Obama and the 9/11 Families

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1241...s_opinion_main

Quote:

---

By DEBRA BURLINGAME

In February I was among a group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with the president at the White House to discuss his policies regarding Guantanamo detainees. Although many of us strongly opposed Barack Obama's decision to close the detention center and suspend all military commissions, the families of the 17 sailors killed in the 2000 attack in Yemen were particularly outraged.

Over the years, the Cole families have seen justice abandoned by the Clinton administration and overshadowed by the need of the Bush administration to gather intelligence after 9/11. They have watched in frustration as the president of Yemen refused extradition for the Cole bombers.

Now, after more than eight years of waiting, Mr. Obama was stopping the trial of Abu Rahim al-Nashiri, the only individual to be held accountable for the bombing in a U.S. court. Patience finally gave out. The families were giving angry interviews, slamming the new president just days after he was sworn in.

The Obama team quickly put together a meeting at the White House to get the situation under control. Individuals representing "a diversity of views" were invited to attend and express their concerns.

On Feb. 6, the president arrived in the Roosevelt Room to a standing though subdued ovation from some 40 family members. With a White House photographer in his wake, Mr. Obama greeted family members one at a time and offered brief remarks that were full of platitudes ("you are the conscience of the country," "my highest duty as president is to protect the American people," "we will seek swift and certain justice"). Glossing over the legal complexities, he gave a vague summary of the detainee cases and why he chose to suspend them, focusing mostly on the need for speed and finality.

Many family members pressed for Guantanamo to remain open and for the military commissions to go forward. Mr. Obama allowed that the detention center had been unfairly confused with Abu Ghraib, but when asked why he wouldn't rehabilitate its image rather than shut it down, he silently shrugged. Next question.

Mr. Obama was urged to consult with prosecutors who have actually tried terrorism cases and warned that bringing unlawful combatants into the federal courts would mean giving our enemies classified intelligence -- as occurred in the cases of the al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and conspired to bomb New York City landmarks with ringleader Omar Abdel Rahman, the "Blind Sheikh." In the Rahman case, a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators given to the defense -- they were entitled to information material to their defense -- was in Osama bin Laden's hands within hours. It told al Qaeda who among them was known to us, and who wasn't.

Mr. Obama responded flatly, "I'm the one who sees that intelligence. I don't want them to have it, either. We don't have to give it to them."

How could anyone be unhappy with such an answer? Or so churlish as to ask follow-up questions in such a forum? I and others were reassured, if cautiously so.

News reports described the meeting as a touching and powerful coming together of the president and these long-suffering families. Mr. Obama had won over even those who opposed his decision to close Gitmo by assuaging their fears that the review of some 245 current detainees would result in dangerous jihadists being set free. "I did not vote for the man, but the way he talks to you, you can't help but believe in him," said John Clodfelter to the New York Times. His son, Kenneth, was killed in the Cole bombing. "[Mr. Obama] left me with a very positive feeling that he's going to get this done right."

"This isn't goodbye," said the president, signing autographs and posing for pictures before leaving for his next appointment, "this is hello." His national security staff would have an open-door policy.

Believe . . . feel . . . hope.

We'd been had.

Binyam Mohamed -- the al Qaeda operative selected by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) for a catastrophic post-9/11 attack with co-conspirator Jose Padilla -- was released 17 days later. In a follow-up conference call, the White House liaison to 9/11 and Cole families refused to answer questions about the circumstances surrounding the decision to repatriate Mohamed, including whether he would be freed in Great Britain.

The phrase "swift and certain justice" had been used by top presidential adviser David Axelrod in an interview prior to our meeting with the president. "Swift and certain justice" figured prominently in the White House press release issued before we had time to surrender our White House security passes. "At best, he manipulated the families," Kirk Lippold, commanding officer of the USS Cole at the time of the attack and the leader of the Cole families group, told me recently. "At worst, he misrepresented his true intentions."

Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder told German reporters that 30 detainees had been cleared for release. This includes 17 Chinese fundamentalist Muslims, the Uighurs, some of whom admit to having been trained in al Qaeda and Taliban camps and being associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Party. This party is led by Abdul Haq, who threatened attacks on the 2008 Olympics Games in Beijing and was recently added to the Treasury Department's terrorist list. The Obama administration is considering releasing the Uighurs on U.S. soil, and it has suggested that taxpayers may have to provide them with welfare support. In a Senate hearing yesterday, Mr. Holder sidestepped lawmakers' questions about releasing detainees into the U.S. who have received terrorist training.

What about the terrorists who may actually be tried? The Justice Department's recent plea agreement with Ali Saleh al-Marri should be of grave concern to those who believe the Obama administration will vigorously prosecute terrorists in the federal court system.

Al-Marri was sent to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001, by KSM to carry out cyanide bomb attacks. He pled guilty to one count of "material support," a charge reserved for facilitators rather than hard-core terrorists. He faces up to a 15-year sentence, but will be allowed to argue that the sentence should be satisfied by the seven years he has been in custody. This is the kind of thin "rule of law" victory that will invigorate rather than deter our enemies.

