It has recently come to my attention that chickenhawk Republicans are threatening to cut off funding to pay for the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohamed slated to be held in New York City. Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff reports:
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. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will force another vote on his amendment to stop the trial (which was defeated 54-45 in November) once Congress reconvenes. “With Detroit and everything else going on, we’ve got a pretty good chance of winning this thing,” says Graham, adding that he’s privately heard from a number of Democrats, saying “they’re with me.” GOP Rep. Frank Wolf says he plans a similar move in the House. “I’m afraid it’s probably going to pass,” says Democratic Rep. Jim Moran, who has strongly backed the administration on the issue.
Originally, I had planned on writing a screed explaining in, ahem, colorful language why this is monumentally stupid, and I will get to that in a later post, but what woke me up in the middle of the night was a very disturbing insight.
Someone in the Administration took a shiv to the Attorney General over this trial.
Think about it. Holder “informed” the White House that he was going to order the trial to be here. He didn’t ask, he told. At the time, many old school folks at the Department of Justice would have reason to cheer, or at least heave a sigh of relief because the notion of DOJ prosecutorial independence –- something shredded into non-existence during the Bush-Cheney years -– was being reasserted in a no-muss, no-fuss kind of way.
In an interview with PBS’s Jim Lehrer Holder said:
JIM LEHRER: Did you run it by President Obama?
ERIC HOLDER: Just informed him of the decision.
Holder’s a person who believes that a president’s supposed to behave in a hands-off manner with his Justice Department. He’s a good lawyer. And there are times when I would like to involve him maybe a little more, but his view is that, in those things that are in the province of the attorney general, all the president needs to be is informed.
JIM LEHRER: So, you just told him what your decision was; you didn’t say, “What do you think about it, Mr. President?”
ERIC HOLDER: Nope. Told him last night — or had relayed to him what I was going to do last night while he was on Air Force One on his way to Asia.
So, who in the administration made the decision to make funding for this trial sufficiently stand-alone that Lindsey Graham could identify it to strip it out of a bill? Should it not just be in regular Homeland Security funding or regular DOJ funding? The Graham amendment was to be added to a Commerce/Justice/Science funding bill. Now evidently that bill passed, without Graham’s amendment, and the conference committee was already appointed, shouldn’t it be too late?
Look, this is a direct attack on the prosecutorial independence of DOJ and a direct attack on Holder. The only prosecution decisions the Constitution allows the Senate to make relate to impeachments.
Having made an announcement to the world that this case would be tried in a civilian court in NYC, it would be unbelievably humiliating for Holder to have to issue a “never mind” because he doesn’t have the money for the trial. You know, the resign-in-protest kind of humiliating? What a passive-aggressive backstabbing that would be.
You would think the President would have somebody on his staff — cough Rahm cough — who knows something about how Congress works — cough cough Rahm cough – who would not let an embarrassment like that happen, right? Excuse me while I go and get a throat lozenge.



56 Comments










Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Something must be up because republican Congressman Boozman of Arkansas sent out the following email this morning.
Protecting Americans Against the Threat of Terrorism
Recent events prove that more than eight years after 9/11, the threat of terrorism here in the United States is still very real. Preventing terrorist efforts in our country is a continuous and daily effort, but the attempted bombing of a United States bound airplane on Christmas Day has exposed failures in our security.
Because of little more than luck, this terrorist attack attempt failed, but it serves as a reminder that there are people in our world who want to harm our country and its citizens and will go to great lengths to accomplish this.
Like many of you, I am concerned about the transfer of terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility to U.S. soil. I have voted to keep the terrorists in the facility at Guantanamo Bay, not on U.S. soil, and have worked to prevent funding from being used to transfer the detainees currently housed there to the U.S.
By passing the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, as well as H.R. 4127, which would require terrorists and illegal enemy combatants who are not U.S. Citizens be tried in military tribunals and not civilians courts, we can prevent the transfer or release of terrorists and illegal enemy combatants into the U.S. and prevent them access to civilian courts. We must also analyze our intelligence gathering and analysis cooperation within and between agencies, which would better prevent terrorists from slipping through the cracks in our security in the future. We must adopt appropriate security tactics to better identify threats as they pass through our transportation systems.
