The answer has arrived: “Yes…and that time is now.”

Recently, there has been considerable news coverage of two stories.  Two stories, that actually represent the very same issue:

1 - Attorney General Holder’s announcement that the masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks would be tried in a federal court in New York.

2 - The announcement that a prison in Thompson, Illinois might be used to house Guantanamo Bay’s detainees.

Let’s start by taking a look at each of these issues independently:

New York Terror Trial:

One can easily predict the response to BOTH these items from the conservative camp.  Conservative pundits and politicians have made the standard “not-in-my-backyard” argument, asking their viewers and supporters, “Do you really want these terrorists brought to the U.S.?”

• Former New York Mayor Giuliani proclaimed that the wounds in New York are still too fresh for the city to withstand the “psychic pain” of a locally held trial.  News flash, Mr. Giuliani…you can’t one minute tell us how strong New Yorkers are, and then tell us the next minute that they are “too fragile” to endure trials of the terrorists who attacked them.  The former is true: New Yorkers have shown themselves to be remarkably resilient, and there are few psychologists who WOULDN’T agree that a trial would be a further step in the healing process.  When people are attacked, it is of fundamental benefit to be able to “face” their assailants, and to see the assailants brought to justice.  Side note: Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) also opposes the trial, calling it “unprecedented” and “indefensible“…strangely, both Sessions and Guiliani had no problem eight years ago with Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th hijacker) being tried in the U.S.
• Former Attorney General Ashcroft says that a trial in a civilian court, rather than a military commission, would be too “transparent.”  Too transparent?  Is there such a thing when it comes to the American government and our national ideals?  No.  The absence of transparency brought us unjust investigation methods, unjust arrests, unjust detentions, and unjust treatment of prisoners.  There is only one way to get that particular train back on the tracks, and that is to apply the two hundred year-old, Constitutionally mandated, Due Process of Law.  That means courts…it means evidence…and it means a jury gets to weigh that evidence and determine guilt or innocence.  Period.
• Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said that all we need to do…is to remember what happened in the O.J. Simpson trial and ask ourselves, “Do we really want that to happen again.” Really?  Is this perhaps the most inane thing we have ever heard from Chuck Grassley?  If anything hindered the O.J. trial…it was the fact that he is, to some, a beloved football/movie celebrity.  But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 plotters?  Does Grassley really think that a jury is going to wrongly acquit them because they are “esteemed celebrities?“
• Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) told Holder that since Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has asked to confess his guilt to a military commission and be executed…that is what we should do.  AG Holder rightly pointed out to Kyl: we aren’t going to do what the TERRORIST wants to do…we are going to follow the American legal process.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOVN3iWu9vM

• Karl Rove, Liz Cheney, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Kristol tried desperately to mobilize an angry mob to appear the day of the hearings, where Eric Holder would be explaining his decision to a Senate committee.  The effect of their scare tactics, utilizing the full force of the airwaves and the internet?  Crickets…

It’s really quite simple:  These men participated in murdering thousands of people in New York.  We have an established process for handling this.  We are very proud of our process for handling this.  The absolute dedication to the application of the Due Process of Law is one thing that is truly American, and encompasses all aspects in our belief in fairness, justice…and the necessity for fairness and justice being decided BY THE PEOPLE.  In the New York federal court…the defendants will appear, and be represented by counsel.  The prosecutor, will represent the PEOPLE.  The jury, will represent the JUDGMENT OF THE PEOPLE.  What’s more…the process itself validates and establishes WHO WE ARE as a people each time it is successfully conducted, and also serves as a point of closure and healing for victims.  Much more so than some shadowy, closed, military tribunal down in Cuba.

Relocation of Gitmo Prisoners to Thompson, Illinois:

Thompson, Illinois has a prison.  An expensive, new…and EMPTY supermax facility.  Built during the boom times…when bust times came, it was not practical to staff the prison, so only the minimum security section is used, and for only a small number of prisoners.  The governor of Illinois loves the idea of the prison’s super-maximum section being used to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay.  The state’s two senators also strongly support the idea.  The citizens of Thompson, a city experiencing very hard economic times, love the 3000 jobs and over a billion dollars that the opening of the super-maximum prison would create.  So what could possibly be the problem?