Given all the developments since our meeting with the president, it is now evident that his words to us bore no relation to his intended actions on national security policy and detainee issues. But the narrative about Mr. Obama's successful meeting with 9/11 and Cole families has been written, and the press has moved on.

The Obama team has established a pattern that should be plain for all to see. When controversy erupts or legitimate policy differences are presented by well-meaning people, send out the celebrity president to flatter and charm.

Most recently, Mr. Obama appeared at the CIA after demoralizing the agency with the declassification and release of memos containing sensitive information on CIA interrogations. He appealed to moral vanity by saying that fighting a war against fanatic barbarians "with one hand tied behind your back" is being on "the better side of history," even though innocent lives are put at risk. He promised the assembled staff and analysts that if they keep applying themselves, they won't be personally marked for career-destroying sanctions or criminal prosecutions, even as disbelieving counterterrorism professionals -- the field operatives and their foreign partners -- shut down critical operations for fear of public disclosure and political retribution in the never-ending Beltway soap opera called Capitol Hill.

It worked: On television, his speech looked like a campaign rally, with people jumping up and down, cheering. Meanwhile, the media have moved on, even as they continue to recklessly and irresponsibly use the word "torture" in their stories.

I asked Cmdr. Kirk Lippold why some of the Cole families declined the invitation to meet with Barack Obama at the White House.

"They saw it for what it was."

Ms. Burlingame, a former attorney and a director of the National September 11 Memorial Foundation, is the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

---

If Nashiri had been detained normally, or transferred promptly to the criminal system, this might not be a problem.

I concur.

It's not unthinkable that torture makes the case unprosecutable.

Torture can ruin the intended prosecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Torture can ruin the intended prosecution.

---

Who wants to prosecute? Hold a military tribunal, after extracting all valuable intelligence, and exact justice that way. These aren't criminals, they're enemy combatants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Who wants to prosecute? Hold a military tribunal, after extracting all valuable intelligence, and exact justice that way. These aren't criminals, they're enemy combatants.

---

(coughs...)I'm alive to the distinction.

You keep saying enemy combatants. That is inaccurate. We are talking about unlawful enemy combatants.

Someone could make the honest mistake of thinking you advocate mistreatment of (lawful) soldiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Who wants to prosecute?

---

The US government. It was already being prosecuted, jerky. Criminal accountability for the USS Cole.

Are you so enamored with torture that you don't even follow the routine course of prosecution anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The US government. It was already being prosecuted, jerky. Criminal accountability for the USS Cole.

Are you so enamored with torture that you don't even follow the routine course of prosecution anymore?

---

He needs to find an article first.

You know I don't really care much for the families. I "feel" that the Islamic martyrs had the right to do what they did because Amerika has been opressing the world for far too long and it was time for our chickens to come home to roost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

The US government. It was already being prosecuted, jerky. Criminal accountability for the USS Cole.

Are you so enamored with torture that you don't even follow the routine course of prosecution anymore?

---

And, I'm opposed to them being prosecuted in our criminal courts for acts of war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barry O'Bama

You know I don't really care much for the families. I "feel" that the Islamic martyrs had the right to do what they did because Amerika has been opressing the world for far too long and it was time for our chickens to come home to roost.

---

You're projecting. You could mistake your own hallucinations for reality, fake Barry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

And, I'm opposed to them being prosecuted in our criminal courts for acts of war.

---

So you agree with Obama?

And join him in seeking to disappoint the 9/11 families?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

So you agree with Obama?

---

On holding military tribunals?

Yep.

Too bad he spent so much time trashing the former President over this issue during the campaign. If the Democrat nominee for president had stood with President Bush then, like he's doing now, these guys would probably already be receiving the justice to which they're due.

This is too easy.

You're still paying the penalty for knowing zip. Do you go crib anything yet, Yoni?

So the President is cool with tribunals. If we could only get him to see the logic behind torture...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Too bad he spent so much time trashing the former President over this issue during the campaign.

---

This I agree with, though there was no doubt a tactical rationale to downplay the significant continuity regarding secrecy and security as b/w Bush and Obama..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

If the Democrat nominee for president had stood with President Bush then, like he's doing now, these guys would probably already be receiving the justice to which they're due.

---

You often exploit a an eminently reasonable comment by tying it to one that is either outrageous or completely untestable.

In fairness, most of what we talk about around here is untestable anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

This I agree with, though there was no doubt a tactical rationale to downplay the significant continuity regarding secrecy and security as b/w Bush and Obama..

---

Glad you agree...but, call me dense, I don't quite understand the last part of your statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You often exploit a an eminently reasonable comment by tying it to one that is either outrageous or completely untestable. Who knows? Possibly?

---

My comment is exponentially less outrageous than the suggestion the Guantanamo Bay detainees be tried in U. S. criminal courts or that they be released on U. S. soil.

