring KSM to New York City

According to the AP, Eric Holder is defending his decision to hold KSM's trial in New York City, saying "I'm not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial — and no one else needs to be either."

I've already done the rant, so I won't go into that again, but I will suggest that this comment by Holder is just dumb. He misses the point entirely. Or at least, he pretends to.

First of all, nobody actually believes that this was his decision and that he made it without first getting approval from his boss. We're not that naive.

Second, it's not that we're "afraid" of what KSM will say, although nobody is looking forward to his bile and vitriol, but that we're concerned about KSM and his lawyers having unfettered access to hundreds of classified documents regarding intelligence gathering, methods, and evidence. Much of our intelligence operations will now be compromised. Certainly Holder hasn't missed that point.

Third, with regard to this administration's adopting a pre-9/11 approach to terrorism, Holder says "We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power — civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic and others — to win." Blather. You've now nullified the intelligence option, Mr. Holder. What you really want to do here is to put the Bush administration on trial. Period.

KSM and all the others should be tried in a military commission; Holder's excuse that the Twin Towers was a "civilian target" is worse than lame; he insultingly omits the Pentagon attack. Definitely NOT a civilian target.

To politicize the terror, fears, trauma, and loss of the loved ones in those attacks on 9/11 is simply despicable.

Meanwhile, Holder's boss seems to have the inside dope on the outcome of the trial. He told NBC's Chuck Todd, “I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” Are you offering guarantees on that, Mr. Obama? No? I didn't think so. Good thing you weren't handicapping the Moussaoui trial.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

"It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security."

Update: Memeorandum has a great thread going on this topic.

In the trade-off between civil liberties and national security, Obama chooses civil liberties - for terrorists. National security be damned.

I wrote yesterday on the debacle that having the KSM trial in New York would be. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, former Justice Department official John Yoo has an excellent piece on the intelligence bonanza the trial will be for al Qaeda. His main point: "The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism."

This decision takes us back to a pre-9/11 mindset; you'll hear that phrase over and over, and it will probably lose its meaning as things do when you hear them too often. But stop and think about this one. We're treating an act of war as a criminal matter now.

As I said yesterday, KSM and his attorneys will be entitled to know what information the government has on him and how we got it. Yoo points out that "During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators. In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit."

There will be no way around this. It will happen again. This will compromise all of our intelligence efforts to date on al Qaeda.

Yoo also adds: "For a preview of the KSM trial, look at what happened in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker who was arrested in the U.S. just before 9/11. His trial never made it to a jury. Moussaoui's lawyers tied the court up in knots."

To those that say that the American justice system can handle such a trial and that we've done it before, I say you're missing the point. The point is that you simply cannot treat an act of terrorism on Americans as a criminal matter. It was an act of war and must be treated as such. To drag KSM and all of the evidence into a courtroom is the most an incredibly dangerous thing to Americans that Obama could do.

This decision has simply got to be political suicide for Obama. I can not figure out why he would make such a hugely unpopular choice and one that he knows full well puts America right back in al Qaeda's crosshairs.

Many of us have been questioning his love for America from day one; this just reinforces that opinion in my mind. He should take every effort possible to keep America safe from another terrorist attack. He has not done so in this case.

"A Mind-Numbingly Misguided Decision"

Jennifer Rubin calls the Obama move to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed to New York for trial a "mind-numbingly misguided decision."

Listening to the chatter about this decision on the Sunday talk shows, it's clear that discussion on this decision revolves around several fronts: the circus-like atmosphere it will create, the increased potential for a terrorist attack to New York, and the bounty of classified information that such a trial will afford the terrorist community.

First consider the circus that the KSM trial will be. It will make the O. J. Simpson trial of fourteen years ago look mild by comparison. If you just consider the O.J. trial as an example, you can assume that with KSM, the drama will begin from the moment he is moved from Guantanamo. In an equivalent showing to the O.J. slow-speed car chase, will we have to watch the transport of KSM as they drive him through the streets of New York to his new federal cell? When Bernie Madoff was driven to the courtroom, the television cameras were right there for every stoplight and every left turn.

It will only get worse from there. The O.J. trial dominated television for eight months. the KSM trial will certainly do the same. Will the there be television cameras in the courtroom? The prosecutors and defense attorneys will all become celebrities, books will follow. The judge will become a household name. And what of the risks to all of their families? Any attempt to keep identities secret would be short lived.

Remember the O.J. t-shirt vendors? The people holding posters and signs? The satellite trucks and media talking heads at every turn?

Multiply that by 2,819 and you'll get an idea what the KSM circus will be.

By my estimation, this will all begin to unfurl as the 2010 elections heat up; what a bounty for Republican candidates to use in their campaigns.

Mayor Bloomberg says that New York can handle such a trial. Via Politico:

“I support the Obama Administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here,” Bloomberg said. “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered. We have hosted terrorism trials before, including the trial of Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

Bloomberg expressed no concerned that the trial will make the city a bigger target for terrorists.

“I have great confidence that the NYPD, with federal authorities, will handle security expertly. The NYPD is the best police department in the world and it has experience dealing with high-profile terrorism suspects and any logistical issues that may come up during the trials,” Bloomberg said.

Bloomberg is concerned, and rightly so, with the security issue. While it's true that New York has been increasing their terrorist detection threats over the past eight years, why on earth should the citizens of New York have to deal with such a threat at all? Haven't they been through enough? The city was outraged at the insensitivity of the Air Force One flyover for a photo op in April of this year. What in the world will come out of Pandora's box with KSM in town?

With regard to the issue of classified information, KSM will certainly request and be entitled to receive documents and information about the government's case against him. He and his attorneys will have access to hundreds of classified documents which will be a bonanza to the jihadists waiting in the wings. To assume that the information won't get leaked or transmitted is naive.

Jennifer Rubin is correct. This is an incredibly mind-numbing decision. Poor taste, poor leadership, and poor management. KSM should be left to the military commissions and there is no good reason why he shouldn't be. This decision seems to indicate that military commissions are incapable, which in itself is an insult.

The final insult that Attorney General heaps upon us with this news is that he made this decision on his own. Are we to believe for one millisecond that Obama wasn't involved in this? That Holder unilaterally made a decision that means political suicide for his boss? If so, expect Holder to go under the bus soon.

I'm betting you won't see that.

Coming to America

Are you kidding me?! Who in the hell is running this country?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks -- and four co-defendants will be tried in federal court in New York instead of a military commission, a federal official said Friday morning.

This is a very bad, very dangerous decision. Stop for a moment and imagine the circus that this will be. How long before KSM lawyers up, with some of the best New York lawyers no doubt, and half the evidence is tossed out. As soon as he gets here he'll be the grateful recipient of a host of Constitutional rights.

For the record, the 9/11 families are against this and believe that these guys should be tried in military courts. They have appealed, fruitlessly it would seem, to Obama not to bring them to the United States or provide them United States Constitutional rights, "a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy."

Like I said last night, every day it's a new ambush by this administration. Your world just became a whole lot less safe today.