By Ravi Bhatia-Talk Radio News Service

During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder defended his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, through the federal court system in New York rather than through military commissions.

President Barack Obama revived former President George W. Bush’s military commissions, also known as military tribunals, in May 2009 for a small number of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Obama’s tribunals, deemed “Bush Light” by critics, provided terror suspects and war prisoners with more legal protections. However, the tribunals have been criticized for sacrificing American judicial values in order to prosecute prisoners quicker.

In his argument for employing federal courts rather than military courts, Holder cited the 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. He claimed that the United States could prosecute terrorists “safely and securely” in the federal system because “we have been doing it for years.”

“I studied this issue extensively,” Holder said in his opening statements. “I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department’s Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in the federal court.”

While Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) defended Holder, saying that “we can rely on the American justice system,” the decision was met with criticism from Republican members of the committee. In one instance, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called Holder’s choice “a perversion of the justice system.”

“You’re a fine man,” Graham said to Holder. “I know you want to do everything to help this country be safe but I think you’ve made a fundamental mistake here.”

Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) mentioned that Mohammed had already said he would plead guilty to the terrorists acts.

“How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before military commission and be executed?” Kyl asked, garnering scattered applause and laughter from some audience members. “How can you be more likely to get a conviction in an Article III [federal] court than that?”

In response, Holder said, “the determination I make … does not depend on the whims or the desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He said he wanted to do that then. I have no idea with what he wants to do now with regards to these military commissions that now [have] enhanced protections. My job is to look at the possibilities.”

Holder also touched on issues such as prison reform legislation, claiming that drug courts specifically established for non-violent crimes have so far been effective, responding to Senator Al Franken’s (D-Minn.) opinion that too many prisoners were in prison for drug possession.

“We’re essentially [taking] kids who are in possession of drugs and sending them to crime school,” Franken said. “They learn from other criminals how to do crime, and two-thirds of them come back [after] they’re released within three years.”

“I’m familiar with the [drug court] we have here in Washington, D.C…. that has [proven] to be very successful in dealing with people who are selling drugs because they are addicted to drugs,” Holder said. “These are low level dealers, not the people who live in penthouses and drive big cars and all that.”

Holder recommended a data driven analysis of the U.S. prison system. He said that a “sentencing group” is looking at a “wide variety” of issues in U.S. prisons.

“Who is in jail?” Holder asked. “Are they in jail for appropriate amounts of time? Is the amount of time they spend in jail a deterrent? Does that have an impact on the recidivism rate? This group will be reporting back to me within the next couple of months. It is on that basis that we’ll be formulating policy and working with the Committee.”

While honoring former Senator Edward Brooke with the Congressional Gold Medal, President Barack Obama jokes that the fact that he was admired by liberals and conservatives alike makes him a “coalition builder.” (0:15)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:15m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Meagan Wiseley – University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was honored with the George C. Marshall Foundation Award today, on the 50th anniversary of Marshall’s death. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Gates both delivered remarks at the luncheon remembering Marshall’s legacy.

“He has a humility and an aptitude for quiet but strong leadership, he has a devotion to the men and women of the United States military and he is a public servant with a Marshall view of the world,” Clinton said of Gates.

“Thanks to George Marshall’s leadership … the Marshall plan was as bold and visionary a demonstration of American leadership as any in our history,” said Clinton. “There didn’t seem to be a challenge that he ever faced that he couldn’t determine a way forward,” she added.

During his career, Marshall held both positions currently occupied by Secretaries Gates and Clinton. Marshall also served as U.S. Army Chief from 1939 through WWII.

“Receiving this award is a true honor. The placement of my name anywhere near that of George Marshall is incredibly humbling,” said Gates.

Robert Gates was named Secretary of Defense in December 2006. He was appointed then by President George W. Bush and was renominated earlier this year by current President Barack Obama.

Nicholas Burns, who teaches at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and worked in the State Department under former President George W. Bush, says that war with Iran is not inevitable, but argues that tough diplomacy is necessary to avoid conflict. (0:43)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:43m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Learned Foote- Talk Radio News Service

Legal experts on Monday offered their views on H.R. 743, the Executive Accountability Act of 2009 during testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

The bill would place criminal penalties on the executive branch for willingly misleading Congress in order to persuade it to use armed forces.

Said Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) who introduced the legislation, “Members of Congress must be able to trust our President at his word, especially when making decisions to go to war.”

Jones used the behavior of former presidents Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush during the Vietnam and Iraq Wars as examples of “arrogance of power,” which he hoped could be mitigated by this legislation. However, Jones emphasized that “the bill is not about the past,” and emphasized that it would not be applied retroactively.

Dr. Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law, said that the founders who wrote the Constitution knew that “single executives go to war not for the national interest; they go to war for reasons of military glory.” He said that the authority to “take the country from a state of peace to a state of war was to be given to Congress alone.”

