AnnotatedOpinions.com

PRESIDENT OBAMA made a bow toward transparency yesterday when he described how he intended to correct the security lapses that enabled Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day with explosives sown into his underwear. . .  

. . . the near-miss on Christmas Day also highlights the need to streamline the overlapping bureaucracies that were tasked with monitoring terrorist threats after Sept. 11, 2001.  

. . . a more basic structural change is needed: to reestablish the links between collectors of intelligence and analysts that were severed in 2004, when the government moved most of its analysts into the Counter Terrorism Center. . . there is too little direct communication between the agents on the ground and those analyzing their reports.  

[AO: The intelligence failures that led to the failed Christmas Day terrorist attack in Detroit should never again be allowed to occur. To that end, the Boston Globe suggests that a basic structural change needed to forestall similar failures in the future is to increase communication between intelligence analysts and gatherers. As a means of effecting this suggestion, the Globe recommends reorganizing the intelligence community to eliminate excessive bureaucracy.  

But it is not clear that excessive bureaucracy was the cause of the intelligence failure. It is also not clear why increasing communication between intelligence gatherers and analysts, beyond current levels of communication, is necessary. Unfortunately, the Globe provides no answers. It doesn’t explain why an intelligence information gatherer can’t convey all necessary and useful information to an analyst without direct personal communications with the analyst.  

The conclusion of the White House intelligence review seems correct: a reorganization of the intelligence or broader counterterrorism community is not required to address future similar intelligence failures.  

The other changes endorsed by President Obama, such as sharing of databases, will do much to increase security and prevent future terrorist attacks. Reorganizing the intelligence community for the purposes suggested by the Globe will not. ]

Three issues central to the outcome [of the Afghan war] should enter the public debate as his strategy is launched.

The first is America’s place in the world in the 21st century. Officials from Moscow to Beijing, from Iran’s revolutionaries to Somalia’s pirates, will scrutinize this last-ditch U.S. effort — and weigh their actions, reactions and interactions with the United States on how Obama’s effort fares.   

Failure by the world’s mightiest military power, backed by the largest military alliance, to uproot the Taliban — a force without an air force, armored corps, long-range artillery, satellite intelligence or powerful foreign backer — would vividly illustrate the limits of U.S. power. The consequences could dwarf those of the defeat in Vietnam, even if the loss of life was smaller. . . .

U.S. standing in the Islamic world is also at stake. The historic rule of thumb is that winners have influence; losers don’t. Winners get to set standards. Their ideas get more attention. Their leaders gain greater authority.  

And the outcome of the U.S. confrontation with various branches of al-Qaeda and the Taliban is pivotal to the future of the Islamic world. Almost a decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Muslim world is at a crossroads. Polls show key Muslim societies are increasingly rejecting  extremism. . .  

Finally, U.S. interests in the wider region are also at stake, notably on two fronts.   

Obama’s strategy will deeply affect India, the world’s largest democracy. Long-standing tensions between Pakistan and India have taken the world closer to the brink of nuclear war than any conflict has since World War II. . .

Just as worrisome are the stakes with Iran, which borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Afghanistan has become for Iran what Iraq once was: a surrogate battlefield with the United States. . .

[AO: We encourage you to read the full article by following the link below. ]

“There is no normal anymore.”  

That statement, it seems to me, goes a long way toward explaining why so many Americans are angry, confused and worried today. . .   

There is nothing normal about an economy in which the federal government takes over giant automakers, bails out too-big-to-fail banks, buys up nearly all mortgages, keeps short-term interest rates at zero and prints over a trillion new dollars. . .  

There is no normal in American politics anymore, either. Both major political parties gravitate toward their extremes . . .  

It is not normal for our soldiers to endure three, four, five deployments to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military is stretched to the breaking point and our wars are unwinnable. . .  

. . . our culture has gone alien. Hollywood churns out a gutter-flow of violence, vampires and video sex. . .   

The 2008 presidential election was about “change.” The elections of 2010 and 2012 could be about getting control of too much change and returning to normal.  