The banner should read: Yonivore plumps Obama on national security policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

My comment is exponentially less outrageous than the suggestion the Guantanamo Bay detainees be tried in U. S. criminal courts or that they be released on U. S. soil.

---

Bullshit.

The laws are on the books, a substantial corpus of case law exist, the courts are all set up for it and our prisons can master the security challenge.

Prosecute em.

Is there something wrong with the cases?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Prosecute em.

Is there something wrong with the cases?

---

Well, for starters, the people who took them into custody had no idea the detainees would ever be eligible for criminal prosecution in a U. S. court so, I'm betting things like miranda warning, having counsel present during questioning, and the other constitutional requirements with which our law enforcement agencies are rightfully burdened, were not made available to these detainees.

Secondly, interrogation to extract actionable intelligence isn't subject to the same constraints as is interrogation to determine the facts in a criminal case.

Finally, to prosecute them in a U.S. criminal court unnecessarily exposes our intelligence gathering methods and practices to the enemy as, it will no doubt be argued by the defense that, said methods and practices are germane to their ability to properly defend their client.

There's three things to start with.

Oooh, and I didn't steal them...anyway, I'll plagiarize the defense of these points if I have too. I've already spent too much of my time responding to you.

No, no. That's fine. That you're 100% with Obama and 100% against the 9/11 families that want Nashiri to be prosecuted, is enough for me. It also shows an austere and somewhat unusual detachment from 9/11 sentimentality, for someone so close to the event in time.

Bravo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

So the President is cool with tribunals. If we could only get him to see the logic behind torture...

---

I think he already does. What our rendition policy again?

Quote:

---

Bush will go down as the man who *normalized* torture.

---

For all I know, the future may regard this as a civilized refinement.

And Obama's ambivalence doesn't speak well for his character, I'm afraid.

Recriminalization of terror puts the government dommes out of business. For Yoni, this would be an entirely unacceptable turn of events. His pro-torture bona fides requires him to merge with Obama on this point.

Does it feel a little bit funny, Yoni?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Who wants to prosecute? Hold a military tribunal, after extracting all valuable intelligence, and exact justice that way. These aren't criminals, they're enemy combatants.

---

LMAO

Justice = Court where people have no choice of defense attorney, and no access to evidence against them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

LMAO

Justice = Court where people have no choice of defense attorney, and no access to evidence against them

---

Shouldn't have taken up arms against the United States of America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Shouldn't have taken up arms against the United States of America.

---

Because if you do you'll lose all your human rights and will be guilty and have no right to prove otherwise. What a dumbass you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

No, no. That's fine. That you're 100% with Obama and 100% against the 9/11 families that want Nashiri to be prosecuted, is enough for me. It also shows an austere and somewhat unusual detachment from 9/11 sentimentality, for someone so close to the event in time.

Bravo!

---

Actually, many of the families want him brought before a tribunal and, I suspect there are many who would have rather him be taken out and shot.

But, as opposed to release, yeah, I want something done with him that will ensure he's not set free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I love it. Yoni thinks we can still torture the detainees. By keeping his focus precisely here, Yoni reminds us if torture is not going on somewhere right now, in the future it might be.

Bush will go down as the man who *normalized* torture.

---

You misunderstand my statement. How surprising...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

You misunderstand my statement. How surprising...

---

I elaborated. You seem to have difficulty following yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Actually, many of the families want him brought before a tribunal and, I suspect there are many who would have rather him be taken out and shot.

---

Intellectually consistent with you and also honest IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnnyMarzetti

Because if you do you'll lose all your human rights and will be guilty and have no right to prove otherwise. What a dumbass you are.

---

:lmao So freaking typical. Somebody picks up a gun and starts shooting at Americans, and your first concern is to coddle him and prove he was really hunting for rabbits or something.

Face it, you just hate America exactly like the terrorists do. You stand up for them because you are on the same side.

You never tell us any thing worthwhile Homeland Security. You just roll around and bellyache about all the DFHs and cheese-sniffing libs.

What good does that do us?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You never tell us any thing worthwhile Homeland Security. You just roll around and bellyache about all the DFHs and cheese-sniffing libs.

What good does that do us?

---

Maybe someone will pay attention and finally get rid of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

:lmao So freaking typical. Somebody picks up a gun and starts shooting at Americans, and your first concern is to coddle him and prove he was really hunting for rabbits or something.

Face it, you just hate America exactly like the terrorists do. You stand up for them because you are on the same side.

---

Wrong dipshit. Prosecute them and lock them up but do it legally and within the law.

Good luck, Sir.

Good luck, High-school Security.

Poll: Osama bin Laden is....

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142347

Tangential. I guess that's about the best I can hope for from G.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homeland Security

Maybe someone will pay attention and finally get rid of you.

---

Ha ha. finally saw this.

Te amo, Extra Stout.

In order to protect our freedoms we must get rid of all of our freedoms!