Look! Over There! It's KSM...

Has the American public been subjected to a crude political ruse this past week? Harry Reid provides some evidence by his scheduling of another Saturday Night Special (this group does everything on Friday and Saturday, apparently) to vote on socialized medicine.

Meanwhile the entire week is almost gone and the buzz has been about a terrorist captured in 2003 instead of the pending take over of 1/6 of the economy, and the cheap and tawdry deals being made to get it done. And through it all the president was on the other side of the world.

As Harry the Loser said, they will get something done by hook or by crook (he didn't quite use those words) so perhaps it's worthless to whine. McCain said it--elections matter. But it would be nice for our republic if the GOP would hold firm on their suggestion to read all 34 hours of the bill's text before it can be voted on. Or maybe three readings. For the people's sake.

So What's the "Battlefield"?

Holder and his Republican opponents just spent an afternoon splitting hairs over the definition of "battlefield". The AG explained that since al-Nashiri killed sailors overseas in Yemen while KSM killed mostly civilians in America (apart from the Pentagon), they warrant different court proceedings.

The right remains appalled along with Glenn Greenwald:

-- what convincing rationale can anyone offer to justify giving Mohammed and other 9/11 defendants a real trial in New York? If you're taking the position that military commissions and even indefinite detention are perfectly legitimate tools to imprison people -- as Holder has done -- then what is the answer to the Right's objections that Mohammed himself belongs in a military commission?

Holder never gave a compelling answer other than 'trust me'. Deja vu all over again. Of course Greenwald's beef with Holder is that he won't be using trials for ALL captured GWoT suspects (and doing away with tribunals) because we're not really officially at "war". That leaves no battlefield anywhere, which makes our use of troops anywhere legally tenuous.

But to most people this is a war. And if indeed it is a global war on terror, and AQ are "rootless and stateless" as the 9/11 Commission described them, then it seems logical the battlefield consists of the entire world. Surely AQ considers lower Manhattan part of their battlefield as opposed to a few dusty deserts and caves near Kandahar.

Holder was playing coy at the hearings in suggesting the evidence obtained by waterboarding might not be admissible even in a military tribunal, ie, he has no choice but to bring KSM to the media capital of the world to prosecute, presumably using pre-torture evidence (explained for the media every day as in, 'we couldn't use the good evidence due to Bush's torture', etc). But why? Why can't any of that be used in a tribunal?

After all al-Nashiri was also waterboarded, meaning they will most likely also be using pre-torture evidence gained during the Clinton years (during Holder's reign as deputy AG) to prosecute him for the Cole. It's likely that some of that secret stuff Holder is alluding to will include top secret sensitive from NSA or CIA captures, but won't that also be required during the KSM trial? Confusing, all this.

Throwing Dreams Under the Bus?

A strange thing happened in China regarding Obama's brief visit with his half-brother Mark Obama. Background--Mark has a loose auto-biography coming out about growing up with the same father Barack mentioned in "Dreams from my Father" except Mark's version sounds more like "Nightmares from my Father"-- not too many Kodak moments based on the early descriptions.

Obama wrote about meeting Mark in Kenya back in 1988 in "Dreams", but when CNN's Ed Henry asked Barack about their relationship he replied like this:

"Well, you know, I don't know him well. I met him for the first time a couple of years ago. He stopped by with his wife for about five minutes during the trip. I haven't read the book.

Tapper recounts the two meeting in 2008 and again at the inauguration; Obama says a 'couple of years ago'. Does that count for 1988, a mere 21 years ago? If not, does this mean he's throwing his own book under the bus or just Mark?

Obama made it clear his father was no saint, something which CNN's video curiously cut short along with at least one wire service (perhaps that explains why Mark dummied-up and refused interviews before the election along with the rest of the family). But one might think Barack would better remember an encounter from his own expertly written book.

Holder in front of Congress

Some interesting and thought-provoking questions, particularly with respect to catching bin Laden (or Zawahiri)...



