Better Late Than Never

Cohen: 9/11 Suspects Closer To Justice After Bush's Terror Compromise

(CBS)  By CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen

---

In a series of well-coordinated and well-publicized election-year maneuvers Wednesday, the Bush administration deftly and dramatically transferred to more favorable ground the legal and political fight over the war on terrorism.

First, the White House brought in from the cold — from secret CIA prisons — 14 of the highest-level terror detainees. Next, it shipped the men to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where they join the hundreds of other detainees awaiting trial there. And, finally, the administration and military officials proposed a series of serious legal compromises that would give all the tribunal defendants, including the newly transferred terror muckety-mucks, more legal rights than ever before.

The executive branch's stunning triple play doesn't resolve the matter right away. Congress still has to consent to the new tribunal rules proposed by the administration. The Supreme Court might again have to get involved to broker any disputes between the other branches as well as any objections raised by any of the detainees.

But the White House, in the span of just a few hours, has taken much of the steam out of the ears of its legal and political opponents. It has undercut many of the most serious arguments against the administration's treatment of terror prisoners. It has, you might say, done much of what its adversaries had demanded that it do. That's why today is probably the single most important day in the five-year history of the legal battle against terrorism.

The government's transfer of men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh to military control at Gitmo means that the men are markedly closer to facing justice than they were just a few days ago. It means that the family members of 9/11 victims and survivors of the attacks, who long have waited for a real 9/11 trial (and who were disappointed by the sham 9/11 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui earlier this year), now finally can allow themselves to imagine American prosecutors facing down Binalshibh and Mohammed in a military courtroom.

No wonder the White House's political operatives made sure that there were 9/11 families in the audience Wednesday when the president delivered his big speech.

In addition to solving many of the administration's legal problems over the fate of the detainees, the White House's moves also place enormous pressure upon the Congress to agree to the proposed compromise and to authorize the tribunal procedures the executive branch wants to see put into place. Now the White House can blame any sort of delay in the prosecution of the "New Gang of 14" upon the legislative branch if Congress doesn't act quickly enough.

It will be fascinating to see how the Senate, especially, reacts to the brave new world that has just been layered over this old and crusty topic. There are still serious concerns about the administration's proposal — and serious objections by important senators, especially over the level of involvement the terror detainees may have in their own defense.

[sjpm21]

You people just do not get it; our military, special forces, and special agents with the CIA have risked their lives to not only bring to justice those that engaged in terror against our nation but to thwart the actions of their radical brothers in arms.

Your writer suggests throughout this article that our government has deprived those families of victims of 911 their day in court. Wake up! These individuals seek to deny each of us to include your writer or most cherished right to life therefore, they deserve minimum consideration of a civilized nation.

Only when your writers and audience finally realize we are at war with a fanatical, unrelenting, and deadly enemy who is intent on our destruction and is using our free society will we win this war. Too many including this writer give ammunition to the enemy with your repeated accusations that our government is immoral and lawless.

The list is long of the politically motivated attacks against the GOP (many unsubstantiated). I can argue against the party in power without degrading the American values both parties and many Americans have bleed to uphold. Objectivity, even the benefit of the doubt should go to our Commander and Chief during the time of war.

[ftecconn]

sjpm21, I couldnt agree more with what you wrote. I think folks are getting tired of liberal ACLU types trying to bring this country down for the sake of politics. When will people wake up in America and realize the terrorists could care less what side of the Isle you are on.They want to kill us all.Dont matter to them.Osama and gangs been hating the US well before Pres Bush has been around.Dont blame Bush! That will get us nowhere.If you read pass the Shock line you will see alot of misleading stuff in todays news medea.All for political power.Well if we are all dead what use is Political power.Kind of like being a millionare confind to a bed.what good does all that money do for you.NottaI hope CBS will get back int reporting the news and not try to make up the news.people are way to Informed now adays for that.I only hope that giving the terrorists better treatment than our American prisoners wont allow millions of us to get murdered all in the name of politics and power.But I do notice the Govt is hiding behind heavy security. Are they trying to tell us something?

[edjohn66]

I think sjpm21 and ftecconn should be aware of some quotes from our forefathers:

The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country...more good than it will do the enemy.
~Robert Taft (Republican Senator, December 1941)

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
~James Madison

Although it seems they are well-acquainted with another historical figure:

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
~Herman Goering

I personally choose to pay more attention to the American historical figures, which is why I continue to criticize Bush's handling of the war on terror.