[AO: The writer, James Gannon, makes a determined plea for a return to normalcy. But this begs the question: What is normal. At one point, Gannon suggests that before the 2008 elections, things were normal. According to him, in 2008 we voted for change and everything became abnormal. What we need is for the 2010 and 2012 elections to focus on “getting control of too much change” and we’ll be on the right track back to normalcy, Gannon tells us.  

But what is normal? The signs of “change” the writer list include “an economy in which the federal government takes over giant automakers, bails out too-big-to-fail banks . . .,” “Both major political parties gravitate toward their extremes . . .,” “our soldiers [] endure three, four, five deployments to war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan . . .,” and “Hollywood churns out a gutter-flow of violence, vampires and video sex. . ..” These all were with us long before 2008. In fact, few to none of these are the result of the vote in 2008 for “change” as they predate it.  

But has America or the world ever been normal? Before Iraq and Afghanistan, there was Vietnam and Korea and the World Wars  before those. Were those times normal? Before terrorism there was the war on drugs, war on organized crime and others. There were upheavals in the markets and numerous depressions and recessions in our past. Were those times normal?   

The fact is, the world is constantly changing. What the writer cites as signs of recent change are changes that predate the Obama Administration and reflect long-term reality that is anything but normal.  

America and the world will never return to normalcy. The world will continue to change. We must do what we have always done. We must embrace change and work to thrive on it. ]

. . . So why is Attorney General Eric Holder [putting Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial in a civilian court]? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system, where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.   

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. “Failure is not an option,” replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure — acquittal, hung jury — is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place. . .

[AO: Since Attorney General Eric Holder announced that KSM would be tried in a civilian court, one of the constant attacks on his decision has been, essentially, that we cannot allow a civilian court to try KSM because we know or believe that he is guilty and therefore subjecting him to a civilian trial makes mockery of our judicial process. Ostensibly because we know or expect the outcome and cannot presume him innocent and know/believe the outcome at the same time.   

The first problem is the insinuation that trying guilty people using our civilian court system can make a mockery of our civilian court process but not of military tribunals. In other words, the thinking seems to be that military tribunals are so below our civilian court system that it is acceptable to try guilty people there but not acceptable to try guilty people in our civilian courts. Am I the only
one this thinking seems absurd to? Are Holder’s critics suggesting military courts are but a step above kangaroo courts? Do they really care about the trial part of the military tribunals or simply the conviction? In other words, do they see military tribunals as a means to validating whatever outcome they’ve already decided is appropriate?  

The second problem is somewhat existential. The critics seem to think that there is a problem with Holder trying KSM if Holder and the courts cannot presume KSM’s innocence. Let’s consider an example. Say, during the Super Bowl a spectator-supporter of the loosing team runs onto the field after the end of the game. He pulls out a gun and while being watched by millions of Americans shoots a referee he thinks caused his team to loose. The Attorney General for the state in which the game was played is at the game. He and million of Americans watch this tragedy unfold. The shooter stands there after the shooting, gives himself up and confesses. Can he be tried in a civilian court or would some other tribunal be necessary? 

Here we have a man who the attorney general knows to be guilty. Will trying him in a civilian court, which has to presume him innocent, make a mockery of our judicial system? The answer is obviously a resounding “no.” This is similar to the KSM case. Just because we know/believe he is guilty doesn’t mean that because we expect he’ll be convicted he cannot be tried in a court of law that presumes his innocence. If that was the case, we would be unable to try the shooter in my hypothetical in a civilian court.  

The writer of the opinion excerpted above, Charles Krauthammer, makes numerous other arguments against trying KSM in civilian court. See the link below. However, also see the opinion by Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith, both attorneys in the Bush administration, explaining why Holder made a reasonable decision here.]

