Justice In A Time Of Terror
Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.
It's far too late for the current Republican administration or the current Democrat-controlled Congress to redeem themselves in the legal war on terrorism. Too many men have been tortured; too many Americans have been spied upon without warrant; too many constitutional principles have been scuttled; too many precedents breached; too many smart ideas and reasonable compromises left along the legislative trial. There has been entirely too much of John Yoo and David Addington and not nearly enough of Jack Goldsmith and James Comey.
Hundreds of men - some terrorists, some not - still languish un-prosecuted in detention at Guantanamo Bay because the Administration stubbornly has refused to compromise over tribunal procedures. Warrantless domestic surveillance remains mired in controversy and legal illegitimacy. The Justices are about to announce their third detainee ruling on terror law since the Twin Towers fell and few believe the Court has the motivation or the votes to issue, finally, any sort of declarative judgment.
But the next president of the United States, whoever he or she may be, and the next Congress, however it is constituted, will have an opportunity to steer a more sensible and productive path. Perhaps the only "good" news about the current leadership's shameful failure to formulate a terror-law plan - one that is constitutionally proper and publicly acceptable - is that the vacuum has drawn in several good ideas from outside the corridors of power.
Take journalist and newly-minted academician Ben Wittes. He's just written the book I wanted to write. But instead of being bitter, I'm relieved. Although I don't agree with many of his conclusions, Wittes' "Law and the Long War" is by open lengths the most useful post-9/11 terror law book yet written. It posits, earnestly, that America will be far better off, and more capable of tackling the terrorists, only when the Congress takes a proactive role in creating terror law rules, when the President of the United States is willing to accept the legislative branch as a partner in the policy-making process, and when the courts have a more pre-defined role in the mix.
Continuing the current unworkable (and un-working) paradigm, Wittes argues, where the executive branch floods into the open space left by legislative inaction only to be checked by the judicial branch, will only result in more uncertainty as the war against terrorism approaches its first decade. It's easy, of course, to say that the politicians have to do better. But Wittes offers some specific ideas that should find their way into the next President's campaign platform if not his or her Inaugural Address.
For example, Wittes wants to see the legislative creation of a separate "administrative detention" system which would alleviate the need for the messy detainee situation still unfolding down in Cuba. The system - a cross between our civilian criminal courts and the military tribunals which have yet to fire fully since 9/11 - would function in Wittes' view as a sort of "National Security Court" (we already have a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, remember) or something akin to an administrative law body. He also wants more stringent rules against excessive interrogations with explicit exceptions in extreme cases (the ticking time bomb in Times Square, for example).
Now let's turn to David Cole, the Georgetown University Law professor who has done more to help educate us all about the legal war on terror than any man alive. Cole has taught on the subject, written about it, and gotten his hands dirty representing individuals and causes conflicting with the government's interest. In an important review titled "The Brits Do it Better" in the June 12th New York Review of Books, Cole concludes that the "English have learned from their mistakes in fighting terrorism. The question for the United States can learn from ours." Unlike our British cousins, Cole suggests, America could use a lesson in subtlety in the war on terror.
That Wittes and Cole have reached the same fertile ground at the same time despite traveling different paths is no coincidence. Most anyone who has closely followed the arch of the government's legal response to the terror attacks on America concedes (with varying degrees of defensiveness, anger or disgust) that the story is one of lost opportunities, misguided priorities, political cowardice, and bad intentions. Indeed, the report issued last week by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General confirmed for history the dysfunction within the various departments of the executive branch when it comes to the creation of terror law policy.
Come Jan. 20, 2009, all of this nonsense, this catastrophically damaging nonsense, must end. The new President must cooperate fully and fairly with the new Congress. The new Congress must act courageously, decisively, proactively and comprehensively. And the federal judiciary must intercede sparingly yet with far more clarity than we've seen from the Supreme Court since 2001. After seven years of chaos and embarrassment - and just a single detainee tried down at Guantanamo Bay - that shouldn't be too much to ask.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. It's far too late for the current Republican administration or the current Democrat-controlled Congress to redeem themselves in the legal war on terrorism. Too many men have been tortured; too many Americans have been spied upon without warrant; too many constitutional principles have been scuttled; too many precedents breached; too many smart ideas and reasonable compromises left along the legislative trial. There has been entirely too much of John Yoo and David Addington and not nearly enough of Jack Goldsmith and James Comey.
Hundreds of men - some terrorists, some not - still languish un-prosecuted in detention at Guantanamo Bay because the Administration stubbornly has refused to compromise over tribunal procedures. Warrantless domestic surveillance remains mired in controversy and legal illegitimacy. The Justices are about to announce their third detainee ruling on terror law since the Twin Towers fell and few believe the Court has the motivation or the votes to issue, finally, any sort of declarative judgment.
But the next president of the United States, whoever he or she may be, and the next Congress, however it is constituted, will have an opportunity to steer a more sensible and productive path. Perhaps the only "good" news about the current leadership's shameful failure to formulate a terror-law plan - one that is constitutionally proper and publicly acceptable - is that the vacuum has drawn in several good ideas from outside the corridors of power.
