Most people don't even realize it, but an alleged al Qaeda terrorist - deemed among the most dangerous terrorists in US custody by US counterterrorism officials - has been quietly appearing in a U.S. federal court in downtown Manhattan for pretrial hearings for weeks now. His trial is scheduled to start there next week. And as the Wall Street Journal notes today, the NYPD - who are the national experts on counterterrorism security - don't see any need for extra funds to buttress their normal security procedures.
That's a far cry from the $200 million the police department said last year it would need to secure the trial of some other alleged al Qaeda operatives: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators in the 9/11 attack.
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani is being tried for his role in an earlier al Qaeda terrorist attack on U.S. interests: the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. He was considered so important to al Qaeda that after he was captured in Pakistan in 2004, he was subjected to so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" in CIA "black sites" while interrogators pumped him for information. He was only transferred from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp to a New York prison for civilian trial last year.
Critics of the Obama administration's decision to use civilian trials for alleged terrorists claim, among other things, that trial and imprisonment in the United States pose a major security threat. But according to Devlin Barrett and Sean Gardiner in today's Journal:
The New York Police Department plans some behind-the-scenes security adjustments for Mr. Ghailani's trial, but there will be no street closures or extra officers assigned to security outside the courthouse.
For anyone who actually lives in New York and knows what the downtown courthouse area is like, that makes perfect sense. Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the NYPD has stepped up its patrols and security in the area. There are now concrete barriers around all federal buildings that make it impossible for someone to drive a bomb up anywhere near them. Security entering the courthouse has always been tight, which makes sense, given that the Manhattan courthouse has long been the primary location for terrorist trials.
The problem with the plan to try KSM and his alleged associated there wasn't that New York City lacked sufficient security; it was that political opponents of the Obama Administration turned the trial into a political tool they could use to undermine the administration. And once opponents like Liz Cheney whipped some locals up into a frenzy about the need to close streets and add security, downtown businesses got scared about how that all might affect their bottom line.
The truth is, as the Ghailani trial demonstrates, that the NYPD and federal prison guards are fully capable of securing the massive stone courthouse and adjacent high-security prison that's long housed suspected terrorists safely. We neither need to shut down the city nor spend another $200 million to accomplish that.
The thing that first strikes you about Guantanamo Bay's "Camp Justice" is what an extraordinary effort was made to create something that never needed to exist. Though federal courts have been interrogating, trying and imprisoning terrorists for more than 200 years, for some reason the U.S. government believed after September 11, 2001 that it needed to create a whole new way of doing that. So it set up this sprawling military camp, complete with housing for lawyers, journalists, observers, two new courthouses, hyped-up security with endless coils of concertina wire -- all to house a few hundred guys who could have been much more efficiently and just as safely held in high-security prisons in the U.S.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) likes to tout his experience as a former military lawyer. Graham apparently thinks this makes him sound more convincing when he goes around advocating military trials for all suspected terrorists, as he's been doing lately. Graham's now trying to get that idea signed into law in a bill he's introduced in the Senate. A similar provision is likely headed to a vote today in the House of Representatives.
The evidence for the necessity to hold Bush administration officials accountable for the use of torture continues to grow. Light is being shed, not only on the acts of torture, but also on the indiscriminate and wantonly careless manner in which detainees were designated as such "high value" that they should be considered appropriate subjects for torture interrogation techniques.
On Tuesday, June 16th, the Washington Post reported (CIA Mistaken on 'High-Value' Detainee, Document Shows) that CIA documents confirm the Bush administration was mistaken about Guantanamo detainee Abu Zubaydah being a high-ranking member of al-Qaeda.
The Post report confirmed what Brent Mickum, one of Abu Zubaydah's lawyers, told a torture accountability forum on May 30th, that "Abu Zubaydah was never even a member of al-Qaeda much less a high-level member." Nevertheless, Zubaydah, a Palestinian, was held at a secret CIA facility after his capture in Pakistan in March 2002 and was subjected 83 times to waterboarding.
Mickum on his client Abu Zubaydah at torture accountability forum May 30th:
Mickum wrote about these mistakes by the Bush administration in a March 30th article "The Truth About Abu Zubaydah" published in the British newspaper Guardian.
The facts surrounding the handling and treatment of Abu Zubaydah that have so far come to light raise enormous doubts about Dick Cheney's assertions that the techniques he authorized were used sparingly, only on "high-value" suspects and yielded positive results. Closer to the truth is that the use of these torture techniques was reckless, in most cases based on implausible and mistaken information, and may involve a cover-up by the OLC.
Today, the Obama truth is revealed. Change has come in the form of familiarity. Some American's are embarrassed. Others embrace what, when presented by the previous Administration, they rejected. Apathy helps most Americans to avoid a sense of shame. It was announced; Obama defends Bush-era secrets. This Administration has gone further to establish government sovereignty. As a nation, the Obama White House tells citizens, our country will be better protected if details about the surveillance program are considered "Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information."
Today, we're hearing plenty of talk about non-partisanship, how September 11 should be a day of national mourning, not a day of politics. In some ways, it's almost religious in nature--like the Sabbath, separating the profane, political from the sacred, non-partisan.
But it's a false division. Whether in religion or politics, life cannot be bifurcated except by arbitrary and misleading measures. We cannot simply commemorate the events of September 11, 2001 and call for national unity and service, as the ServiceNation forum tonight is meant to do, without involving politics (unless, of course, politics means solely the trivialities that the news media usually treats us to). The whole idea of community service and involvement is inseparably linked to political ideology. Libertarians, especially radical Ayn Rand libertarians, don't subscribe to the idea that we have a moral, if not legal, obligation to be involved citizens. And our belief in what type of service should be valued is especially political.
"You're weak on terror," screamed the Republicans.
"You're spineless," yelled progressives.
"You make decisions on purely political grounds," sniped the mainstream media.
No love. True, Democrats did cave to President Bush in a particularly craven manner when they signed off on his drastic expansion in warrantless spying on American citizens. And they've yet to summon the backbone to meaningfully confront him on the Iraq War.
But, though you wouldn't know it from listening to most progressives or the mainstream media over the last month, Democrats actually made major steps forward on other parts of the progressive agenda in the final months of the summer session.
They passed (and President Bush signed) legislation to enact many of the recommendations of the September 11 commission; Congress defied President Bush and voted to increase health coverage for needy and working class children; the House and Senate each passed energy legislation that represents the first significant federal action to tackle the climate crisis; and Congress passed major ethics legislation that will significantly limit the influence of big money on politics. Progressives have responded to all these successes like a nagging spouse. Instead of celebrating Democratic victories, most progressives take them for granted and ignore them. Then they go and trash Democrats for their shortcomings, often reinforcing Republican claims that the new Democratic majority isn't actually getting anything done.
Meanwhile, with no one touting the Democrats' achievements, congressional approval numbers have plummeted to below those of President Bush.
STATE BLOGS