Bruce Fein, a legal consultant and constitutional expert who served in the Department of Justice under President Reagan, said that the President could avoid criminal penalties by simply “sharing all of the information he relied upon to Congress.”

Jonathan F. Cohn, a partner at Sidley and Austin who worked in the Department of Justice under President George W. Bush, disagreed with the previous testimonies. He said that presidents should be “truthful and candid always, and especially in the context when the country makes the grave decision to send its children off to war.”

Cohn said the legislation could “impede inter-branch cooperation,” arguing that it could create a chilling effect due to the “fear of potential prosecution.”

“Punishing the ousted regime may be the preferred course of certain banana republics of the past, but with respect, this should not be the United States’ path in the 21st century.”

Morton Rosenberg, a legal expert from the Congressional Research Service, says President Obama has continued “controversial” policies used by former President George W. Bush, and that Congressional oversight over the executive branch has “yet to be revived.” (0:58)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:58m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

Americans should be more concerned by the proliferation of nuclear weapons from North Korea to other states or non-state actors, rather than focus on a direct N.Korean nuclear attack on the Western World.

Such was the conclusion of former Secretary of Defense William Perry when addressing the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) on U.S nuclear weapons policy today.

“When we are concerned about proliferation, for example from N.Korea to Iran, we are concerned with the possibility that nuclear terrorists might be a bomb… The greater danger is that the bomb or the fissile material leak from one of these countries.” said Perry.

On Monday, N.Korea announced that it had successfully detonated and underground nuclear bomb, and on Tuesday, it launched two short-range ballistic missiles. As a result, the Obama administration may be facing an unexpected turn in the nuclear debate.

The topic is gaining momentum as talks between the U.S and Russia on the renewal of the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) are feared to be unsuccessful.

That N.Korea has nuclear capabilities and is testing missiles has fanned the flames on the necessity to reconsider the reduction in the Department of Defense FY2010 budget.

Perry was joined by Brent Scowcroft, former assistant to the President for National Security Affairs who explained that “a great danger in nuclear terrorism lies with the civilian nuclear power and the loose fissile material that comes with that.”

Scowcroft appealed to the security dilemma to provide a link between N.Korea or Iran acquiring a nuclear power and nuclear terrorism.

“If we don’t put a cap on proliferation now, we could easily face 30 or 40 countries with that capability, That is not a better world,” said Scowcroft, adding that “If [Iran and N.Korea] are free to enrich uranium to weapons grade, then you have others who want to do it just for protection or whatever and then you have a tremendous danger of terrorists getting hold of fissile material and then its relatively easy.”

The U.S government had already started to deal with this problem under the Bush junior administration, as Perry explains: “For one thing I support the initiative of the previous administration called the Proliferation Security initiative (PSI) and the recent moves to strengthen this initiative.”

Former President George.W. Bush said that PSI’s aim is “to keep the world’s most destructive weapons away from our shores and out of the hands of our common enemies.”

The initiative is limited to controlling alien ships in one’s waters to search for weapons. Airways are however not part of the PSI.

Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio) says that once the world sees that United States can reach energy self sustainability, the price of oil will be driven down, much in the way President Bush’s statement regarding offshore drilling has done (:38).

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) says that a previous Judiciary hearing was a “book-of-the-month club” and that a hearing examining the Bush administration is “an anger management class.” (0:36)

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Republicans told the House Judiciary Committee that political disagreements, no matter how large, are not grounds for impeachment proceedings at a hearing discussing appropriate Congressional responses to Bush abuses of power. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the hearing served no purpose other than anger management, stating that no evidence exists which supports grounds for impeachment and that the hearing’s lack of bipartisanship affected Congress’s already low credibility.

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said the Bush White House is unprecedented in its distortion of executive privilege, noting Bush’s alleged falsification of pre-Iraq war intelligence and approval of certain interrogation techniques. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) stated that the committee was attempting to solve an institutional problem,acting in a deliberative manner, not an accusatory manner. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) earlier had called Bush “the worst President our country has ever seen.”

In his testimony before the committee, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said pre-war justifications provided to Congress were untrue and that Congress had relied on the White House’s false statements while authorizing the Iraq war. Kucinich also said that Iraq posed no security threat to the United States and, since Iraq lacked a weapons program, Saddam Hussein was unable to harm the United States or arm terrorists. Congress’s decision now, Kucinich said, is whether it should defend the Constitution and prevent abuses of power in the Executive and Judiciary Branches.

Rep Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the White House has been dominated by corruption and incompetence, stating that the Bush administration ignored numerous warnings prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. He said the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to scale back troop levels in Afghanistan aided Osama bin Laden’s escape into the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan. Hinchey suggested that it would have been more difficult to justify an attack against Iraq if bin Laden had been apprehended by the US military. Recognizing that impeachment had been referenced by many, Hinchey said the Bush administration, through the ways it violated the law, is “probably the most impeachable administration in the history of America.”