We need to remain vigilant and always remember that we are up against a determined enemy who seeks to destroy the American spirit and way of life. As Congress heads back to work for the Second Session of the 111th Congress, this will undoubtedly be a topic for congressional hearings. As a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Aviation Subcommittee, as well as the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, I am committed to working with my colleagues to protect Americans and our allies from the threat of terrorism.
Throat lozenge? Maybe a mouthful of firewater!
Cut off funding for a trial for terrorists? If the Democrats did this the Republicans would be all over it.
Oh no – this is really REALLY bad.
They were okay with Bush torturing (and who knows what else), but they’re too wussie to put ‘em on trial? Excuuuuuse me!
Jayzus what these politicians won’t sell down the river to stay on friendly terms with their electorate. When exactly do they get around to doing their jobs?
They picked Jimmy Carter to pieces for being a micromanager, but now Congress wants to micromanage DoJ? Bizarre.
This is worse than the Mass. loss….Is there a voice/loud for supporting Holder? Even Guilli…agreed NYC could handle it.
A) Do you really think Holder is that independent of the White House? He seems pretty much in sync with White House policy to me. I mean look at the sham investigation/review of torture (well some of the excesses) he came up with. And this is just part of the overall “Look forward not back”, i.e. don’t investigate Bush criminality stand Obama has taken. Ditto the lack of aggressive investigation of fraud among the banksters.
I think if they want to shut down Graham’s amendment they always can. The question we should be asking is if they want to. After the election in MA and the initial contradictory responses to it from the White House, it has suddenly gotten much more difficult to figure if this Administration has a solid position on anything. Just look at the Southers nomination being pulled earlier today.
So yes, the KSM trial in federal court might be up in the air now, but it’s hardly likely to be the only issue. The thing to pay attention to here is that Obama isn’t going to veer left or suddenly take any principled stand. Rather how far right is he going to go?
Do you expect him to tell us in the State of the Union? He better say something weighty….
Legally speaking speaking, I wouldn’t see this as Congress overstepping its bounds – I don’t for instance see how it would have been right to give Ashcroft literally a blank check without Congressional oversight. That being said, I have a hard time figuring out Darth Sidious as he does seem to create his own criseses in order to game the system but also at the same time he comes across as not being as smart as originally thought and not making contingency plans.
He’ll talk about lots of stuff, but don’t bet that anything he promises will happen. (If Rahm runs through the speech first, it’s likely to be short on promises, too.)
At this point, I’m seeing him as only good as an inspirational speaker, and we don’t need any more inspirational speakers; we need a leader with guts.
I do not believe that the Republicans will be successful in stopping this trial. If they do, Holder should then announce investigations into the Bush regime torture!
Rhetorical Q.
Yeah seems like he is more comfortable being a ceremonial figure as opposed to a leader.
But wow! what a dud so far.
Well I guess we are all about to find out who exactly wears the “big boy” pants in the White House. If it’s Rahm, I want my vote back.
I see the SOTU as an assemblage of rhetorical flourishes largely devoid of substance, with the fine print backing up Obama’s status quo corporatist agenda.
Why give a terrorist a propaganda platform? And all the pampering? At the expense of the intended victims? No way! A Gitmo suite and a military tribunal would be more fitting, in this case, I say, even as a(n almost former) democrat.
Bloomberg Poll conducted by Selzer & Co. Dec. 3-7, 2009. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.
“What do you think would be the best way to handle prisoners currently detained at Guantanamo: put them on trial as alleged criminals in U.S. courts, put them on trial before military tribunals, or detain them indefinitely without trials, either at Guantanamo or somewhere else?”
.
U.S. Courts 21%
Military Tribunals 57%
Detain w/o Trials 10%
Unsure 12%
As with their Health Care Reform efforts, Dems are deaf to the concerns of the majority of the American people.
It’s not just about the terrorist… it’s about us.
Because trials work and military tribunals fail.
