In recent days, conservatives have been attacking President Obama for deciding to try the alleged Christmas Day bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in civilian courts, ignoring the fact that President Bush did the exact same thing for "shoe bomber" Richard Reid and other terrorists. Former Vice President Cheney has led the charge, telling Politico that Obama "seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war." "We allow him to lawyer up. And so rather than saying okay, you are a enemy combatant and we're going to put the FBI and the CIA in your face and interrogate you. ... I mean we've now lost a valuable [informant]," former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove said on Fox News last month. Last week, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said on CNN, "I think the President made a very big mistake by not making him a enemy combatant. Because the minute you make him a criminal justice defendant, you cut off the ability to question him." The critics are calling for Obama to use the military tribunal system, arguing the method is more fitting for enemies of the U.S. But as White House homeland security adviser John Brennan explained on Fox News Sunday last week, "[W]e have an array of tools that we will use, and we want to make sure we maintain flexibility as far as how we deal with these individuals. ... Just because somebody is going to be put into the criminal legal process does not mean that...we don't have other opportunities to get information from them."
SAME INCIDENT, SAME RESPONSE: A federal grand jury in Michigan indicted Abdulmutallab on Wednesday on six criminal charges, including the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. The critics of the Obama administration's approach must have short memories, because Bush handled a similar incident -- when Reid attempted to ignite a bomb in his shoes on a plane in December 2001 -- in a nearly identical manner. Federal authorities initially charged Reid "with interfering with the performance of the duties of flight crew members by assault or intimidation." The decision to try Reid in a criminal court, according to Bush attorney general John Ashcroft, wasn't debated much. Asked if he considered using a military tribunal, Ashcroft said, "People were alert, and that created a factual basis for the kind of court case that we've alleged. I did confer with the...Department of Defense and with their general counsel, and they had no objection to our proceeding in this matter." At a press conference on Oct. 4, 2004 announcing the indictment of Reid's co-conspirator, Saajid Mohammed Badat, Ashcroft praised the law enforcement method of dealing with terrorists: "This case is another example of the successful cooperation between American law enforcement and its counterparts around the world. ... Thanks to these efforts, today an alleged terrorist bomber faces the prospect of life in prison, never...to endanger the public."
MOUSSAOUI: Reid was not the only terrorist tried in civilian courts under Bush. Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th 9/11 hijacker, was tried and convicted in federal court in Alexandria, VA. Ari Fleischer, Bush's press secretary at the time, gave a strong defense for not using a military tribunal to process Moussaoui: "During his meeting with the attorney general, the president asked a series of questions about civilian versus military trial, and asked, if this were to be decided in a civilian court, civilian criminal court, would national security be endangered, would sources or methods be compromised? The president was satisfied that the answers to those questions were no." Giuliani similarly said, "I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial. ... We are a nation of law. ... I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice." The Washington Times reported on Jan. 3, 2003, "The decision to try the case in federal court instead of before a military tribunal was made by President Bush, based on what Vice President Richard B. Cheney said was the strength of the case and an assessment that an open trial would not hurt national security." "There's a good, strong case against him," Cheney told The Times. Then-Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist praised the system after Moussaoui's conviction, saying, "Zacarias Moussaoui received what he would deny all of us. Today justice was served."
WHY THEN AND NOT NOW?: Former Bush speech writer Marc Thiessen attempted to explain in the National Review Online why it was acceptable for Reid, and not Abdulmutallab, to be tried in civilian court, writing, "The Richard Reid attack came almost immediately after 9/11, long before we figured out that we had other options than handing him over to law enforcement." He then cited the case of alleged terrorist Jose Padilla, who was "on a mission from [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] to blow up apartment buildings," and designated an "enemy combatant" as an example of the military courts working. But the military tribunal system was created on Nov. 13, 2001 -- over a month before Reid's attempted attack -- and Padilla was ultimately convicted in federal court because the commissions are not an option for American citizens. Critics claim that Abdulmutallab won't share his intelligence if he is processed through the federal court system, but "Abdulmutallab spent a number of hours with FBI investigators in which we gleaned usable, actionable intelligence," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday. And as The Progress Report has noted, right-wing claims that trying Abdulmutallab in federal court means Obama believes the U.S. is not at war are baseless, considering Obama has repeatedly acknowledged such. Just yesterday Obama said, "[W]e are at war. ... And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them."
As Judge William Young, who presided over Reid's trial said rebutting Reid's claims that he was a "soldier" of Allah, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are not a soldier in any army, you are a terrorist. To call you a soldier gives you far too much stature.'' [ I am not sure i agree with this last part. First off by this logic Blackwater, or Xe are also terrorists; but beyond this i think an argument can be made that either all soldiers are terrorist or that all terrorists are soldiers.]
[Justice: due process and courts.]
-Via
Think Progresslinks to further articles