Take journalist and newly-minted academician Ben Wittes. He's just written the book I wanted to write. But instead of being bitter, I'm relieved. Although I don't agree with many of his conclusions, Wittes' "Law and the Long War" is by open lengths the most useful post-9/11 terror law book yet written. It posits, earnestly, that America will be far better off, and more capable of tackling the terrorists, only when the Congress takes a proactive role in creating terror law rules, when the President of the United States is willing to accept the legislative branch as a partner in the policy-making process, and when the courts have a more pre-defined role in the mix.
Continuing the current unworkable (and un-working) paradigm, Wittes argues, where the executive branch floods into the open space left by legislative inaction only to be checked by the judicial branch, will only result in more uncertainty as the war against terrorism approaches its first decade. It's easy, of course, to say that the politicians have to do better. But Wittes offers some specific ideas that should find their way into the next President's campaign platform if not his or her Inaugural Address.
For example, Wittes wants to see the legislative creation of a separate "administrative detention" system which would alleviate the need for the messy detainee situation still unfolding down in Cuba. The system - a cross between our civilian criminal courts and the military tribunals which have yet to fire fully since 9/11 - would function in Wittes' view as a sort of "National Security Court" (we already have a special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, remember) or something akin to an administrative law body. He also wants more stringent rules against excessive interrogations with explicit exceptions in extreme cases (the ticking time bomb in Times Square, for example).
And, perhaps most controversially, in the arena of domestic surveillance, Wittes wants Congress to "strip away the roadblocks to constructive, real-time government access to routine transactional data - credit card and other financial transactions and telecommunications addressing information in particular" while creating a "what-happens-in-counterterrorism-stays-in-counterterrorism" limit to executive branch power over our private transactions. Mountains may move before this occurs. But Wittes is right that we ought to try.
Now let's turn to David Cole, the Georgetown University Law professor who has done more to help educate us all about the legal war on terror than any man alive. Cole has taught on the subject, written about it, and gotten his hands dirty representing individuals and causes conflicting with the government's interest. In an important review titled "The Brits Do it Better" in the June 12th New York Review of Books, Cole concludes that the "English have learned from their mistakes in fighting terrorism. The question for the United States can learn from ours." Unlike our British cousins, Cole suggests, America could use a lesson in subtlety in the war on terror.
That Wittes and Cole have reached the same fertile ground at the same time despite traveling different paths is no coincidence. Most anyone who has closely followed the arch of the government's legal response to the terror attacks on America concedes (with varying degrees of defensiveness, anger or disgust) that the story is one of lost opportunities, misguided priorities, political cowardice, and bad intentions. Indeed, the report issued last week by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General confirmed for history the dysfunction within the various departments of the executive branch when it comes to the creation of terror law policy.
Come Jan. 20, 2009, all of this nonsense, this catastrophically damaging nonsense, must end. The new President must cooperate fully and fairly with the new Congress. The new Congress must act courageously, decisively, proactively and comprehensively. And the federal judiciary must intercede sparingly yet with far more clarity than we've seen from the Supreme Court since 2001. After seven years of chaos and embarrassment - and just a single detainee tried down at Guantanamo Bay - that shouldn't be too much to ask.
Recommended
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- The hunk factor and the 2012 elections
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- Obama only goes after leaks that don't benefit him
- Is 60 The New 40 Or Is 40 The New 60?
- Who Lives The American Dream?
- High School Reunion Tips
- Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
It''s all just right-wing fear-mongering in support of an otherwise unsupportable political agenda.
%u201CContemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ''what should be the reward of such sacrifices?'' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!%u201D - Samuel Adams
nough said deomcommies
Seig hillary
Seig hillary!
Seig hillary!
By Aram Roston
Investigative producer
NBC News
updated 6:32 a.m. ET, Wed., May. 28, 2008
Aram Roston
Investigative producer
A little-noticed civil lawsuit in Florida is shining a light on an unusual but hugely profitable Pentagon contract to ship millions of gallons of aviation fuel to U.S. bases in Iraq through the kingdom of Jordan.
The deal involves a cast of influential characters, including the king of Jordan%u2019s brother-in-law, who is suing Harry Sargeant III, a top Florida-based fundraiser for Sen. John McCain''s presidential bid.
Sargeant is a Florida businessman and former Marine Corps pilot hailed by the McCain campaign as a "Trailblazer" for raising $100,000 or more in political donations. Through a company called International Oil Trading Co., or IOTC, Sargeant and a partner have a lucrative contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year to supply American military forces in Iraq with fuel, especially aviation fuel. The firm ships the fuel to Jordan and then trucks it across the border, where U.S. forces escort the convoys to air bases.
AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!
Even Bush''s greatest success, implanting a conservative Supreme Court, will probably lead to limitations on legal abortion and start of a new black market in these procedures.
The clever lawyers in the Bush Administation rationalized more power for the executive branch of government but not the American citizen.
THEN THE WORLD WILL SEE THAT AMERICA DOES STAND FOR JUSTICE AND HOPE!
DEMAND WAR CRIMES TRIALS NOW!