Monday, July 16 , 2018, 1:27 pm | Fair 72º


Joe Conason: The GOP’s Double Standard on Terror Trials

Where was Republican outrage when the Bush administration was pursuing the same course of action?

Preparing for what they hope will be their return to power in Washington, Republican congressional leaders have revived the fear-mongering and flag-flapping used by Karl Rove to win the 2002 midterm elections. Like the former White House deputy, forever known to his boss as “turd blossom,” the right-wing strategists on Capitol Hill feel no shame in arousing the basest of emotions among their base.

Joe Conason
Joe Conason

Now when the Republicans insist that they are the only true patriots, the most fervent defenders of the Constitution and the sharpest counter-terror strategists, however, those hysterical claims should be tested against the facts with calm and candor.

The first instance is the controversy over the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, indicted for plotting the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks along with four accomplices and slated for trial in a federal courthouse, and the decision to prosecute “underpants bomber” Umar Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant.

Leaving aside the logistics and costs of any public trial — because the city of New York will remain the most tempting target for jihadists no matter where any trial occurs — Republican critics charge the Obama administration with compromising national security.

That complaint would deserve more respect if only they had voiced the same concerns when the Bush administration was pursuing precisely the same course of action. But as partisans whose only purpose is to undermine their political adversaries, regardless of the effect on American prestige and national security, these roaring elephants were as silent as little mice back then.

Even coming from Washington’s habitual hypocrites, all the sudden outrage over trying terrorists in court is over the top — and a blatant insult to every right-wing rube they expect to rally behind them.

As reporter Jane Mayer explains in the current issue of The New Yorker, despite all the tough talk about “enemy combatants” and military commissions, the Bush administration almost always indicted terror suspects as criminals and tried them in federal courts. Statistics compiled by New York University’s Center on Law and Security show that since Sept. 11, 2001, the criminal justice system has convicted about 150 suspects on terrorism indictments, and dozens more on broader national security violations. That contrasts with only three Guantanamo detainees, apprehended overseas, who have been convicted in military commissions at the island prison camp.

Among the civilian defendants sent to prison for life were Richard Reid, the “shoe bomber” who tried to bring down a civilian passenger jet, much like Abdulmutallab, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th conspirator of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“When the Bush Justice Department obtained these convictions,” Mayer notes, “the process was celebrated by some of the same people” who are now assaulting the patriotism and judgment of Attorney General Eric Holder for his efforts to do the same thing.

She quotes Rudolph Giuliani, who said after the Moussaoui conviction: “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” No doubt he will be deployed between now and November to denounce the very thing that he held in awe simply because a Democrat now occupies the Oval Office.

But Giuliani was right. A fair trial is the American way. A fair trial is what the Constitution provides for every criminal suspect apprehended on our soil, at the very least — which is why the Bush White House, knowing that the courts would uphold those traditional liberties, decided to honor them despite its authoritarian leanings. A fair trial is the way to prove that we aren’t afraid of al-Qaeda and that, when captured, they will be held accountable by the civilization they wish to destroy.

Our public officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution because that is the best way to protect the nation. From its first days, the Obama administration has sought to fulfill that pledge with a combination of judicial prosecutions and military force, with indictments and drone strikes.

The prosecutions have forced several defendants to cooperate, including Abdulmutallab, and the drones — albeit at a terrible cost in civilian casualties — have badly disrupted al-Qaeda. Whatever the wisdom of President Barack Obama’s policies, he is honestly trying to protect both the country and the Constitution.

It’s too bad the same cannot be said of his unscrupulous adversaries.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. Click here for more information, or click here to contact him.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through Stripe below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments and a mailing address for checks.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover
One click only, please!

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >