bravo...

(and steve)
When one cuts through the nonsense and poll-tested soundbites

would that you'd remind that more often...

Actually, to me it sounds unhappily like the traditional arguments used by apologists for lynching. Supposedly the workings of the criminal justice system are too unreliable to produce the result that community opinion demands; thus the community needs to override the elitist courts. It's [sigh] all too American.

"Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse"

And in that spirit, how long before some MSNBC broadcaster offers to pay the passage out of New York for anyone who's too afraid to stay while the trial takes place?

I wonder if we don't have the most paleolithic base in the entire western world. They seem driven not by priciples but by blind obedience to their warrior kings. As an opposition, they are terrifying - but the fact that a base this fired up could actually get back into power if the fundamentals of the economy don't rebound - is mortifying. DOes the rest of the western world have anything like this - on this scale - in their midst?

We can't say we weren't warned. These people will not be happy until the U.S. is ruled by them under martial law and nuclear weapons are used on some country where non-white people live.

The real fear of bringing the terrorists to trial is that close examination of the facts of each case might somehow cast doubt on their preconceived conclusions. The right will always need an enemy that they can think of as purely and inherently evil, an enemy that can be killed and tortured with impunity and without any reflection on questions of right or wrong. A trial opens the possibility of introducing shades of gray.

These people will not be happy until the U.S. is ruled by them under martial law and nuclear weapons are used on some country where non-white people live.

I'll go out on a bit of a limb and say that fear is what motivates the reactionary Right -- including the political Rightist and the religious fundamentalist -- in ALL countries and at ALL times. They are afraid of things they know are different, typically because they know little or nothing about them, and often because they are not seeing their expectations -- for themselves or society -- fulfilled, and they blame things different for that.

The demagogues of the Right know this; it's why they play the fear card at almost every chance. Whether they believe it themselves is immaterial.

And BTW, this won't change. Education can help, but there will always be an ignorant and reactionary Right. The goal can be only to keep it as small and powerless as possible

The real fear on the far-right is that terrorist criminals will receive a fair trial and be convicted. The far-right's contempt for strong democratic institutions is not confined to the legislative branch. The judiciary must be weak and malleable as well. All branches of government must subservient to a strong and unaccountable executive. Unless the President is a Democrat.

"That this is even considered controversial is a dispiriting setback."

It truly is.

I think that, to a large degree, it's simply the Republicans reacting typically with reflexive, mindless opposition to anything the Obama administration proposes. Of course, they have no constructive alternatives of their own, but that never stops them.

And even in the unlikely case that holding the trials in NYC makes NYC a target for more terrorist attacks, isn't the greatest concentration of antiterror resources in the US most likely right there in NYC (if not in DC)? What better place to hold the trials?

It's really just much ado about nothing. As usual, Republicans like that imbecile Boehner are talking to hear their heads rattle.

We were told, shortly after 9/11, that the 'terrorists' were intent on destroying our Way of Life.

Even a cursory examination of pre and post 9/11 America leads one to believe that these 'terrorists' have largely succeeded. . .

Oh, and jomo, yes, the rest of the world has the same thing at roughly the same scale. The UK, France, Germany, and Japan all have reactionary Rightist movements that comprise about 20-30% of the population, just as we do. Smaller industrialized countries -- think of Australia and the Netherlands for example -- do also. Less developed countries vary more widely. It's unusual that they get into power -- e.g., the Fascist movements of the 30s in Europe -- but the base is always there.

much too hasty summary of a major determinant of the political scale from reactionary to progressive as grokked from these comments:

how well one handles fear -- on the several levels of being just, mature, rational...

Well, the Bush Administration did screw up enough to make civilian trials problematic, as they should be if you torture people and deny them a speedy trial for eight years.

I think the DNA of the reactionary right demands that they fight a holy war (against Islam in this case) and a trial, in a courtroom, with deliberate procedure, just doesn't cut it for them. Nothing short of making Islamic atomic will satisfy their sense of justice.