Myths and mammograms: Why you don’t need to fear the new screening guidelines. [Washington Post]

Testing our patients: The aim of medicine is, above all else, to do no harm. But one must wonder if that will be the case with a new medical recommendation on the detection of breast cancer. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Breast cancer debate must strike a balance: My parents are complete opposites. My father is deeply rational, a chemist by trade and a man of science. My mother is more emotional, artistic and swayed by the power of one. She is whom advertisers had in mind when they invented the testimonial. [USA Today]

We can deliver health reform: The bills under discussion will put us on a path to a high-quality, low-cost system. [Washington Post]

Holder’s reasonable decision: Some of the prominent criticisms are exaggerated. [Washington Post]

Terrorism’s war of ideas: The concept of justice is a key battlefield and a way to show we practice what we preach. [Washington Post]

Iran’s iron fist [Chicago Tribune]

Cuba’s isolation begets abuses: Congress should heed those who have argued that free movement between the United States and Cuba offers the best chance of spreading democratic values and emboldening dissidents in the island nation. [Boston Globe]

Paper money that works for the blind [Chicago Tribune]

The end of sprawl: The phenomenon of sprawl has passed into history [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

GOP now the Party of `Noooooooooo!’ [Chicago Tribune]

Iraq’s Election Law Morass: American officials need to help resolve the impasse over election laws in Iraq, and Iraqis must learn how to forge reliable compromises. [New York Times]

Lipstick on a rogue: Even women who are profoundly tired of the fact that we have to be overqualified to win are turned off by a celebrity pol who still will not admit she was wildly underqualified. [Boston Globe]

Sarah Palin doesn’t fit the ‘Rogue’ title [USA Today]

Fixing the music royalties system: Songwriters get royalties but not recording artists. Bills now being considered should pay performers fairly, protect against abuses by powerful industry players and promote the availability of music. [LA Times]

A Gift to Credit Card Companies: A Senate bill to move up the effective date of the law protecting consumers from predatory actions by the credit card industry should have become law already. [New York Times]

Clipping Bernanke’s wings: Why the Fed needs its independence from Congress. [Washington Post]

Homophobia and AIDS funding can’t coexist: The U.S. sends millions of dollars in relief money to Uganda, which is considering a draconian law aimed at homosexuals. [LA Times]

Choosing the public they school: Charters exclude the unlucky students whose parents can’t be bothered. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

As the Obama administration continues struggling with how to close Guantanamo, it finds itself with few options. The recent announcement of plans to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees in federal court is a positive step, but it also reminds us that little headway has been made on most of the Guantanamo detainees. About 75 are deemed too dangerous to release, and 90 are suitable for transfer but have no place to go.  

Without any good choices, rehabilitation has emerged as a possible alternative. . .  

Every debate about whether President Obama can close  guantanamo by his self-imposed January deadline considers the “deradicalization” option, particularly for the 97 Yemenis who make up nearly half the remaining detainees. U.S. officials are actively considering sending the Yemenis to Saudi Arabia’s rehabilitation program, which seemed tremendously successful until earlier this year, when some “rehabilitated” former Guantanamo detainees joined al-Qaeda groups in Yemen. . .  

[AO: I have what I think is a pretty basic question: Why are we rehabilitating terrorists? In other words, if an individual is a terrorist and that individual has committed acts of terrorism against America or another country, shouldn’t that person be tried and locked up? Why release such dangerous people without even trying them? Why reeducate . . . er, rehabilitate them?  

On the other hand, if these people are terrorists only in terms of their thoughts or aspirations and have not committed any acts of terrorism, should we really be sending them to reeducation camps in Saudi Arabia for have the wrong thoughts?  

I came away from reading this opinion with many questions. Overall, I am conflicted over terrorist rehabilitation. Should terrorists get a second chance without paying for their crimes? Can a terrorist ever be sufficiently rehabilitated to be safe for release into the general public? ]  

Civilian courts can fight terrorists too [Chicago Tribune]

Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial: If the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side. [New York Times]

Toward a federal ’shield law’ for journalists: A Senate bill is flawed but it’s better than the status quo. [LA Times]

Abortion fallacies: I’m opposed to the Stupak amendment, but it’s not worth killing health reform over. [Washington Post]

Health reform’s conservative roots: The health care reform option being considered in Congress bears a striking resemblance to the one created by the conservative 19th century German chancellor Otto von Bismarck. [Boston Globe]

Hunger in the United States: For President Obama to achieve his goal of wiping out child hunger by 2015, Congress needs to make federal nutrition programs a priority. [New York Times]

