Author: Spencer Ackerman

The torture advocate and former vice president will be on ABC News’ “This Week,” interviewed by Jonathan Karl, possibly the only ABC reporter to contribute to Cheney’s favorite magazine, the Weekly Standard. It’s sure to be a hard-hitting interview. Interestingly, ABC is allowing Jane Mayer of The New Yorker — for my money the best national security reporter in the business — on its post-interview panel. A shame she’s not actually interviewing Dick Cheney.

From the White House press secretary…

As the people of Haiti observe a national day of mourning to remember those lost in the catastrophic earthquake one month ago, the United States continues to stand with our Haitian friends as they recover and rebuild. Our thoughts and prayers also remain with Haitian-Americans around our country who have lost so many family and friends.

We are grateful to the many Americans who have responded with such speed and compassion to assist the relief efforts being led by the Haitian government and supported by the United Nations, as well as many countries and non-governmental organizations from around the world.

As part of the civilian-led American response, search and rescue teams pulled survivors from the rubble. Volunteer physicians, nurses and paramedics continue to deliver life-saving medical treatment. Having reopened the main airport and port to enable a massive international humanitarian effort, our servicemen and women are supporting the distribution of urgently needed food, water, medicine and shelter until these functions can be fulfilled by the rapidly-expanding civilian operation and the United Nations in Haiti. Americans have also generously contributed tens of millions of dollars to help, Congress took quick action, and the United States government is providing substantial immediate assistance. No relief operation of this magnitude and complexity is without its difficulties and challenges, but in cooperation with the Haitian government and our many partners, we have helped to save countless lives and avert an even larger catastrophe.

Nevertheless, the situation remains dire. Even before the earthquake, Haiti was the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Today, the need for food, shelter, medical supplies and basic security is enormous, and the coming rainy season will pose new challenges. Infrastructure that was destroyed in minutes will take years to rebuild. Guided by the roadmap for cooperation and coordination developed by the government of Haiti, the United States will support our Haitian partners as they transition from emergency assistance to recovery and long-term reconstruction. The United Nations continuing appeal for additional peacekeepers and police, as well as next month’s donors’ conference at the United Nations, offer important opportunities for countries around the world to help Haiti recover and rebuild.

Amidst unimaginable suffering, the people of Haiti have inspired the world with their faith, strength of spirit and determination to rebuild. In the difficult months and years to come, they will continue to have a friend and partner in the United States of America.

See also Rajiv Shah, the administrator of USAID, reflecting on a month’s worth of relief efforts.

This, via Andrew Exum of CNAS, has to be seen to be believed. A Tennessee TV news report portrays an entire Muslim community in the state as a possible terrorist training program, despite having absolutely no evidence that the secluded community engages in any dubious activity at all. The reporter on the piece, Nick Beres, actually gives airtime to evidence-free speculation that something nefarious is going on in Islamville, Tenn., despite the local sheriff telling Beres that nothing illegal has been observed in connection with the place. Beres even gets a tour of the community that turns up nothing. But that doesn’t stop him from presenting two women who go about their business as “running away,” as if they needed to hide their secret stash of chemical weapons. The title of the report? “Inside Islamville: Is A Local Muslim Community Tied To TERRORISM?”

A better question is whether Beres and WTVF-TV, which aired the segment, are tied to journalism. After the evidence-free slander hit the airwaves, reports Jeff Woods at the Nashville Scene, the following vandalism occurred:

“Muslims Go Home” and a Crusade-style cross were scrawled across the front of Al-Farooq Islamic Center on Nolensville Road, says Salaad Nur, a spokesman. He says the mosque, which primarily serves members of the Somali community, has contacted the police and the FBI.

“They also left a letter at the youth center that says Muslims are friends of Satan and we are here to destroy the United States and to destroy Israel and things of that nature,” he says. “We’re a little bit shaken up. I hope this is just a scare and things don’t get any worse than this.”