It really doesn't matter what the Obama administration said they'd do-- hell, they could have said that they'd publicly execute KSM & friends and let Rush Limbaugh push the button. They'd still be upset because EVERYTHING that Obama or the dems do outrages them, they've lost all perspective of scale. They will eventually get outrage fatigue-- or at the very least people will grow tired of their constant wailing and screaming.

The 9/11 attacks happened 8 years ago and Republicans want Americans to continue to be terrified as much as the terrorists do. Republicans are being shown on TV broadcasts around the world illustrating that they are still so terrified 8 years later that they can't bear the thought of an accused terrorist being brought to NYC to stand trial, which has been done successfully in similar cases. All they're doing is showing the terrorists just how successful they were against the big powerful USA. People act like these 9/11 conspirators have some kind of magical powers or something that would prevent them from being held and tried like other prisoners. I think it was Jon Stewart who said: "They're not warlocks!"

The wingers don't want trials that demonstrate that the criminal justice system can deal with terrorists effectively. They don't want any set of circumstances that changes the status quo from the paralysis that it has been for eight years.

The paralysis is their bread and butter for ginning up the fear they so depend on. Once it is demonstrated that there is an effective course of action that removes terrorists from society that does not require military action and invasion of a foreign country, they lose two arguments on which they have rested their laurels for years: not only are they really not The Law and Order Party, but they are fundamentally stupid at foreign policy, as well.

They have needed the paralysis for lo these many years, and now it is going away. It's like taking the drug from an addict.

Why do the GOP Party of No and Fear, fear the terrorists being tried in open court in New York? I think they are greatly angered that this is something they did not do -- try the terrorists anywhere! However, these terrorists are not military and should not be tried as such. The GOP remind me of bullies who pretend to be tough but are really afraid. May be Gound Zero can finally be healed and revived once these terrorists are tried and found guilty so close to where they did their dastardly deed. God knows these men should have been tried a long time ago. Thank God it is finally going to happen!

Modern conservatism is nothing but a fraud created to allow those who can't deal with the world to delude themselves into thinking they're dealing with the world. It'd be funny if it weren't so horrific.

The UK, France, Germany, and Japan all have reactionary Rightist movements that comprise about 20-30% of the population, just as we do. Smaller industrialized countries -- think of Australia and the Netherlands for example -- do also. Less developed countries vary more widely. It's unusual that they get into power -- e.g., the Fascist movements of the 30s in Europe -- but the base is always there.

I thought they were a little smaller, but regardless, the difference here is that they've acquired the institutional legitimacy that comes from owning one of the Big Two parties. This leads to media deference, even to inexplicable Dem capitulation at times, etc. etc.

I certainly don't think the UK Conservatives or the CDU Deutschlands are mostly made up of proto-fascists, for example. I didn't think that about the GOP, either, until I saw how bad their hero-worship had gotten during the GWB years.

http://www.werenotafraid.com/about.html

"We are not afraid to ride public transportation.

We are not afraid to walk down a crowded street.

We are not afraid of each other.

We are not afraid to say that terrorism in any form is never the answer.

We’re not afraid is an outlet for the global community to speak out against the acts of terror that have struck London, Madrid, New York, Baghdad, Basra, Tikrit, Gaza, Tel-Aviv, Afghanistan, Bali, and against the atrocities occurring in cities around the world each and every day. It is a worldwide action for people not willing to be cowed by terrorism and fear mongering.

The historical response to these types of attacks has been a show of deadly force; we believe that there is a better way. We refuse to respond to aggression and hatred in kind. Instead, we who are not afraid will continue to live our lives the best way we know how. We will work, we will play, we will laugh, we will live. We will not waste one moment, nor sacrifice one bit of our freedom, because of fear.

We are not afraid."

By and large that is how the rest of the world reacted in the aftermath of THEIR terrorist bombings. I was going to go all snarky on the Republicans, but I'll just let this speak.

Article III Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

"The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Of course we have it from the highest authority that the Constitution is just a god damn piece of paper and where it isn't that Article II Section 2 obviously rules over all other Articles and that pesky Bill of Rights.

Trial by jury? In New York? Where do these anti-American terrorist lovers come up with crazy shit like that?