Heh. Your reply was better than mine.
Yes, why should we bother with all this rule of law and Constitution crap? just take them outside and bludgeon them to death.
A few thoughts: America’s Endless Two Minute Hate
1) How does a government successfully, within the boundaries of due process, prosecute a defendant who has been systematically tortured to obtain his confession?
2) How can the government’s on-going program of fear mongering and political manipulation survive a criminal trial where admissable evidence and relevant law are applied to render a decision in the case?
WTF,
Innocent until proven guilty or do we live in a monarchy with show trials and guilt presumed?
Ever read the Constitution?
If the purse is closed to DOJ, I just don’t know what to think.
It means that in no case is a moneyed interest ever prosecutable, or that a case with money allied against it is ever prosecutable.
Very disturbing. As Cynthia said “wake you up in the middle of the night” disturbing.
SOTU 2010 will be Obama’s Deer in Caribou Barbie’s headlights speech.
Holder needs to return to his lucrative private practice representing multinational corporate executives from crimes against humanity prosecutions in the country’s where they directly pay the death squads to protect their financial interests.
No jurisdiction, your Honor. My clients have never been to Nicaragua.
The theme of this election year is how long and how well can the Obama Administration hold it together. The MA result may not be a surprise to us but it was a nasty shock to Obama and the Democrats. Losing Ted Kennedy’s seat to a wingnut has got to hurt, not that it will bring any of them closer to reality. But then too there is the question of keeping the economy from falling apart before the election. We have seen the jobs bill, the F&F debt limits taken off to shore up the housing market, the creditlines and ZIRP still are in place to keep the stock market from tanking, but voters out in the real world I doubt are going to have their animal spirits improved by all this. The failure of healthcare has already happened in the public’s mind. Whether Congress passes anything now or not is beside the point. Anyway the weakness of the White House may actually accelerate the economic decline. It will be a race to November and the Dems are going to be creamed then anyway.
OT
I used to wonder whether TDS would recede into oblivion with O election. But I didn’t wonder for too long.
I attended the annual forecasting meeting of NY Assn of Bus Economists today. I’ll write it up as a diary tomorrow. In an aftermeeting conversation with a friend, I finally see how the non-double-dip forecast is possible. Even if not a double-dip, the economy is in train for a very sluggish recovery, in which case you are right. The Ds get creamed.
I used to think there was no need for a list to track Obama scandals.
You make me laugh. In a nonfunny way.
Hugh’s Obama scandal list.
Sooner rather than later.
Thanks for your participation on the earlier thread.
Once again, Hugh and I are on the same planet.
Thank you! Always a pleasure sharing thoughts, opinions and links. Looking forward to your Seminal post.
eCahn, I look forward to it. They haven’t even begun to address let alone fix the economic problems that sent the economy into a dive. They have only reflated some bubbles that will burst if the Fed pulls back on its low interest rates or if the financial industry is forced to uncook their books. The underlying insolvency has been papered (literally) over. I thought for a while that all the government aid was just a means to recapitalize the system through the backdoor, but the pick up in the casino action looks like too many players are trying to make up too much lost ground. A lot of the money that should have gone into a recapitalization looks like its back in speculative plays and that means that most of it is subject to being wiped out when the bubbles burst. I don’t think Japanification is an option for us. I think the underlying drags of too high unemployment and private debt will keep the system from allowing it. Also you have to take into account just how incompetent are elites are. I rate Japanification as likely than depression. I don’t see recovery as happening at all.
That last bit should read:
Also you have to take into account just how incompetent our elites are. I rate Japanification as less likely than depression. I don’t see recovery as happening at all.
Even the elites at the Fed & Treasury are falling all over themselves to claim credit for the billions in profits that our government has made through their financial bailout dealings.
That plays really well in the real economy, I must say. (Ed Grimmley voce`)
Glad I decided to reveal my intentions before posting. I’m mulling what tack to take, how to characterize the forecast. And the feedback is helping me do that.
I am a literalist. I take facts in hand as important, often err in thinking they are dispositive. But I also carry a kit bag of beliefs. Like at zero interest rates, how can there not be more bubbles. (A in the meeting was Asian real estate.)