• Illinois Republican Representative Mark Kirk has been holding press conferences and circulating calls for support…saying that bringing the detainees to Illinois would make Illinois and its landmarks the new number one target for terrorists, specifically the Sears Tower, as it is America’s tallest building.  Kirk also warns that, if the Board of Corrections has authority over these prisoners, they will receive visitors…and he says that people would then have to be afraid of terrorists flying through O’Hare airport to come see their incarcerated friends.  Ummm…Kirk?  The Defense Department would be buying the prison FROM the Board of Corrections…and has already said it would not allow the detainees any visitors.  Try doing a little bit of research first, before diving headlong into scare tactics…
• Illinois Republican Don Manzullo, who is actually SUPPOSED to be representing the good people of Thompson (who, again, want the prison to open), warns that the terrorists will be brought here and then released into the Illinois community.

Editorial boards across the country immediately criticized this use of fearmongering, and set about stating the easy counter-arguments to the GOP representatives’ claims.  One of the best columns, by Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg, makes some of the clearest points:  Here’s his column.  I’ll summarize, thusly: First of all, there are already Al Qaeda terrorists being held in Illinois…27 of them…it hasn’t caused Al Qaeda to “zero in” on Illinois yet, so what’s 200 more?  Secondly, history proves that trying to avoid doing anything to provoke “agents of evil”…doesn’t really work (it’s called “appeasement” and you Republicans claim to be against it).  Third, being home to the tallest building in the U.S., doesn’t really mean anything…when terrorists have shown interest in military bases, trains and subways, shopping malls, government buildings, and a multitude of other targets.  But it turns out, the columnists were not the only people who thought the senseless fearmongering had gone too far;  Some Republicans and conservatives are fed up with it as well:

• A statement was released by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr…saying that the housing of Gitmo detainees in Thompson, Illinois…”makes good sense.“  They didn’t stop there, and went as far as to say, “The scaremongering about these issues should stop…[there is] absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities.“  You can read the rest of the statement here.
• Illinois Republican Representative Jim Sacia was even more direct, saying that legislators (including his GOP brethren) who oppose the measure to move the detainees to Thompson…are “idiots.”  Sacia said, “My thinking on this is extremely positive.  If we lose this opportunity. All I can think of is we literally are idiots. I mean that sincerely…I understand I’m on different pages of music with others in my party. First of all this should not be a partisan issue in any way. If President Obama brings the detainees on U.S. soil and we sit here with a brand new state-of-the-art, max security prison, sitting vacant for the last eight years, and pass on an opportunity to sell it to the federal government, which we would fill it with 1,500 regular prisoners and 800 detainees, what is the problem? The building was designed to do that.“

So, perhaps that’s “it.”  Perhaps Americans, even conservative Americans, are not willing to accept arguments the consist of nothing more than “If we do [insert action here] the terrorists will kill you.“  Perhaps Americans are no longer willing to set aside Constitutional rights and the guarantee of Due Process…just in the sake of “perceived safety.”  Perhaps Americans think jobs and revenue are more important right now than slippery slope arguments regarding what the terrorists “might” do.  And perhaps…just maybe…because Americans are no longer willing to be scared into supporting GOP positions…the GOP is realizing that they have to make a better argument.  Just perhaps…

Then, two documents changed everything:

1 - The Inspector General’s Report on CIA Interrogations:  The report is quite clear…our interrogators used means of torture FAR outside even the egregious amount supported by the DOJ memos.  They threatened to kill detainees, and put guns and even a power drill to detainees’ heads…this is illegal.  They threatened to bring in detainees’ wives and children, and to rape them or kill them in front of the detainees’ eyes…also illegal.  They kept them in filthy diapers for extended periods…induced hypothermia…induced blackouts by cutting off blood flow to the prisoners’ brains…struck them with knees and rifle butts…deprived them of sleep for days…oh, AND they waterboarded them, some of them repeatedly.  AG Holder finally had no choice, and appointed a Special Prosecutor.

