What are everyone's thoughts?
While I'm not surprised that the Obama administration would think it's a good idea (they've been promising to do it since the election), I'm pretty disgusted with it. (That they decided to do the typical Friday announcement thing to bury the story is particularly galling, given how significant the issue is however one feels about it).
Because I know you wished to see it, here's NRO's take.
Sunday assorted links
3 hours ago
I'm not sure it'a decision worth anyone's "disgust," even if you disagree with it.
ReplyDeleteBut put aside that for now. The whole Friday thing, actually, isn't an attempt to bury the story. That only works if you put out the release or information at the end of the day Friday, when reporters are gearing up for the weekend. (From what I understand, Holder announced his decision in the morning.)
I also seriously doubt anyone can bury news in this day and age, when 24-hour cable news channels are even more voracious with their need for input. The release, timed as it was, made it perfect for the weekend cycle of news talk shows.
I heard on the radio they may also have chosen the date because it marked the 8th year anniversary of when President Bush inaugurated the military tribunal process, which, I may gratuitously add just to needle you, hasn't earned many convictions since.
1) If the "burying-the-story-thing" doesn't work, why does every administration do it? And why to all reporters acknowledge the idea?
ReplyDelete2) I keep hearing that argument about how Bush had 8 years to get his military tribunals up and running, and only accomplished three." Which is supposed to be an argument in Obama's favor because he is immediately getting something done in both civilian trials and military tribunals.
This is an asinine argument. Everyone agrees I would think that establishing an effective legal regime in these circumstances is a difficult and important proposition and one that should be given time to make sure we get it right.. While I think it has been made harder than it need be because of some lawyers who look at the law like a mock-trial game, the fact is that the Supreme Court overruled the idea that we could use the prior precedent of previous military tribunals in these circumstances. So what did that mean? That meant that the US, under the Bush administration, had to devise an entirely new military tribunal system that was within the legal bounds as outlined by the Supreme Court and the Congress. It should suprise no one that that is a process that takes time and serious thought. President Bush should be given credit for taking time to make sure we got things right.
Now...flash forward to today, and you have Obama claiming (via his deputies): "See! I'm better because just like that I'm moving forward on both civilian trials AND military tribunals. I know what I'm doing and I'm the guy who gets things done!" (I'm paraphrasing). He doesn't mention that that is only possible because Pres. Bush did all the leg-work for him. It's like the last guy in a relay team taking credit for the whole race (in a relay where the final guy only has to run 10 yards).
That level of arrogance and hubris doesn't surprise me coming from Pres. Obama, but it surprises me that intelligent people continue to run with an argument that is so obviously ridiculous.
And I believe "digust" is an appropriate descriptor when my perception is that the administration is committed to looking at Acts of War as common criminal activity; a viewpoint that is going to get a lot more people killed.
1. The Clinton Administration may have done it, but that was before the Internet. Now that blogs have matured and web sites proliferated (Politico.com, for instance, is extremely young), the Friday dump doesn't make much sense. And, again, the announcement came out in the morning, allowing plenty of time for it to filter through radio, broadcast, print and cable. (The Clintonistas used to dump Friday evening or Saturday, and usually not an announcement, but whole reams of documents relating to legal issues relating to the Lewinsky affair. Very different.)
ReplyDelete2. Fair enough -- the Bush Administration had to devise a complex solution to a rather new problem (how to process terrorists). OK. But the initial solutions it proposed failed to pass constitutional muster in the Supreme Court (twice!). Why that's reason for praise escapes me. If you mean President Bush's trial and error gave us a firmer understanding of the legal issues involved -- then I agree. But it's clear that the Bush Administration pushed its legal philosophy at the expense of expediency, which leaves us, eight years after 9/11, still seeking justice.