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec2

It is a sad day in America when so many of our neighbors on the far Right foam at the mouth against those who have foamed at the mouth against us! -Kevo

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

This stuff got in the Constitution for a reason...

"...do conservatives believe their own rhetoric?"

It is one of the right questions, but you ask it for the wrong reasons. Its answer is "no". They are pandering. As always, the further questions that we should be asking are, who are they pandering to? Why does this work?

I think the Republicans are afraid that more Bush administration misconduct will be disclosed in the course of the trials.

When one cuts through the nonsense and poll-tested soundbites, the right's opposition to fair trials comes down to fear -- fear that our principles are aren't worth honoring, fear that our rule of law is somehow flawed, fear that radical thugs have acquired supernatural powers. It's just blinding, irrational fear.

You left out one: fear that legitimate national security secrets (details of electronic surveillance of money transactions, for example) will be disclosed in open court. That happened in the trial of the first WTC bombers.

As for "irrational", it might not be irrational to consider that KSM and a few hundred thousand or a few million like-minded individuals are doing their best to wage war on American and EU civilians; and to consider that the best strategy is to try them in secret military courts (as will be done to the majority of defendants. Even Holder is only going to prosecute a minority of the defendants in civilian courts.)

And let us not forget the other side of this fear, which sadly they have so far gotten a sufficient number of Democrats to go along with -- the idea that it is "too dangerous" to imprison convicted terrorists on American soil.

DC The 9/11 attacks happened 8 years ago and Republicans want Americans to continue to be terrified as much as the terrorists do.

Terrified? No. Vigilant? Yes.

A little more vigilance might have prevented Maj. Hasan from attacking American soldiers in a stateside base in time of war; as in 2001, the warning signs were ignored. A small but networked and funded subset of Islamists is continuing to wage war against everyone else, us included.

Not quite a regular army, but much more formal and powerful than an urban gang, they have had some success in Pakistan (lately more setbacks), in Afghanistan (mostly in sparsely populated areas near the Pakistan border, but also in cities), and in Somalia. They have attacked in England, Spain, France, Bali, Southern Thailand, the Philipines, China, Algeria, Netherlands, Iraq (where they were defeated by the combined Surge and Anbar Awakening), India, to name a few. Besides the successful attacks, there have been planned attacks that were broken up by vigilant authorities in those nations as well.

Just because some Americans are paranoid, doesn't mean the threat isn't real, to paraphrase a slogan from the 60s.

It's nothing but feigned outrage. When shown similar situations in the past regarding their party, they look the other way. And they seem to have a fear of death somehow in most arguments, as if they believe they are immortal.

Marler, I call bullshit. If the rightards cared about security secrets being leaked, they would shut-up their long time human sieve, Hoekstra. The fear from the right is simply that taking judicial action will prove publicly that they are nothing more than chicken-littles.

Marler again, in each one of the countries you count, terrorism has been met with criminal justice. In cases where vigilant authorities have successfully thwarted attacks, it was done by following their nation's domestic surveillance laws and following up in courts. Your examples and reasoning do not support a case for not bringing terrorists to trial. At no time did any of your examples result in secret military tribunals.

Haven't read one story from MSM yet that points out the perps of the first trade center bombing in 1993 were indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced in the US court system and the blind sheik is I believe at Sing Sing prison for the rest of his life.

Thank you, Bob Atkinson! I was just about to say that no Republicans were whining about putting Omar Abdel-Rahman on trial for trying to blow up the World Trade center. No one was afraid of what might happen if we used our criminal justice system to try him or gave him a fair trial just like every one else. Even the most rabid moron from the GOP seemed to feel that it was important to give terrorists their constitutional rights back then because it was taken for granted that we are a just and principled nation, unlike those backwater dictatorships where people are summarily executed without due process -- the very thing GOP sabrerattlers are asking for now.

I thought Hasim's lawyer put it very well when he told Wolf Blitzer that the reason we needed to give these folks a fair trial is because this is precisely what so many in our military have died trying to preserve.