Here's Jon Kyl pressing for an answer as to why Holder thinks he has a better chance to get a conviction in federal court than a tribunal after KSM and the others had already expressed an interest to plead guilty at Gitmo. His reply--that he doesn't know what KSM might do today--seemed more like defensive spin on the Senate hot seat than a thoughtful and considered line of reasoning as to the possibility of overturn on appeal.

But if such were his worry why doesn't it pertain to al-Nashiri? If there's no way KSM ever walks why not complete the tribunal already started then proceed to federal court on older charges (Bojinka) if it fails? Or would that open too many old wounds?

Whatever, it's odd both Holder and Obama are trumpeting our values as the big reason for bringing these guys stateside while simultaneously proclaiming their guilt. Holder called KSM a 'murderer' and a 'terrorist' today. It looks more likely this administration has an ulterior motive here, unless they are grossly incompetent.

Finally, Hot Air links to an NPR story about Khalid Mohammad's teacher at Chowdan College in North Carolina and of a friend who attended NC A&T with him in the 80s. Amazingly, we now know almost as much about KSM's college years as we do about the president's.

MORE 11/19/09

After looking at more testimony a common thread runs consistently throughout Holder's answers--the admissibility of evidence. He's suggesting the only reason they are bringing these guys to federal court is because he's not sure evidence gained by enhanced methods wouldn't be tossed even in a military commission, which means they will presumably be using evidence obtained before his capture. Holder made a point to remind Lindsay Graham that bin Laden was under indictment before 9/11, but so was KSM. The public was simply never made aware.

So, what's the evidence they will use to get a death penalty conviction? The only thing that comes to mind is the Bokinka plot, of which his nephew Ramzi Yousef was convicted. There is probably evidence on the laptop that Yousef and Murad were using that connects to KSM, along with other evidence such as NSA or wiretap evidence from the 90s or even before his capture. But the big question is, why can't any of that be used in a military tribunal?

Fair and Balanced

A previous post attacked the apparent political hypocrisy of Congressman Joe Sestak, so turnabout is fair and balanced play. Here's Rudy Giuliani, a former SDNY prosecutor and mayor of New York, condemning Obama for bringing the Gitmo Five to the Big Apple...



But here's the mayor talking about the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui:

"At the same time, I was in awe of our system," the former mayor continued. "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. . . . I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."

Can't get there from there. Rudy was challenged about this puzzling dichotomy on the No Longer Fake News Sunday with Chris Wallace, seen here on Obama-approved "Crooks and Liars". Admittedly, the sight of them using Fox News to bash a GOP enemy should warrant alarm from Olbermann or Maddow. More on crooks and liars in a minute.

Aside from the partisan snark, Rudy's answer sounded like a feeble attempt at covering up a consistency goofup. It's hard to strongly argue against bringing KSM to Manhattan using the 'act of war' and 'circus' arguments after saying the Moussaoui trial was a symbol of something good. He was an inspiration during 9/11 but as a national candidate Sarah Palin is more appealing right now.

Many of us down here backed the at times halting Fred Thompson, who seems to have very little on the record about Moussaoui. He did weigh in on the Boumediene Five case, that produced habeas rights for terrorists. But the legalese gets old for most normal people--the first minute of this rambling Red State Update on Zacarias probably sums it up better than any ole pointy head (language warning of course).

Now, not sure if Tom Maguire qualifies as a pointy head (even if he's a Yankee and Yankee fan) but he outdoes Jackie and Dunlap with this quip:

There is no contradiction here: military courts for attacks on the military, civilian courts for attacks on civilians.

OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?

Which speaks to the entire bizarre flip-flopiness of this whole thing. For instance, Obama was for military tribunals for KSM before he was against them, yet checking with the abovementioned Obama-approved Crooks and Liars--who just used Faux News to rip Guiliani--they don't seem to have much on Obama's equally puzzling inconsistency.