Here’s a video clip of the segment:

Our old colleague Daphne Eviatar, now with Human Rights First, takes to Firedoglake’s Seminal diaries to make the case toward which Eric Holder is inching ever-so-gingerly. Basically, not only are the federal courts better equipped to prosecute terrorists, but their political opponents know better than to launch such dubious arguments. This deserves to be quoted at length:

[T]he federal courts are no bed of roses for terrorists. They have convicted many more terrorists than military commissions have. And following the only contested military commission trial since the start of the “war on terror,” Osama bin Laden’s driver, who the government claimed was a key player in the global jihadist’s murderous efforts, was sentenced to only five and a half years in prison – just six months more than the time he’d already served.

Back then, the National Review’s Andy McCarthy, the former prosecutor who now argues for military interrogation, trial and detention for all terrorism suspects, wrote a piece titled: “Disgraceful Hamdan Sentence Calls Military Commissions Into Question.”

That was 2008.

Just last week, McCarthy wrote that “Like most Americans, I think it is a terrible idea to give alien enemy combatants civilian trials.” Our usual procedures for handling criminal terrorism cases no longer need to be followed, because now we are at war, he says, so anything goes. Although the same critics making this argument today never pressed that position during the Bush administration, it’s now become accepted wisdom among those eager both to discredit the Obama administration and to appear tough on terror that terrorism suspects belong nowhere near the civilian justice system.

It’s an odd position for these critics to take, given the track record of the military commissions. Military commissions have convicted only three terrorists since they were created. Two of them have already been released from prison. The other didn’t even present a defense at his trial.

Full disclosure: My personal blog is hosted at FDL.

The Washington Post has an interview with Attorney General Eric Holder in which Holder, for the first time, appears to give himself breathing room to abandon federal criminal trials for the 9/11 conspirators:

“At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it’s done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules,” Holder said. “If we do that, I’m not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding.”

My emphasis. The issue is that President Obama needs to go to Congress to ask for the money for the trials. Despite the strong support for criminal trials yesterday from Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairs of the intelligence and judiciary committees, Senate Republicans will doubtlessly try to block the funding and compel a change of venue for the military commissions. Holder, naturally, can’t let himself say that a military commission is an  inappropriate venue if ultimately the U.S. is going to have to move the trials there.

But he’s still going to have to make an argument for why it’s preferable for the trials to occur in civilian courts. Holder tells the Post, ”Trying the case in an article III [federal] court is best for the case and best for our overall fight against al-Qaeda.” But that’s got to be coupled with an argument, ultimately, for why the military commissions are worse for that fight. John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, made part of that case earlier this week, when he observed, “There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system — including high-profile terrorists such as Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarius Moussaoui.”

The trouble is that the administration has also embraced military commissions. So conservatives can just as easily say: Why should the most important al-Qaeda detainees get civilian trials but some kid who threw a grenade at a U.S. soldier at the Taliban’s behest get a military tribunal? And that’s not a question the administration wants to answer, given the emphasis it placed last year on revamping the commissions. If the administration replies, Well, it’s important to display the strength of American justice internationally, then it can’t very well continue to defend the military commissions. The easiest thing to do here, if the administration really believes in the commissions, is to give the GOP what it wants.

For civil libertarians, the coming fight might be an opportunity to weaken the Obama administration’s commitment to the process-challenged commissions, or at least test how strong that commitment really is in the face of both political pressure and the principled counterterrorism priority of convicting the terrorist conspirators.

(U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway)

I don’t really know what Vice President Biden specifically meant by this:

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq “could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.”

Let’s give the substantive achievement to the Iraqis, yeah? But the administration truly does have a great achievement to its name here: Leaving Iraq is thoroughly uncontroversial. To say this wasn’t preordained is the severest of understatements. Iraq is, was and will be the most domestically embittering foreign experience since Vietnam. Had John McCain been elected president, you can bet that there would have been some diplomatic effort at amending the SOFA to maintain some significant residual presence in Iraq. Hell, the political climate on Iraq just 18 short months ago was such that Obama was pledging a 30,000-troop residual force.