It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

This position is important, as it helps to establish a precedent: they aren't entitled to due process, so someday we can be found no longer entitled to same.

I agree with all that terrorism defendants are best handled via the criminal courts, and that the GOP has become a party of fear-mongering, pure and simple.

but...

The first thought that came to me when I heard the announcement was: what's the judge going to do when KSM or his lawyer gets up in open court and says the defendant was tortured.

I know that Justice and the FBI have said they have very carefully segregated the "evidence" adduced by torture from evidence legally obtained. But in an ordinary criminal proceeding, evidence of repeated and continuing torture while in captivity would get the whole case thrown out, wouldn't it?

I mean, I'm no lawyer and I don't even play one in bloggy world, but still...

If torturing suspects does not invalidate the prosecution's case, then what in the world does? The behavior of law enforcement in these cases is simply completely unacceptable in our judicial system. I don't see how we can possibly try someone who was abused so abominably without making a mockery of the process or validating the interrogation techniques and intelligence gathering techniques used. Putting aside the question of torture, were warrants issued to search the premises and computer databases involved in the prosecution's case? If not, is this something we are going to accept as the new normal in American law enforcement? The possibility for extremely dangerous and intrusive legal precedents to be set is very real.

None of this is to say that KSM or the others are innocent or that the Republican's arguments are without flaws themselves. But the only honest course that I can see is to involve the international coummunity and put all the cards on the table: KSM's actions and the decisions of American officials.

This may be politically unfeasible, but it is still worth publically advocating for. The course chosen by the Obama administration seems to yet another instance of "doing the right thing" without the politically difficult task of holding any wealthy powerful parties accountable.

Great post, Steve. We need to start referring to the Repubs as the party of afraid: too afraid to support the constitution against terrorists, too afraid to govern the country, too afraid to find a solution to healthcare insolvency, too afraid to wean us from oil. Should I go on?

If you are afraid of everything, get out of politics.

"the right's opposition to fair trials comes down to fear -- fear that our principles are aren't worth honoring, fear that our rule of law is somehow flawed, fear that radical thugs have acquired supernatural powers. It's just blinding, irrational fear."

I think you are being too generous when you attribute their weird behavior to blinding, irrational fear. I'd just stop at irrational. The right is irrational. Reason, principles, rule of law--these fuzzy abstractions bounce off their thick skulls like SuperBalls on concrete.

A Web of Lone Wolves

jcricket: Marler again, in each one of the countries you count, terrorism has been met with criminal justice. In cases where vigilant authorities have successfully thwarted attacks, it was done by following their nation's domestic surveillance laws and following up in courts.

And in cases where they did not successfully thwart the attacks, some perpetrators have gotten off scot-free, and some have been released after short prison terms. In the case of the trial of the first WTC bomber (now in jail, having been tried and convicted), secrets of US surveillance were revealed in the trial, alerting al Qaeda, and al Qaeda changed its behavior in ways that made it more difficult for intelligence to track them. The Obama administration is still planning to try some of the defendants in secret military tribunals, so they are not being completely consistent themselves (though I am not saying they are wrong to have some military tribunals.)

You make a good point, on the whole. There are two issues discussed: (a) whether public trials are the best way to proceed in all cases; (b) whether continuing vigilance is "fearmongering" or some such. For (a) I would say "Not in all cases"; for (b) I would say that an intelligent rational strategy, on current evidence, demands increased vigilance, not decreased vigilance.

"If torturing suspects does not invalidate the prosecution's case, then what in the world does?"

He confessed first. Then they tortured him, and he told lies.

So the evidence of the first confession is valid. And he is quite likely to say so in court.

Just a couple of points: republicans believe that only one branch of government matters - the executive. Nothing else interests them except as it enhances their hold on the executive. Thus (with the exception of Gringrich's abortive attempt to govern from the congress) the legislative branch is so devalued that it's OK if its republican membership is composed of a bunch of nut cases, which it obviously is.
Given this situation, we can safely ignore everything that comes from republican senators and congressmen. And since there is a democratic president, we can ignore the republicans altogether. That's all for now, so good night.