2 - Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge’s Book:  Once a symbol for the domestic front of the Bush “War On Terror,” Tom Ridge’s book, “The Test of Our Times: America Under Siege,” clearly paints a picture of the manipulation of terror alerts for political purposes.  He was the Secretary of Homeland Security…but wasn’t even invited to National Security Council Meetings.  He was deliberately kept uninformed by the FBI.  Essentially…he was told by Bush’s cabinet what they wanted him to say, what to do, and what not to do.  He writes of one particular “last straw:”  Attorney General Ashcroft asks Ridge to raise the Terror Alert Level and to release an tape of Bin Laden criticizing Bush.  Ridge knew that there had been more than 20 tapes since 9/11…and none of them contained any threats worth releasing.  Ridge also knew, that every time he raised the Alert Level, Bush received a boost in the polls…and that the political timing for a boost was very evident in this case.  Ridge and his department denied the request, only to be pressured further by Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

So, the conversation begins anew, and with fresh, damning information…here’s how it’s going so far (there are some real surprises):

• Tom Ridge…seems to be having second thoughts.  Having recovered fully from his momentary lapse of honesty, Ridge now tells USA Today that he was in no way squeezed to raise the Alert Level, nor is he critical of the previous administration’s decision to keep him in the dark:  “I was never pressured…I’m not second-guessing my colleagues…“  You know, it’s bad enough if you say one thing on Monday and the opposite on Tuesday…but you’ll probably only get in trouble if somebody pulls up the video clips of both speeches.  In this case…you wrote it in your BOOK, Ridge…which is it:  is the book a lie, or what you are telling us now?
• But Ridge isn’t the only Republican to accuse the Bush White House of releasing information for political purposes:  former Representative Rick Renzi’s attorneys have filed a motion, calling for the government to show why it should not be held in contempt for releasing details of a grand jury investigation into Renzi, in an attempt to save his struggling re-election campaign.  Up until then, it had always been the DOJ’s policy not to comment on ongoing investigations…until Harriet Myers and Karl Rove approached them and told them to “throw cold water” on reports that Renzi was under investigation…  which they did.  So, by our tally…that’s hiring and firing federal attorneys using a partisan “litmus test“…releasing the identity of an undercover CIA agent…and illegally releasing grand jury details for political purposes.  And the hits just keep on coming...
• Former VP Dick Cheney, now preparing for the upcoming promotion of his new book in earnest, responded as all would expect.  He called enhanced interrogation “absolutely essential,”  called the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate our use of torture an “outrageous political act,” and said that on a personal level it “offends the hell out of me (Cheney).”  Then, Cheney…appears to contradict himself.  First he says: “We had a president of the United States, President Obama, tell us a few months ago there wouldn’t be an investigation.  Now, they get a little heat from the left wing of the Democratic Party and they are reversing course on that.“  Of course, even casual observers realize that the investigation has more to do with the release of the Inspector General’s report than it does “pressure from Democrats,” but it is what Cheney said next that seems more worthy of our attention: “The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the administration.  He is now saying, well, this isn’t anything he’s got to do with.“  Mr. Cheney…if you agree that the President is the “chief law enforcement officer” of the nation…and he is presented with clear, documented proof that acts were committed in violation with the Constitution and the laws of the land…then doesn’t HE HAVE to investigate it?  Otherwise…what kind of “law enforcement officer” would he be?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzH2yvrvNW0

• Like Daddy, Like Daughter: Of course, we’ve also come to expect that Liz Cheney will defend any and all of her father’s actions.  Unfortunately for Liz, she decided to do so on a panel that included Sam Donaldson, who was quick to point out that her logic is both flawed and self-serving:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fldR5NdSG9U

• Cheney Denial Trifecta: Cheney’s other daughter, Mary, is unlikely to comment on the subject of enhanced interrogation…but appears to share her father’s penchant for denial.  I used to feel just terrible for Mary:  during the presidential campaigns, Dick Cheney was often asked about his positions towards gay rights, given that his daughter, Mary, is a lesbian.  I always thought it shameful that he chose not to defend his own daughter’s rights and equality.  But now we find out…that despite being a lesbian, in a lesbian partnership, and with adopted children…Mary Cheney donated to former Representative Rob Portman (R-OH), a GOP Senate hopeful.  Portman…is anti-gay marriage, and anti-gay adoption.  Maybe Dick just figured there was no need to defend his daughter…if she won’t even defend herself…or maybe, it’s just another Cheney example of partisanship coming before what’s right.
• In responding to Cheney’s positions…Senator John McCain (R-AZ) swung for the fences.  He said, “I think the interrogations were in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture that we ratified under President Reagan.  I think these interrogations, once publicized, helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq… I think that the ability of us to work with our allies was harmed. And I believe that information, according go the FBI and others, could have been gained through other members.“  Of course, then he qualified his remarks by adding, “I believe the president [Obama] was right when he said we ought to go forward and not back.“  I’ve said this before:  To admit that laws/treaties were broken, but then say there is no need pursue the legal investigation/trial process, violates not only our country’s laws, but also our values.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD1x_aafc7Y