It’s to his credit that he took the most sensible, balanced and conciliatory approach to withdrawal available. Gave Gen. Odierno an extra few months to withdraw combat troops and allowed him to backload the process, thereby preventing any antagonism. Promptly shifted the conversation back to Afghanistan (and Pakistan) where Obama argued the real focus on al-Qaeda belonged. Gave his administration’s most experienced quasi-diplomat the Iraq-diplomacy brief. The Republican Party, given the chance, decided relitigating the Iraq war wasn’t in its interest, and decided that it won the war during the surge, so why argue, and turned the page.

And so we’re leaving, with no domestic acrimony from any corner. There is no “Iraq Syndrome” haunting us, of any sort. That, I would suggest, is a lasting victory.

A few weeks ago, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, gave conservatives a flicker of hope for a high-profile Democratic dissenter on the Obama administration’s plans to try the 9/11 perpetrators in civilian courts. She didn’t come out and float such a possibility, but she urged Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to reconsider holding a trial in New York. Close enough, right?

Not really, it turns out. Today, she and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the judiciary committee, wrote to the president to express full support for civilian trials for terrorists. And they’re also trying to forestall any effort by congressional Republicans to compel trials in military commissions. “Congress should not tie the hands of our national security and law enforcement agencies, but should instead ensure they have the flexibility to use every means available,” Feinstein and Leahy wrote. “Congress should be working with you in a shared mission to most effectively protect our national security and to ensure that just convictions, once obtained, will be sustained and upheld.”

Read the full letter after the jump.

February 11, 2010

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

We are writing today to endorse the use of our Federal criminal courts to prosecute and bring terrorists to justice. As we all work to strengthen our counterterrorism efforts, Congress should not interfere with your administration’s using all available means to make us safer and more secure.

Our counterterrorism agents, prosecutors, and Federal criminal courts have the track record to show that they are capable of handling these cases. In hundreds of cases – both before and after September 11 – our courts have demonstrated that they can handle sensitive classified information, security, and other legal issues related to terrorism and national security. The Senate Judiciary Committee has held several hearings on the issue of how to best handle terrorism suspects and Guantanamo detainees. Experts and judges have agreed that our criminal justice system can handle this challenge.

We disagree with those who contend that our investigators, prosecutors, courts, and the men and women who protect our courts and prisons are not up to the task of bringing these terrorists to justice. We should not let partisan distractions lead us to cast aside such valuable tools as the experienced terrorism interrogators of the FBI or forego convicting terrorists in our Federal courts. Nor are these efforts mutually exclusive from obtaining valuable intelligence. Just last week, during a hearing in front of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Director Mueller acknowledged that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is providing valuable intelligence. This is after he received medical attention and after he was read the Miranda warning.

There has been debate about whether to try the men accused of plotting the September 11 attacks in civilian courts or military commissions. We believe that whether such a trial is held in New York City or another location, these men should be brought to justice in a Federal court. Article III courts have proven to be the most capable venues to try and convict dangerous terrorists. These men should finally face justice.

We commend the Attorney General’s decision to make these men answer for their heinous acts and hold them accountable. As Paul Bremer, one of President Reagan’s top advisers on counterterrorism explained during the Reagan administration, a longstanding element of our overall strategy against terrorism has been to “use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law, against them” and to delegitimize them.

Our system of justice is strong enough to prosecute the people who have attacked us. There are hundreds of inmates in the United States who have been convicted of crimes related to international terrorism. The “supermax” facility in Florence, Colorado, houses 33 of these international terrorists. There has never been an escape from that facility.

