Your moment of total facepalmitude today is courtesy of The New York Times piece on Attorney General Holder’s political missteps over the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Cue Rahm Emanuel:
Mr. Emanuel, who favored a military trial for the Sept. 11 detainees, said his disagreement with Mr. Holder is rooted in different perspectives, not personalities. “You can’t close Guantánamo without Senator Graham, and K.S.M. was a link in that deal,” he said, referring to Mr. Mohammed.
Be charitable to Emanuel and assume he’s counting Senate votes on funding the Thomson-purchase and believes that Graham is the sixtieth vote. Even so: juh? The money for buying Thomson and shutting Guantanamo down is in the Afghanistan “supplemental.”* Your strategy there has to be holding the chairmen of the relevant committees’ feet to the fire on not stripping it out, because the “supplemental” is the hardest funding bill for Congress to obstruct.
More directly: Lindsey Graham is one of 41 Republican senators. He has the capacity to be reasonable. And yet when he’s faced with people who know more than he does, he acts like a baby, as with his petulant treatment of longtime FBI counterterrorist Ali Soufan last year. He is not the chairman of anything. He is not the ranking member of anything. He controls no money. If you believe he has the power to rally along GOP votes, ask how that climate change bill is coming. There is absolutely no legal or procedural way that the road to shutting Guantanamo down runs inexorably through Graham’s office. That’s a political choice.
And while I suppose it’s kindhearted in the Broderian sense — not that Broder would ever credit Rahm for such a thing — it’s also a unilateral disarmament. If Emanuel really believes that it’s more appropriate to try KSM in a military commission, he’s not listening to John Brennan, who knows a hell of a lot more about this shit than Emanuel, nor to Eric Holder or to Joe Biden. There is absolutely no metric under which military commissions are more successful than federal prosecutions — not conviction rates; not legitimacy; not intelligence “leaks”; not crazypants defendant yelping. The attacks on federal trials for terrorism cases are groundless. And that’s why you’d be fooling yourself to believe that anyone allegedly trading “GTMO for KSM” is acting in good faith here. All you’ll get is two agenda items unraveled because of unforced political errors.
*I put “supplemental” in quotes because functionally it’s a supplemental funding request but there’s also another supplemental to fund the extra 30,000 troops for Afghanistan. This “supplemental” is called an Overseas Contingency Operations Fund, the New Normal for requesting war money and distinguishing it from the Pentagon’s so-called base budget (non-war expenses). It’s entirely possible I’ve created confusion where none previously existed.



21 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
“…facepalmitude…”
Excellent, Spencer.
Mary did some wondering, over a EW’s place, the other day, in which she raised some damn fine questions.
To wit: What will Military Commission do if they discover that America or its agents engaged in illegal activities in the process of bringing the “terrorists” to “justice”?
Nothing, apparently. Not even the public recognition of same.
As she said, there are many questions that need asking which will not be asked …
As canandianbeaver has said, the verdicts are, already, known …
The rest is just kabuki.
DW
“If Emanuel really believes that it’s more appropriate to try KSM in a military commission, he’s not listening to John Brennan, who knows a hell of a lot more about this shit than Emanuel, nor to Eric Holder or to Joe Biden”
Jane Mayer clearly explains how and why Holder decided Manhattan,
The Trial
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer
“Holder told me that he was frustrated by much of the criticism over the handling of Abdulmutallab. “What we did is totally consistent with what has happened in every similar case” since 9/11, he said. “There’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.” Without exception, he noted, every previous terrorist suspect apprehended inside the country had been handled as a civilian criminal. Even so, critics such as Krauthammer were denouncing Holder for failing to send Abdulmutallab directly to Guantánamo. As a senior national-security official in the White House put it, “It’s a fantasy! Under what alternative legal system can Special Operations Forces fly into Detroit, and take someone away without court oversight?”
——————————————————————
Jane Mayer ” “Many countries that had refused to coöperate with military commissions at Guantánamo were much more favorably disposed to criminal trials. Among the countries that stood willing to provide evidence and witnesses for court prosecutions were Germany, France, and Great Britain
———————————————————————–
Jane “By 2008, the Bush Administration believed that this so-called Clean Team had compiled sufficient evidence to charge Mohammed and the others with capital murder. The cases were to be tried in military commissions, which have more lenient rules of evidence than civilian courts.
———————————————————————-
I hope Jane Mayer or someone ask Schumer, Bloomberg and Paterson why they said they supported Holder’s decesion to hold “The Trial” in Manhattan and then flipped flopped
http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/conason/2010/02/08/bloomqaeda
Yes, the 9/11 trial should be held in New York
Mayor Bloomberg’s flip-flop embarrassed the Obama administration and himself. He was right the first time
“Actually, Bloomberg was closer to the mark when he first commented on the pending trial last December. As he told reporters then: “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered.” As long ago as last November, he had received assurances from Attorney General Eric Holder that the federal government would not expect the city to pay the huge security costs of the trial.