And to make matters more confusing, Major Garrett from the "Major Garrett is the only bastard at Fox News worth our Time" network will be interviewing our Pacific Prez tomorrow from Chiner for a whole 10 minutes. Hopefully he can point out that the Pentagon is indeed a military target and that both Nashiri and bin-Attash allegedly attended the 2000 Kuala Lumpur terror summit where 9/11 was planned. But considering the filibuster factor he'll probably only get about two and a half questions answered.

IT BEGINS 11/17/09

Conservatives are taking a beating for worrying that the Gitmo Five affair will end up being a cheap and tawdry propaganda platform to bash Bush, Cheney and the CIA. Here's a NY Times article about lawyer Lynne Stewart's conviction being upheld (for helping the Blind Sheikh kite messages back to his followers in Egypt in 1999), speaking on current events:

At the news conference, Ms. Stewart sharply criticized the decision, and said its timing, “coming as it does on the eve of the arrival of the tortured men from offshore prison in Guantánamo,” carried a message for any lawyers who might be appointed to represent them.

Emphasis added for obvious reasons. It doesn't always take a bullhorn.

No Wonder the Recovery is Slow

From the yellow brick road to recovery:

Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

D'oh@! Joe Biden must be shocked, shocked that somebody is messing with Joe.

The question is whether this is bald-faced fraud or a waste of 18 million for web services? Checking locally, the Recovery site shows that the University of Tennessee in Memphis got multiple smaller grants that totaled in the millions with very few saved or created positions. The U of Memphis got 27 million dollars according to the site with nothing showing in either the created or saved department. If not an error..


Googling a bit, this story talks about recovery funds offsetting a state budget cut for the university but doesn't say how much. In early November this story appeared:

According to the Tennessee Board of Regents' competitive grant summary, U of M has applied for more than 50 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-related research grants from federal departments and national organizations. The school had received nearly $5 million from 11 stimulus grants by early October.

Surely the exact figures are out there somewhere but finding anything on the recovery site is about as easy as surfing in a pool. Overall it's nice to see ABC News...or anybody for that matter...paying attention.

MORE 11/16/09

Was it a coincidence that Joe Biden was in Arizona today?

"Only 12 states have gotten more money obligated that the state of Arizona has," Biden said during the breakfast fundraiser for U.S. Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick of Flagstaff and Harry Mitchell of Tempe.

Well, yeah..

Sestak on Grandstanding

Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak was all over the late week air defending Obama's Holder's decision to bring the Gitmo Five to Manhattan for trial. So what does he think about the Major Hasan investigation? He's worried about grandstanding:



But notice his rather blank pause on O'Reilly when Bill asks whether the former Navy Rear Admiral believes in military tribunals:



KSM to Manhattan? Upholds our values no matter what media grandstanding occurs. Hasan investigated by Congress? Let's not have any political grandstanding. It would be nice to hear him explain how our values are upheld by allowing Cole bomber Nashiri to get a tribunal while Walid bin Attash, who also participated in the planning of the Cole, should come to New York. Of course KSM planned the Pentagon attack, which would seem a military target.

A partisan might deduce that evidence against Nashiri will be limited to the years before Bush arrived and therefore not something Holder would want splashed all over the news. But they wouldn't dare politicize war on contingency trials, would they?

Ironically, Bill Clinton and some of his buddies campaigned hard for Sestak's 2006 victory against Curt Weldon, who was poking around in some rather sensitive (and some say absurd) areas before his political demise. A notable name in the Sestak corner was Sandy Berger. Not to say this is an outright defense of Weldon--that jury is still out. Just sayin'.

By the way, Sestak is one of few Democrats to ever hold that House seat, which might make some wonder how blue dog he might be on health care. In the bigtime affirmative column. Wait, wait, he's running for US Senate now against Specter. No need to grandstand to a bunch of teabaggers to get reelected anymore.