We appreciate this administration’s willingness to use all possible venues to seek justice. The September 11 defendants and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab will face trial in Federal court; the USS Cole defendants will face trial before a reformed military commission; and Major Nidal Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter, is charged in a court martial. Congress should not tie the hands of our national security and law enforcement agencies, but should instead ensure they have the flexibility to use every means available. Congress should be working with you in a shared mission to most effectively protect our national security and to ensure that just convictions, once obtained, will be sustained and upheld.

Respectfully,

PATRICK LEAHY DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Chairman, Senate Committee of the Judiciary Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

It hurts not to be taken seriously, and that’s why the Iranian dictator went around boasting that he was going to deliver a knockout blow to the West in his speech today. The speech just kind of swung and missed. How badly? Mark Hosenball explains:

A European official with knowledge of Iran, who also asked for anonymity, said that despite the latest nuclear pronouncements of Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials, many Western governments remain skeptical of Iran’s ability to produce uranium enriched to the 20 percent level—nevermind enriching it to a higher, bomb-grade purity of up to 97 percent. “Nobody even knows if they can do 20 percent,” the European official told Declassified. The Washington Postreported on Thursday that the Iranians were experiencing “surprising setbacks” in their enrichment efforts, failures the paper said “could undermine” Iran’s ambitions to dramatically expand its nuclear program.

The European official added that Iran’s erratic behavior, including its on-again-off-again response to a deal brokered by international negotiators to send its nuclear-power fuel rods abroad for processing, has alienated some important powers, like Russia, that in the past might have blocked efforts by the U.S. and Europe to tighten sanctions on Iran.

Once feared, Ahmadinejad is becoming a clown.

Nathan Hodge of Danger Room traveled to the earthquake-stricken country and has a heartbreaking photo essay here.

The Iraqi government shows signs of increasing impatience with Blackwater guards getting hired by other private security firms:

A top Iraqi official said Wednesday that guards formerly employed by the private security firm Blackwater Worldwide must leave the country within days.

The statement by Interior Minister Jawad Bolani — made in an interview with the Associated Press — could lead to the expulsion of as many as 250 guards who once worked for Blackwater and who now work for other security firms in Iraq. The Interior Ministry controls the country’s police forces and licenses private security companies.

Yeah, this is right before the March 7 Iraqi national election, though, so who knows if Bolani is for real here. Many an Iraqi demand about Blackwater has fallen by the wayside.

Meanwhile, in other Blackwater/Iraq news…

PBS’s Tehran Bureau interviews the son of Green leader Mehdi Kerroubi:

10:00 am EST: Tehran Bureau interview with Hossein Karroubi, opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi’s son.

How is your father Haj Agha Mehdi Karroubi?

We’re treating him for burns to his face and eyes. He’s having trouble with his lungs too. He was badly attacked with pepper spray. Plainclothes agents (vigilantes) approached him and kept spraying it in his eyes. He’s resting at home though; he’s not been hospitalized.

Meanwhile, Colum Lynch introduces you to the diplomats and states(wo)men who’ll play key roles in any international economic sanctions regime against the Iranian government.

Check out what Defense Secretary Robert Gates had to say about the passing of Rep. Charlie Wilson, Gates’ partner during the anti-Soviet Afghanistan jihad. Note how quickly this statement becomes a pledge of administration policy intent:

“I had the unforgettable experience of knowing Congressman Wilson when I was at CIA and he was working tirelessly on behalf of the Afghan resistance fighting the Soviets. As the world now knows, his efforts and exploits helped repel an invader, liberate a people, and bring the Cold War to a close. After the Soviets left, Charlie kept fighting for the Afghan people and warned against abandoning that traumatized country to its fate — a warning we should have heeded then, and should remember today.

“America has lost an extraordinary patriot whose life showed, once more, that one brave and determined person can alter the course of history. My condolences to Barbara and the rest of the Wilson family.”

My emphasis. It’s nothing particularly new for the administration, just what I gather to be a poignant moment for reflection on Wilson’s legacy and how it hangs over the current Afghanistan debate.