• Summary (my paraphrasing, not actual quotes) of CIA claims that McCain knew all about the torture they were about to commit: CIA: “We told McCain and the others the six interrogation methods were were going to use.”  McCain spokesperson: “Nuh uh!  McCain repeatedly questioned what you were going to do and never gave his approval.”  CIA: “Well…we weren’t really there for the legislators ‘approval’…just their feedback.  Some liked it…some didn’t.  We were cool with that.”  Why is this conversation so important? Because Steven G. Bradbury, a deputy assistant attorney general, wrote his memo justifying torture, using the rationale that the methods were acceptable and legal because the ideas didn’t seem to “shock the conscience” of the legislators, and that is a legal standard related to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers Due Process.  Perhaps the problem is that we need more legislators who have actual “consciences” to “shock.”
• Unlikely Advocate: Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading conservative activist…thinks the investigations into torture ARE A GOOD IDEA.  Of course his reasons are a bit suspect…he wants to be able to have the Obama administration investigated down the road: “Holder is making a decision that one administration should go back and second-guess another administration. Yes, it’s political but he is also opening the door to what will happen after Holder and Obama’s legacy here.  I think that someday when we have a different Justice Department, people need to go back and look at how all of this money in the stimulus package was paid. And who it went to. What about all of those secret meetings that were never transparent about who was going to get what?…The Bush administration started their administration foolishly, not seriously looking into the cash for pardons challenge that the Clinton administration had.  They were wrong to decide not to do that and I think that the next Republican administration will follow Holder’s path rather than the Bush path of the past.“  While his reasoning is certainly overtly political and almost sickeningly vindictive…he may be right on one level.  If ANY administration acts outside the law…shouldn’t the next administration investigate it, or should they just continue this tradition of a “courteous disregard for previous illegal activity?“  If an administration didn’t break any laws…what would they have to fear from an investigation?
• Andrew Sullivan addresses part of the reason why what should be an exceedingly clear issue (torture is both wrong and illegal, and we used torture), has instead been allowed to become very muddied waters.  The MEDIA.  Sullivan takes Chris Wallace to task for completely “softballing” his interview with Dick Cheney in his column, hilariously titled: “Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers.“  Sullivan lists all of the weak questions asked by Wallace, and then shares his two favorite exchanges:”My two favorite moments:
  

  CHENEY: I am going to — if I address that, I will address it in my book, Chris.

  WALLACE: It is going to be a hell of a book.

  CHENEY: It is going to be a great book.

  And then the apology for asking the questions Cheney wanted asked:

  WALLACE: Well, we want to thank you for talking with us and including in your private life putting up with an interview from the likes of me.

  CHENEY: It’s all right. I enjoy your show, Chris.

  WALLACE: Thank you very much, and all the best sir.“

• Check This Out:  Dan Froomkin does a fairly thorough look at the litany of public deceptions utilized by Dick Cheney over the years.  He includes a fascinating quote from Obsidian Wings blogger publius: “If you’ve noticed, Cheney tends to pop up in the aftermath of damning evidence. We just (re)learned, for instance, that our CIA agents murdered detainees, choked them, and threatened to rape their wives. Normally, you would think these revelations would give pause to even the most ardent Cheney supporters. But then Cheney comes along, and tries to reframe the whole story. His intended audience isn’t the nation as a whole, but conservatives. He wants to make sure that they view these stories through partisan-tinted lenses.“

I will relay more news on this subject, and the subsequent denials from the Cheney clan, as they are available.