[optimas2]

EdJohn,

Do you object to Lincoln's handling of the Civil War? Surely Lincoln was guilty of FAR more constitutional abuses that Bush has ever dreamt of, but yet Lincoln remains a beloved historical figure.

As long as you're picking and choosing pieces of history, why not pick Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus (without the consent of Congress) and his imprisonment of the Maryland legislature without charge or trial?

All of that seemed to work out ok in the long run, didn't it?

[jbbar-2009]

When is CBS news, specifically Evening news going to report what AMERICAN CITIZENS really think and believe about TERRORISM & TERRORISTS in a post 9/11 world?
Why does CBS news continue catering to the Liberal Left Wing country sell outs? Isn't it time CBS news takes journalistic responsibility to report the what the "Silent Majority" wants the U.S. government to do when it comes to handling TERRORISM?
CBS NEWS, until you step down off your current agenda, catering to the Liberal Left, the evening news will be the same as all the other media outlets who have weakend country.
If you want to suceed and bring CBS evening news from last to 1st in national ratings, then time has come for CBS to do what is right. The silent majority in this great country want to see the "WILL of the PEOPLE" not the "WILL of the BELTWAY in Washington.
This country needs to Scare the HELL out of TERRORIST, until that happens, until they are afraid of the USA, Terrorists will continue to make this country UNSAFE and more innocent citizens will die because of the lack of moral fortitude.

[notbuynit]

Everything that this president and his party do is done simply to keep hold on their power and empire. That is the only motivation.

It is so incredibly transparent. Shuffle the deck, smokescreen here, yell fire there. Bait and switch. Lie and swear to it.

Despicable people exploiting our fears and emotions to empower and enrich themslves at all at our expense.

This "war" is mostly an excuse to pillage, dominate, and make money. An opportunity to use a just cause for unjust purpose.

They claim to be the party of God.... I wonder if that's such a smart idea.

[random_radar]

Why does the war on terror have to be an either/or proposition? Why can't I oppose the foreign terrorists AND oppose the domestic enemies of freedom too? I am opposed to evil wherever it may be--in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Washington.

I am loyal to the constitution and a friend of the laws built upon its principles. I pledge allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands. If my elected representatives break the laws and flaunt the constitution, it is they who are traitors to our nation, not me.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilence--against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The question truly is who is loyal to our country and there is doubt about some notable and prominent people. We are fortunate to still have a say in who governs, and it is up to us to elect people who will keep us safe AND free.

[rru2s]

The administration is but one of 3 branches of our government. No branch is above the other two when it comes to the law and the constitution.

Regardless of wartime or peacetime, regardless of the existence of fanatic members of extremist groups who plot or avow to attack the US, there is still an obligation of the US to abide by the international Geneva convention and the laws and constitution of the US. The excuses for breaking laws by our government is nothing short of grandstanding the hatred of those who have attacked us so that our fear allows the administration unchecked domestic and international powers, which is exactly the dynamics of manipulation of the public's fear that were used by fascist leaders in the second world war. Do we want to allow ourselves to become our own worst enemies?

[edjohn66]

Optimas2,

A. A majority of Lincoln's actions came after a formal declaration of war by Congress.

B. To answer your question, YES, I do find fault with many of Lincoln's actions before and during the Civil War.

C. Things "seemed to work out ok" -- did they? That depends on who you talk to....

D. Even if you are right when you imply that, like Lincoln, history will smile upon W.'s actions (although I'd guess history will have a MUCH different view of W.), the issue I was discussing was the media's scruitney of the president's handling of the war on terror. Lincoln was subjected to VERY HARSH criticism before and during the Civil War, similar W.'s treatment by the media right now. If things truly did "turn out ok" with Lincoln, perhaps it is a result of the public criticism he endured?

I applaud Andrew Cohen's criticism of the executive branch. Our democracy benefits from questioning the president.

[sanfelz]

The article by Andrew Cohen was not a policy paper but a legal opinion about the response by the Bush Administration to a Supreme Court decision. Though he tries to skirt laws, even Bush must uphold the law. A more valuable function than Commander-In-Chief. Even Bush realizes that, which is why he would not admit to secret prison and torture.