An Outrage If Bush Had Proposed It

The NY Times covers a trial balloon that would provoke outrage from the left if Bush-Cheney had proposed it.  However, as the Times tells it, the proposal has no sponsorship at all - apparently it just fell from the sky, or something.  Here we go:

The Obama administration is considering a change in the law for the military commissions at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, that would clear the way for detainees facing the death penalty to plead guilty without a full trial.

The provision could permit military prosecutors to avoid airing the details of brutal interrogation techniques. It could also allow the five detainees who have been charged with the Sept. 11 attacks to achieve their stated goal of pleading guilty to gain what they have called martyrdom.

The proposal, in a draft of legislation that would be submitted to Congress, has not been publicly disclosed. It was circulated to officials under restrictions requiring secrecy. People who have read or been briefed on it said it had been presented to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates by an administration task force on detention.

Ordinarily I have no qualms about capital punishment but in this case, sending some jihadists off to collect their virgins, or raisins, or whatever without what the world would view as a fair trial can only lead to a public relations debacle of the sort I would expect the kinder, humbler (yet God-like!) Obama to avoid.

Apparently this procedure is acceptable in conventional trials but not in the military courts:

The provision would follow a recommendation of military prosecutors to clarify what they view as an oversight in the 2006 law that created the commissions. The law did not make clear if guilty pleas would be permitted in capital cases. Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such pleas.[Although a legally-minded friend of mine reminds me that defendants plead to a charge, not a sentence; the sentencing phase of the proceeding is separate.]

But American military justice law, which is the model for the military commission rules, bars members of the armed services who are facing capital charges from pleading guilty. Partly to assure fairness when execution is possible, court-martial prosecutors are required to prove guilt in a trial even against service members who want to plead guilty.

During a December tribunal proceeding in Guantánamo, the five detainees charged with coordinating the Sept. 11 attacks said they wanted to plead guilty. Military prosecutors argued that they should be permitted to do so. Defense lawyers argued that tribunals should follow American military law and bar the guilty pleas. The military judge has not yet made a decision.

And Obama's position?  Who knows?!?  The Times is utterly mystified:

The draft legislation includes other changes administration officials disclosed last month when President Obama said he would continue the controversial military commission system with changes that would increase detainees’ rights. It is not known whether the White House has approved the proposed death penalty provision. A White House spokesman declined to comment.

Sure, someone on the administration task force just snuck in that provision without anyone at the White House knowing or caring.

I can see the benefits to the Administration of this trial balloon - lefties will howl and Obama can disavow the idea, reassuring us with something to the effect of 'that was not the task force I knew'.

And when this plan is scrapped it will be just as well.

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

I predict that, in any event, no convicted terrorist will be executed while Barack Obama is president.

[matt]

it just keeps getting worse under this guy.

[Rick Ballard]

If Ogabe's islamofascist allies turn on him (as they will) and engage in terrorism here (a better than even chance) then the Gitmo scum will swing faster than you can say Ricky Ray Rector. There is almost nothing imaginable that the President would refuse to do if he thought his ratings were in danger. It's not as if he has any inner ethical or moral constraints.

[bad]

reposting from the Of Course thread:

Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.

Comey's main objection seemed to be that waterboarding was legal but a political hot potato. Bush/Cheney opted to use it anyway for the good of the country.

What a contrast to the current occupant of the Oval office. Rick totally nailed it.

[Semanticleo]

Bush let the Genie out of the bottle. Obama should be chastised for not cleaning up his mess soon enough. When will WingNut nation take ownership of what they created/enabled, instead of nipping at the heels of those presently accountable for "The Pottery Barn Rule"?

[PD]

When will WingNut nation take ownership of what they created/enabled

I don't see a lot of WingNuts backing away from the idea that waterboarding is useful, that GITMO should remain open for business, etc. Failing to "take ownership" is the accusation of a fantasist.

[MarkJ]

Obama: New! Improved! And with twice the stain-fighting, god-like powers of the usual bargain-brand politician!

[Original MikeS]

...god-like powers...

"Praise God. Hallelujah. Yes we can!"

[JM Hanes]

bad:

I sure would love to see Comey testifying in Congress again. I know I've got a lot of questions I'd like to ask him, starting with his role in appointing Patrick Fitzgerald to the Plame case. When he told his story about heroically holding off Gonzales who was trying to influence a very sick Ashcroft, I'm still amazed that not even the Republicans pointed out that Comey was rushing up the stairs to exert influence on Ashcroft himself.

