Semantic Deception, Misleading Claim Re Terrorist Trials - That Obama is Doing Just What Bush Did!

It is semantic trickery - the words are not untrue,Elements for Trials by Military Commission" was
however the "truth" is essentially the completeproposed under Bush, listing two dozen chargeable
opposite. When Administration spokes-personsoffenses including attacking civilians, hostage taking,
defend President Obama's decision (through Attorneyhijacking, etc. President Bush sanctioned military
General Holder) to try 9/11 terrorists in civilian courts,tribunals for six Guantanamo Bay captives, including
the sound-bite goes on to say that is just whatone who technically had dual-American citizenship.
previous-President Bush had done with 300 terroristsToward the end of the year, as a result of detainee
(or 190 or?). However, while the earlier terroristscases proceeded through the civilian federal court
were indeed tried in civilian courts, the "truth" is thatsystem, the Bush administration reversed its policy of
Bush had sought for military tribunals but was blockeddenying detainees' access to attorneys. The rights of
by Congressional Democrats; then came a Supremeenemy combatants under detention was the subject
Court ruling that Congress was required to initiateof three appeals accepted by the Supreme Court
such a national-interest policy. The clear purpose ofbetween November 2003 and February 2004. In each
the Obama supporters is to put quiescence uponcase, the President's Authority under Article II of the
criticism of being soft on terrorism - in comparison toConstitution as Commander-In-Chief was pitted
Bush, (Behind the civilian-vs-military issue loomsagainst the rights of detained persons.
national security concerns - that for seven yearsOn December 30, 2005, the Detainee Treatment Act
after 9/11, under Bush, there had been no US-soil(DTA) was enacted. The DTA implemented revised
terrorist attacks, while there have already been threeprocedures for questioning and treatment of
attacks - with many US civilians killed - duringdetainees, and created procedural safeguards for
Obama's first year in office).Americans accused of improprieties during
First, Vice-President Biden said that Bush had triedinterrogations. The DTA also mandated various
"300 terrorists" in civilian courts, then "more than 300"procedures for tribunals and a requirement of
a spokes-person said, then Obama said 190 - creatingCongressional notification by the Pentagon regarding
interest in the true number - also the circumstancesprocedural practices. The DTA language, aimed at
(since there seems to have been little notice takendenying detainees access to federal court appeals,
of such an explosive political issue in past-year newsdid not stop the Supreme Court from deciding a case
accounts). Researching the issue shows that Obamainvolving the alleged driver of Osama bin Laden.
supporters are factually off-base in three significantIn 2006, the Supreme Court delivered a major legal
considerations: apples-vs-oranges differencessetback to the Bush administration, ruling in favor of
regarding the charges; the number of such Bush trialsHamdan: that a foreign detainee's rights were
versus the Obama plans; and the legal status ofprotected by the Geneva Conventions and were
military tribunals versus civilian trials between the Bushenforceable through the federal courts pursuant to
and Obama situations.habeas corpus procedures; that the President lacked
Apples-vs-oranges differences in the charges:the necessary Constitutional authority or specific
The claim that a large number of terrorists wereCongressional authorization for the tribunals he
convicted in civilian courts by Bush is a significantcreated; and absent specific Congressional approval,
factual exaggeration - the large majority ofthe President was obligated to follow existing law,
defendants tried by Bush were not terrorists per se,including the laws of war, which include the Geneva
but were charged with giving support to terrorismConvention.
through financial or immigration fraud - not remotelyFollowing the Hamdi ruling, comprehensive changes
comparable to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad or thetook place regarding the handling of foreign detainees
others held at Guantanamo Bay, or the "underwearsuspected of terrorist associations, the administration
bomber" - caught in attempting to kill U.S. civilians onasserting in 2006 that all suspected terrorists held by
behalf of al-Qaeda.the military or CIA would be handled in conformance
Number of such Bush trials versus Obama's plans:to the requirements of the Geneva Conventions,
Vice President Biden, Attorney General Holder andrevising its Army Field Manual, prohibiting various
President Obama have made differing claims of apractices including lengthy solitary confinements, the
large number of terrorists (from 300 to 190) beingaggressive use of dogs, and simulated drowning. On
convicted in the civilian justice system during theLabor Day weekend 2006, the government
Bush administration - the actual apples-to-applestransported the fourteen remaining foreign detainees
number of major Islamist terrorists - who have beenfrom clandestine overseas sites to the United States
convicted in civilian courts - over seven years undermilitary facility at Guantanamo Bay, among them
Bush (based on an analysis by New York University'sKhalid Shiekh Mohammad.