In a long-telegraphed speech billed as giving the west a bloody nose, Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday claimed to have enriched some of Iran’s stockpile of uranium to 20 percent potency. (That level is nowhere close to the potency required to make a nuclear weapon — it’s more like 90 percent — and experts in the west increasingly doubt Iran’s technical expertise in the nuclear arena as The Washington Post explains in this good story.) Then, in a Dr. Evil-esque moment, Ahmadinejad bragged about having lasers.

“They should know that our nation is so courageous that if we will make a nuclear bomb,” he said, as people in Tehran’s Azadi Square chanted “Death To The Dictator,” “we will openly announce it.”

Today is the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, which is why Ahmadinejad, beleaguered by the Green Movement challenging the regime’s legitimacy, needed to make a big international splash. But his speech might as well have been drafted by western intelligence agencies. Not only does it fail to strike a sufficiently threatening tone, it brings the major western powers that much closer to their goal of placing new multilateral economic sanctions on the Iranian government and security apparatus. That effort has already begun to get under way — Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled abroad this week urging allied governments to support a new sanctions regime. Eyes now turn to the United Nations Security Council, where Amb. Susan Rice will see what she can get in terms of a sanctions package.

Naturally, the Green Movement is out in the streets opposing the regime on this anniversary, so just as naturally, the regime is brutalizing them. Follow Andrew Sullivan’s blog all day for what’s sure to be the most thorough English-language coverage.

After a British court ruled that the U.K. government has to disclose sensitive information about how the United States tortured a British citizen named Binyam Mohamed whom the U.S. held as a terrorist for years, Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, released this statement:

The protection of confidential information is essential to strong, effective security and intelligence cooperation among allies. The decision by a United Kingdom court to release classified information provided by the United States is not helpful, and we deeply regret it.

The United States and the United Kingdom have a long history of close cooperation that relies on mutual respect for the handling of classified information. This court decision creates additional challenges, but our two countries will remain united in our efforts to fight against violent extremist groups.

Marc Ambinder was clearly right to guess that the White House was only bluffing about the Mohamed disclosure limiting U.S.-U.K. intelligence cooperation.

On Twitter, Newt insists that he misspoke: It wasn’t would-be-shoebomber Richard Reid (nationality: British) who was an American citizen; he meant Jose Padilla. This is supposed to inspire confidence in his sagacity as a terrorism expert. Not that this makes any more sense. Jon Stewart asked Gingrich about not Mirandizing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab if Richard Reid got the Miranda treatment. Why would Gingrich’s mind jump to Jose Padilla? It’s almost like Gingrich is unable to keep basic facts straight but won’t let that intrude upon his politically predetermined analysis.

This has been quite the week for shattering the Republican Party’s national security glass jaw.

Oh, man. I could be missing something. But I can’t remember a White House response to a GOP legislator as straight-up harsh as what spokesman Nick Shapiro told Greg Sargent after Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, called for John Brennan to resign after his “you’re serving al-Qaeda’s interests” op-ed. Is Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, going back to North Jersey? Just listen to Shapiro:

“Through his pathetic attack on a counter-terrorism professional like John Brennan who has spent his lifetime protecting this country under multiple Administrations, Senator Bond sinks to new depths in his efforts to put politics over our national security.”

Usually the White House is so conciliatory! If anyone ever doubted President Obama’s confidence in Brennan, that should resolve any hesitation. Has Obama’s team responded with so little sugar coating to any other Republican on any other issue?

Given that the entire GOP congressional leadership just loudly bleated that they know less about FBI procedure than the average moviegoer, maybe Newt Gingrich didn’t want to show how blitheringly ignorant he is. Josh Marshall:

Classic moment last night on The Daily Show when Newt Gingrich explained that it was okay to mirandize “shoe bomber” Richard Reid and not Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because Reid, unlike Abdulmutallab, is a US citizen.

Only, of course, Reid is a British citizen.