Sarah Palin’s lack of leadership shows in ‘Going Rogue’: The former Republican vice presidential candidate’s memoir instead illustrates what comes so easily to her: pointing fingers. [LA Times]

Church, state and gay marriage: The Council of the District of Columbia is right to stand firm against the Catholic Church on the issue of same-sex marriage. [LA Times]

That mess with China: Many said a trade pact would end the trade imbalance. The opposite occurred. [Washington Post]

Can we retrain terrorists? Rehabilitating jihadis is controversial and difficult. But we may have to consider it. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

Another Round of Regulatory Reform: If senators really want strong financial reform, they must not give into lobbies trying to weaken the plan as it makes its way through the legislative process. [New York Times]

Can we boldly go? Maybe someone should stick a copy of The Right Stuff into the DVD player tomorrow night on President Obama’s long flight back from his mission to Asia. [Philadelphia Inquirer]

The Drug Industry Cashes In: Given the drug industry’s last-minute price increases, the Senate should abandon its deal with the industry and impose tougher demands. [New York Times]

Don’t forget renters – again: Now that the $8,000 federal tax credit for home buyers has been extended, it’s time for Congress and the president to move quickly on another front: providing resources to develop rental housing for low-income Americans. [Philadelphia Inquirer] 

Let’s weigh the advantages and disadvantages of President Obama’s decision to bring five of the plotters of the 9/11 attacks onto American soil to try them in civilian courts in New York City.

First, the disadvantages: major security issues, free publicity for Islamic jihadists, the risk of revealing sensitive intelligence, a cost to the public in the tens of millions of dollars, and the delaying of justice for many years.. [AO: We’ll take these one at a time.

Major security issues: What is the concern here? Is the concern here that they will escape or that other terrorists will attempt to free those on trial? Or is the concern that terrorists will attack New York? Any concern that the terrorists will escape is baseless. We tried Omar Abdel-Rahman and Zacarias Moussaoui, neither escaped or was freed. We’ve tried members of organized crime in civilian courts without any escapes. When, in fact, was the last time a high profile defendant escaped from a courthouse?

If the concern is an attack on the court house or New York, then I am confused. Why would terrorists want to attack the courthouse to kill one of their leaders? Why would terrorists wait to see where these detainees are being moved to before striking New York? Does anyone really believe that there are individuals out there who, but for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists being moved to trial in New York, would not attack us? Apparently these individuals are ok with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being held at Guantanamo Bay but moving him to U.S. soil crosses a line that triggers their terrorist actions? 

Free publicity for Islamic jihadists: Actually, no. This is an opportunity to show the world how evil and vile these terrorists are. This is another opportunity to expos their twisted minds and sick beliefs. Those who think that this provides free publicity to jihadists must have missed Osama bin Laden’s press releases.

Risk of revealing sensitive intelligence: Again, we’ve done this before with other terrorists. Our justice system can try terrorists without creating intelligence problems.  

The cost to the public: The cost to the public is the cost of justice. Every criminal costs the public when he or she is placed on trial. Some costs more than others. Our system of justice, which is part of who we are, is what these jihadists are fighting against. Let’s not allow them to change who we are. 

Delaying of justice: Of course it will take time to resolve all the issues in this case. Like any big and important case, the wheels of justice will turn slowly. But this cannot be a reason not to hold a trial. Like the cost issue, the prospect of delayed justice cannot determine whether a case is brought to trial. Think about all the big financial cases involving large multinational corporations or the organized crime cases. These cases costs millions of dollars and takes years to resolve. Yet these in terms of importance to our national interest, financial and organized crime cases are nothing compared to these terrorists trials. If we can afford to try large multinationals and organized crime figures, we can afford to try these terrorists.]