Center on Law and Security) - is less than a dozen.As a result of the Supreme Court mandate that
The legal status of military tribunals versus civilianCongress approve of modifications to the tribunal
trials between the Bush and Obama situations: Thereprocess for Guantanamo detainees, intensive
have been three military-commission trials under Bush,negotiations between legislators and the
but the military-commission process was on hold foradministration resulted in President Bush signing the
years due to court challenges working through theMilitary Commissions Act (MCA), into law on October
legal system - not really getting off the ground until17, 2006. The law sets rules and standards for
2008. President Obama's surprise announcement thatmilitary tribunals and places restrictions on certain
the most important terrorism detainee, Khalid Shiekhtypes of aggressive interrogation. This is the crux of
Mohammad and four others, would face trial in civilianthe present issue of the presidential authority to hold
criminal courts, was a major departure from the Bushmilitary tribunals rather than civilian courts for certain
administration. which had wanted to try all suchdetainees. This Military Commissions Act was also
individuals before military tribunals.signed by President Obama - thus, as a legal matter,
Khalid Shiekh Mohammad, considered the mastermindObama can very well try all such detainees before
of the 9/11 attacks (killing almost 3000 Newmilitary tribunals.
Yorkers), was captured in March 2003 in a surpriseAfter 9/11, the government prevailed in civilian criminal
raid in Pakistan. In addition to 9/11, Mohammad is alsocourts in some high profile extremist cases like the
believed to have played important roles in some of"Lackawanna Six" (al Qaeda terror training), airline
the most notorious plots and attacks since the mid"shoe-bomber" Richard Reid, al Qaeda member
1990s, including the 2002 Bali bombings that left 202Zacarias Moussaoui, attempted terror camp organizer
dead, the murder (beheading) of Wall Street JournalJames Ujaama, New York City bridge bomb-plotter
reporter Daniel Pearl, and various airliner plots. InIyman Faris, Al Qaeda supporter Jose Padilla, and
2007, Mohammad, who had apparently beenlesser figures like Jewish Defense League leader Irv
previously water-boarded, boasted of his involvementRubin, and white supremacist Matt Hale. However,
in 9/11 and various other terrorist incidents duringcritics of civilian trial for the 9/11 bombers have
proceedings -before a Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,strong points in opposition: some crucial evidence
Military Tribunal. Late last year, he stated his desire towould be more likely available, as from more intensive
plead guilty, but did not officially do so.questioning (water-boarding, for example), classified
In the period after 9/11, an internal debate on theinformation and informants, or foreign sources.
status of captured detainees occurred within theBecause of these factors, there also is undoubtedly a
Bush administration, with officials from the Stategreater likelihood of conviction in a military trial. In
Department and career military officers on one sideaddition, holding the trial in New York, blocks from
and the Vice President and civilian lawyers on thethe World Trade Center, poses important security
other. President Bush had classified the detainees atconcerns, with a severe impact upon the business
Guantanamo as "unlawful combatants", as opposedcommunity for a long trial - as well as issues of jury
to prisoners of war. In June; government officials,selection. Lastly, a civilian trial is likely to be longer,
maintaining that the President had the power to holdmore legally complicated, with greater propagandizing
such captives indefinitely (without judicial review orscrutiny by defendants and their supporters.
counsel), argued that the President had expansiveIn the view of many, war criminals should be tried in
authority to prosecute the War on Terror from hismilitary commissions, as was created by Congress for
constitutional powers: as precedent, wartimethat specific purpose. War criminals, particularly
exigencies plus the "Authorization for the Use ofnon-citizens like KSM or the underwear bomber, are
Military Force", passed by Congress shortly after 9/11.not entitled to civilian trials under the U.S. Constitution
(These positions, however, would be rejected lateror the laws of war, and it seems dangerously naive
by the Supreme Court.)to act as if they were.
Many Supreme Court cases ensued over the issue,It is important to note that "protection of life"
particularly on how to treat American citizens such asprecedes "liberty" in the Fifth and Fourteenth
in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and two companion cases,Amendments. One can hardly argue that the
Rasul v. Bush and Odah v. United States; it was alsogovernment is required to put citizens at risk of
decided in 2004 that non-citizen enemy combatantsterrorist attack in order to provide "liberty" to
have a right to federal judicial review of habeasterrorists.
corpus petitions. In 2003, a draft manual, "Crimes and