No wonder President Obama’s terrorism poll numbers are rising and the public trusts him to handle terrorism more than the GOP.

On Saturday, the commander of the Army’s 10th Mountain Division, Maj. Gen. James Terry, put up an open forum on his Website for his soldiers, officers and noncommissioned officers to tell him what they thought about the prospective repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In stark contrast to the homophobia expressed by this retired Marine colonel, the men and women of the 10th Mountain — one of the Army’s most combat-deployed divisions since 2002 — mostly think DADT is either a non-issue or ought to be repealed as a matter of basic fairness. Few of the thread’s 77 comments express any hesitation about the repeal’s impact unit cohesion or combat readiness or any other arguments typically used to justify keeping openly gay servicemembers out of the military.

For instance:

All of the Soldiers who have posted negative comments about gays just need to grow up!

Personally I would rather go to war with a gay Soldier rather than one who gets high!!!

And:

There are gay Soldiers in the 10th Moutain as the key strokes are being written. They have been on multiple deployments and their bunkmates know. We need to come out of the dark ages and update to 2010 and see a Soldier is a Soldier. What they do behind closed doors are their business.

When a soldier asks how the rest of the world would view gay servicemembers in the U.S. military, a colleague replies:

Have you considered the fact that most countries within NATO, as well as Israel, already allow gays within their ranks?

And:

When I am outside the wire [on a mission], the main thing I want to know about the Soldiers I am with is that they qualified with and can accurately fire the weapon they are carrying. I don’t care about their sexual orientation (or, for that matter, how many pushups or situps they can do). Over the years, we have added too many unnecessary caveats and “requirements” to service, this ridiculous policy being just one of (too) many.

There isn’t any unanimity on the thread, and a frank exchange is both a good thing and to be expected. But what’s significant is how many soldiers on the thread simply don’t have patience for the typical political debate on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” For more on how the military-in-combat values competence and professionalism far more than sexual orientation, see this Washington Post story. And thanks to Starbuck at Wings Over Iraq for calling attention to this thread.

This sort of reactionary tripe was perhaps inevitable:

A small group of German officers opposed the loyalty oath to Hitler despite great political pressure. They courageously honored and respected the moral and institutional values they represented and knew to be right. We who are Marines are proud to see that our commandant has shown similar courage in the face of political pressure to allow avowed homosexuals to become Marines.

A cold chill shivers down the spines of men when they contemplate the physical acts of homosexual behavior. It is important the American people know that their Marines, and our commandant, have spine enough to notice and oppose this folly. I hope they will honor the many generations of Marines who sacrificed for American freedom and will remember to vote for and support those who will work to “keep our honor clean.”

That’s an actual letter published in The Washington Times by a retired Marine colonel named Art Corbett, who probably commanded gay Marines and perhaps was commanded by them.

This Washington Post/ABC News poll is filled with bad news for congressional Democrats, but it also contains one piece of bad news for congressional Republicans. Look at Obama’s approval rating on handling the threat of terrorism: he gets a 56 percent approval rating, up from 53 percent on November 15, before the attempted attack on the Northwest Airlines flight 253. That’s a three-point increase in approval after a month’s worth of sustained Republican attacks on Obama charging would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in federal court and reading him his Miranda rights.

Politico reported yesterday that continuing to go after Obama on terrorism was a central aspect of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) political strategy for 2010. But look at the Post’s numbers for comparative handling of terrorism. Obama has the confidence of 47 percent of the public on the issue, while the Republican Party — for decades the party that enjoyed greater public trust on national security — only claims 42 percent. McConnell is a political genius, clearly.

So look at what the last month has shown. Substantively, it’s proven that treating terrorist suspects humanely in criminal courts can be leveraged to reap valuable intelligence, refuting a central aspect of the conservative security liturgy. And politically, it’s proven that the public is resistant to empty demagoguery from the party that mired the country in unnecessary wars at the expense of necessary ones.