Obama is right to acknowledge China’s might: For better and worse, the U.S. and Chinese economies are intertwined, and that makes America stronger, not weaker. [LA Times]

For Palin, reality goes rogue: The former vice-presidential candidate dwells on the most damaging accusation against her — that she rang up $150,000 in luxury clothing purchases. Too bad that her defense is
preposterous. [Boston Globe]

Studying Palintology: Here’s something useful that George W. Bush can put his money into. [Washington Post]

Our rogue Evita: Sarah Palin follows in the footsteps of Eva Peron. [Washington Post]

Obama’s Judicial Nominations: The White House and the Senate should speed up judicial nominations and confirmations to restore balance to the federal courts. [New York Times]

Time for a ruling on judge: Eight months after President Obama nominated him to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, a jurist from Indiana may finally have a chance at confirmation from the Senate. [LA Times]

Madoff: A piece of the (malef)action: The convicted Ponzi schemer’s belongings are being auctioned off. Good news for his victims, but it’s still sad that his infamy lends exorbitant value to mundane objects. [Boston Globe]

Puppets in Congress: It is disturbing that so many members of Congress were willing to repeat a biotechnology company’s talking points in the Congressional Record. [New York Times]

Gitmo, Illinois: Plans for moving some Gitmo prisoners prisons in Illinois is no reason for panic [Chicago Tribune]

Democracy – it’s not for everyone: In the past half century, the record of democracies in some regions of the world has been spotty. [Boston Globe]

Shaming undermines justice: Americans may cheer the idea of retributive punishment, but such judgments threaten the principles of our legal system. [USA Today]

What the Future May Hold: For future generations, we need to remember that infrastructure is linked to the health of the economy, the environment and the viability of the nation as a whole. [New York Times]

Their Future Is Ours: The country is stumbling under the challenge of integrating the children of immigrants, who need more supportive policies and programs. [New York Times]

Pandemic politics: How did we get to a point where H1N1 means something different to everyone? [Washington Post]

. . . The fundamental tenet of our criminal justice system is that a defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Along with his confederates, Mohammed will be given the opportunity to defend himself against the charges . . . President Barack Obama seems to take the outcome for granted. “I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice,” he said. Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen notes, “That’s the equivalent of saying, ‘We’ll give him a fair trial and then hang him.’ ” [AO: How is President
Obama’s statement the same as saying “We'll give him a fair trial and then hang him”? Isn’t the most exacting demands of the justice system what anyone placed on trial in America is subjected to? Is the Tribune reading too much into this statement? Again, this statement is directly applicable to all charged criminals whether the person is one who robbed a convenience store, Timothy McVeigh, Nidal Malik Hasan, or, yes, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.]  

The Justice Department makes it clear that the defendants should not expect ever to draw another free breath. A spokesman says Holder “would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless he was confident that the outcome would be a successful one.” . .

In other words, the accused will be locked up if they are convicted and they will be locked up if they are not. [AO: No. Just, no. A prosecutor cannot bring a person to trial unless the prosecutor is confident that the person is guilty. If the prosecutor is convinced that the person is guilty and believes in our justice system, the prosecutor would be confident in the outcome. It’s that simple. Prosecutors can’t go around trying people just for the fun of it. In fact, it is a crime for the prosecutor to try someone she believes to be innocent. It’s a misuse of power. It is also a violation of legal ethics rules and might get the lawyer who tried the case disbarred. Here, the justice department is simply acknowledging that reality. This is not some coded statement hinting at predetermined outcomes. In any case, it seems the Tribune is once again interpreting these words to mean more then they do.]  

The honest approach would be to announce that dangerous defendants such as these will be held indefinitely as prisoners of war under the rules established by international law. [AO: But what happens if we pull out of Afghanistan in, for example, three years and are completely out of Iraq. Do we then try the detainees so we have a reason to continue to hold them indefinitely? Or do we simply argue that because we are subject to attack at any time we can continue to hold these detainees indefinitely?

If we wait for the wars to end and then try the Guantanamo detainees, it will be obvious that those trials, not the ones being considered now, are pretextual and meant only to manufacture a reason to continue to hold the detainees. On the other hand, if we simply continue to hold them after pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq, then we’ll have turned international law into a joke and it will serve as no better reason for holding the detainees. No one will be convinced. 

The better approach is what the administration is pursuing now. It can be summed up in two words. Trials. Now.]