"There is, of course, the ongoing debate to consider -- do conservatives believe their own rhetoric?"

First of all, I'm not at all sure we are dealing with conservatives. Reactionaries, yes. Secondly, I don't think the modern Republican party believes in much of anything except power. What is in one instance a firm, absolute principle in one instance (perjury is one of the worst crimes anyone could ever commit -- when Clinton, not Libby is in the dock; the president deserves respect under any circumstances -- when Bush not Clinton or Obama is in office) apply only when convenient to the pursuit of power.

MatthewRMarler A 1:46 PM -
"A little more vigilance might have prevented Maj. Hasan from attacking American soldiers..."
Who else but his fellow soldiers was the Major going to attack at that base? Or are you, just a thought now, are you trying to imply that the Major isn't an American? And that his acts weren't simply those of a very disturbed person?
Just because someone with a Middle Eastern-sounding name commits a crime, that is not proof positive of a connection to some vast, highly-organized entity out to destroy the US. At this time there are no known links between the Major and the Republican Party.

MatthewRMarler @ 3:41 PM -

"The Obama administration is still planning to try some of the defendents in secret military tribunals..."
Military, yes. Secret, no. What is this idea of "secret"? Afraid that (cue the "24" theme") intelligence will be compromised? Odd, I haven't seen one post by you concerning that possibly criminal blabbermouth Hoekstra? The least you could do is show some consistency. Then again, one must rmember who I'm responding to...

"Whether public trials are the best way to proceed in all cases..."
What part of Article III, Section 2 don't you understand? Public trials are NOT an option; they are required by the Constitution! If the Bush Administration so screwed up the chances of a fair trial via their use of torture and/or false imprisonment, that is NOT the fault of the defendents - it is OUR fault. We, as in OUR government and its employees, may very well have prevented these people from receiving the fair trial the Constitution demands for EVERYONE. Even those we "know" are guilty. That is something this nation will have to face: the possible crimes committed in its name under Bush2 leading to "not guilty" verdicts. I look forward to your postings on that, should it occur!

"Whether continuing "vigilance" is fearmongering or some such."
Vigilance is NOT fearmongering. Vigilance is carrying out legal police measures that actually protect this country's citizens. Vigilance is NOT discarding the Constitution, something not even done during the incredible strains of the War of Southern Treason. Fearmongering by Republicans, aka "the continual Republican majority", is nothing more than a pitifully shabby partisan ploy. The Republican attempt to politicize the attacks of September 11, 2001 began within minutes of their occurrance and haven't stopped since. They are the ones who "didn't keep us safe" and now they are fearful that failure will be shown in open court.
That is yet another fear to be added to the Republicans unending list: that the evidence of their corrupt and un-Constitutional activities will be brought out during the trials (see "not guilty" verdicts above).

Doug: Military, yes. Secret, no.

You are correct, I was mistaken about the administration's announced plans.

"A little more vigilance might have prevented Maj. Hasan from attacking American soldiers..."
Who else but his fellow soldiers was the Major going to attack at that base? Or are you, just a thought now, are you trying to imply that the Major isn't an American? And that his acts weren't simply those of a very disturbed person?
Just because someone with a Middle Eastern-sounding name commits a crime, that is not proof positive of a connection to some vast, highly-organized entity out to destroy the US. At this time there are no known links between the Major and the Republican Party.

There is plenty of evidence that Hasan was a dedicated jihadist and not merely a seriously disturbed person. And there are connections to others who promoted jihad (in the violent sense.) That's a nice joke about the Republican party.

Nothing I wrote implied that Hasan was not an American. He isn't the first American jihadist.

and let's be honest here, if the government didn't think they had a slam dunk case, they would just let him rot in one of the military prisons forever. Everyone knows this, so the fear mongering is just a way to score political points.

Pussy ass motherfuckers each and every one of them. Lily livered surrender monkeys. Spineless blobs of fermenting cow dung.

Thank you for letting me rant

Great article. Minor complaint: It's FDNY, not NYFD.

They fear that nothing will happen, that their fears will be proven wrong.

Obama has decided to test their fears, that is the problem.