But with the real estate industry, Sen. Charles Schumer and Wall Street demanding that the trial be moved — along with the Republican congressional leaders and a host of right-wing blatherers — Bloomberg quickly dropped his own instinctive principle. Why didn’t he inflate the cost — and ask the Obama administration to pay the estimated $200 million — before he endorsed the Manhattan location? And why did he choose to blindside the president — who helped him win an amazingly close election last year with a tepid endorsement of the Democrat? With his exploding cost estimates and subsequent flip-flop, Bloomberg looks unreliable, untrustworthy and unserious.”
And Rahm is deciding government policy because he’s which constitutional officer?
He needs his ass fired. And his elephant, and his donkey, and whatever he’s using as a hold over the Oval Office.
But! But . . . Graham’s a JAG!
really good post.
Presumably this aspect of decision-making was delegated to him by some constitutional officer or officers. That’s not the problem, the problem is he’s incompetent at making the decisions he’s been delegated. Rahm’s work so far is not merely upsetting to the principled, but insulting to everyone who’s ever persuaded anyone of anything positive about Obama.
Obama is not a hard man to like, his policies are not exceptional; we here all understand that if you can’t get someone to like him with little effort no amount of effort will ever suffice. Rahm, and perhaps Rahm alone, eschews that wisdom in favor of his failure-ready instincts, and here we are.
What you said.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Specer Ackerman and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
I admit to bein’ non-plussed about why Obama has not pulled pants over Rahm’s tutu long before now…in fact, with Emmanuel isolating Obama from those in his cabinet who have not only policy experience in their field of expertese but political chops like Secretary Sebeilius and playin’ bureaucratic politics with folks like Eric Holder and John Brennen, I’m thinkin’ Obama has now lost control of his Cheif of Staff entirely. Obama’s stuck with ‘im until 2011 and unless he wants to see Emmanuel runnin’ for his old House seat in 2012 he my have just married the bastard until 2013 if he doesn’t lose his Presidency as a result.
I’m not inclined to see Obama as like Lincoln though I do admit, I thought he might resemble JFK in his ability to learn and pivot when engaged with the professional government. However, unless he can cut Rahm loose pretty soon he’s gunna go down with the little bastard, 2012 will be too late.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, IT’S ALL ABOUT THE WAR STUPID!!!
Motivations
“But I cannnn’t, because”…(Implausible excuse follows), wailed the child…
One does wonder if they don’t want to do close Guantanamo, and are seeking every excuse…
If you want to understand anything RE pushes ask yourself two questions:
1) How will it benefit his corporate buddies?
2) How does it say “fuck you” to progressives.
The answer to one or both of these will expose his reasoning and motives.
They’re afraid, very afraid … of what we’lll do when the full scope of their actions comes out.
And if they close Gitmo they won’t have anyplace to lose their political enemies, or whoever else they decide needs to ‘disappear’ for the good of the country.
Here we go again, blaming Emmanuel for all these decisions, as if Obama’s a sock-puppet, being victimized by big, bad, Rahm…
Amazing.
When are a million feet going to hit the bricks in D.C. to voice their displeasure with Republicans, spineless Democrats and a 2nd rate Pretender in Chief?
What you said. :o)
“Tis indeed, amazing, tanbark.
Rahm only does what he is permitted and encouraged to do …
… by his boss, Barack Obama.
DW
I thought Rahm was a tough, foul mouthed, swaggering, macho brute. But it turns out he’s a weak, foul mouthed, swaggering macho brute.
You have summed Rahm up to a “T”, arcades, except that I would replace “macho” with “thuggish”.
DW
I don’t think your first point is really operable. He just wants to shaft us.
you’ll notice the WH itself never makes this excuse, they just leave their supporters hanging out on the blogs to make it for them and look like fools.
Thassit, DW: :o)…
It’s like the Oval Office chair is occupied by the Great-Invisible- Centrist-PoohBah-WhistlePig, who shall hereafter go unnamed and be held un-accountable. :o)
The bad news for him is, if this particular groundhog won’t come out of his bi-partisan hole, I think the voters will root him out, starting this November.
Maybe you can settle something for me, Spencer. Glenn Greenwald in his charming way in comment back-and-forth tells me the vehicle to which Thompson money is/will be attached “can’t” be filibustered, because it is “funding.” You seem to be saying, yeah it can (“it” you report as being the Afgh. Supp./OCO request) but how pathetic if the Democrats let closing GTMO be held hostage to Republicans FILIBUSTERING FUNDING FOR THE TROOPS, fercrissakes. Which is a great point, but there seems to be a discrepancy. So which is it: 51 or 60 votes necessary for Thompson money?
Also, and I don’t know ho much difference it makes, while Graham isn’t the ranking member of the relevant committee, isn’t it a fair assumption that the ranking member is willing/inclined to do what he can to hold this up — perhaps UNLESS Lindsey tells him it’s cool? If the numbers are there on the committee, it doesn’t matter what the ranking member or Lindsey have to say.
Thanks for any clarification.