But the one thing missing was the politcal element. Color me guilty. I did exactly the same thing when I was a Wall St. econ forecaster.
One of the elements in the meeting was arm strain from patting themselves on the back for creating “normality” in financial markets.
You mean what politicians will do for short term re-election regardless of who pays when we trip over the can they keep kicking down the road?
Cynthia, I apologize for taking this thread OT. But kudos for catching this.
Well, I’m glad to hear they’re getting plenty of exercise while speeding away from the landing tower at Lakehurst, NJ.
Kind of. I’m still trying to meld what I used to do with what I’ve learned from hanging out at FDL. Keep asking Qs, so I can sort it out.
In a more general sense, what the pols are doing is exactly like what Wall St. does. As you point out, the short term gains are irresistable. As I typed a couple of days ago, the consequence of not paying attention to short term gains is that you lose your job before the longer term benefits become apparent.
Looking for language to convey that motivation.
Here’s the problem … when we speak about yield to maturity, what are we measuring?
Yield – what strengthens and makes us more sustainable?
Maturity – tomorrow, next week, next quarter, a hundred years from now?
I’ve been thinking about a post that explores the philosophy of economic costs, risks and gains as they become shorter term, higher risk, more disconnected from human needs, while losses are socialized as a harbinger of the decline and fall.
Thank you, Cynthia. This little detail deserves a great deal of exposure.
You know how the Republican Party loves to put black Repubs on display, like at the 2004 national convention, or all the black conservative pundits on teevee?
I think it’s time to acknowledge: they got one in the White House.
Is it obstruction when, hypothetically speaking, a chief of staff encourages Congress to deny the DoJ funding for a specific prosecution or denies the federal courts the ability to use their budget for a specific trial? In a democracy, that hypothetical chief of staff would be run out of town on a rail, picking proverbial feathers and tar from his not too sensitive skin.
Somebody please remind me what law school Barack Obama attended and whether he passed his bar exam.
Cynthia,
Thanks for your insight, but I DO hope you’re wrong, and that it was just a nightmare.
I assume Holder has been informed of Graham’s shenanigans, and is pushing back.
Bob in AZ
PS I’m looking forward to your “later post.”
In general? I don’t know. In this instance, yeah, he made a point of it.
And that’s a good thing. If the Admin does not support him in this, I doubt we will see much in the way of future attemtps at the traditional types of DOJ independence.
That’s kinda my point.
WHere do you get the notion that this gives the terrorists any more of a platform than any other form of trial. Assuming, and I do that the military tribunal trials will conform to the constitutional requirement of a being a public trial, KSM will have just as much of a platform at that public trial as he will at this public trial.
ANd what pampering are you referring to? have you ever stayed at the MCC? That’s the federal jail for SDNY.
He’s probaly going to be stuck in solitary for the length of trial, where would there be time for pampering, he’s going to be in a courtroom all day.
To do that lodged prisoners usually have to get up before 5 to be showered and dressed, if they are going to wear civiies to court instead of the orange jumpsuit. They often miss breakfast.
They are waist, ankle and hand shackled to shuffle from the MCC through tunnels to the courtroom. they sit for hours at t ime in a holding cell annexed to the courtroom.
They often get back from court too late for dinner and get a peanut butter sandwich instead of a hot meal.
If you ever done a trial the days are long and grueling. Plus you go back an prep in the evenings, so there is not much time for sleeping.
It’s hardly pampering.
Nice catch. I didn’t think it through to that VERY logical conclusion.
If Graham can stop this trial, he can stop any trial. Fork!
I believe that to be the case. I really want Holder to win this one.
Interestingly enough Barak Obama retired from law and Michelle Obama went inactive on law about a year after they married so both their law licenses aren’t active.
We need to make every Dem in Congress know that if they vote for this piece of sh*t that they are the biggest wankers in town.
The rule of law is sexy and I want radiant sunlight on the whole process: 1) on trial in NYC, 2) complete video footage, 3) livebloggers blogging it.