[Elliott]

So is the middle name on his birth certificate really "Zeusian"?

[Porchlight]

Obama can disavow the idea, reassuring us with something to the effect of 'that was not the task force I knew'

He may even go so far as to use his "I reject the view of some..." formula.

[narciso]

But one remember he was the scourge of that dangerous hooligan,Martha Stewartterrorists,
not so much: Yes, JM they are quite useless not to point out that basic detail:what's the saying,"for want of a nail..."

Speaking of things never said, no one told Prince Bandar's tennis partner,that thirty five years of the European Baathist import on any country, is comparable to anything you would find boxed at Pottery Barn, That's why there's no warranty on a ten year old used car.

[Terry Gain]

yet god like and the manifestation of wingnuttery

Thomas’ statement needs only slight modification. Assuming that Obama is not an enemy agent, his speech in Cairo may be summed up as follows: he thinks he can get Muslims to discern the true meaning of their religion based upon what he says about it rather than based upon the words and deeds of its founder, the so-called prophet Mohammed.

And since, according to Muslims, the words of Mohammed came directly to him from Allah, through the angel Gabriel, Obama may not be god but he thinks he can explain Islam better than god.

Obama: a man who thinks he can change 1400 years of Muslim history with an opinion of Islam that contradicts the words of Allah.

This gives new meaning to the words arrogance and narcissism.

[Terry Gain]

Bush let the Genie out of the bottle.

Insanity. The United States should grovel because it used harsh but safe interrogation techniques to determine whether more attacks were forthcoming and how the enemy was organized.

The job of a President is to keep his country safe, not insulate himself, or his party from brain dead phony poltical posturing.

It would have been a gross dereliction of duty not to have waterboarded the al Qaeda troika.

[PeterUK]

Septic,
Just imagine that some imaginary al Qaeda terrorists were about to behead your imaginary son.What do you imagine yourself doing if a member of the al Qaeda group were captured and this imaginary prisoner were in the hands of American interrogators?

[Terry Gain]

Just imagine your country had just been attacked by suicidal religious fanatics and 3000 innocents had been killed.

Democrats play politics with war and war with politics.

[PeterUK]

Yes indeed New "Obamanol" the Soul Stain Remover.
Another Great SCAM Product.

[PeterUK]

"This gives new meaning to the words arrogance and narcissism."

It gives a new meaning to the word suicide.

[Cecil Turner]

Still dumber'n dirt. The standards here are simple, and centuries old.

Combatants must:
1. be commanded by a responsible person;
2. have a distinctive sign;
3. carry arms openly; and,
4. follow the laws of war.

Al Qaeda fails on 3 or 4 of the above, and the standards are strict. Unlawful combatancy is a violation of the laws of war, and mere membership in an unlawful organization is a capital offense. A tribunal conviction is required for punishment, and up to that point, combatants (lawful or otherwise) may be held in a detention facility for the duration.

The Obama position on Gitmo (and "torture") is incoherent. Congress isn't much better (e.g., the perfectly stupid contention that conspiracy was a traditional war crime in the MCA). SCOTUS can't decide if they want to control it or not (despite a total lack of constitutional authority), and the DOD lawyers are apparently determined to see the system fail. It'd be nice to see a tribunal going forward to a sensible result without some court sticking its oar in, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

[matt]

you know, sem, I thought it was pretty clear the last time you tried to rile us up here that the majority approved of Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques, of Guantanamo, etc.

Unfortunately, few of us have the confidence in Ogabe's patriotism, dedication to the Constitution as written, or respect for the rule of law.

Find something new to complain about or begone.

On another note, it seems the feds shotgunned the Fiat- Chrysler deal and the Italians were from the very outset trying to con the game. Gee, what a surprise.

[God knows.]

JMHanes, you have an extremely important point; James Comey was taking advantage of Ashcroft more so than Gonzales. Comey's a bad 'un.

I suspect, Cecil, that Obama considers himself a prophet. Whether he thinks he's thought it up himself or that he's been divinely inspired, I suspect he's trying to figure out.

[Sue]

Sure, someone on the administration task force just snuck in that provision without anyone at the White House knowing or caring.

That may not be so far fetched. They took AF1 without the WH knowing. There were tax protests without the WH knowing.

[Rick Ballard]

Matt,

My money is on Fiat demanding a sweetener to complete the Chrysler deal. I would not be surprised if the sweetener were so outrageous that even Team TurboZero can't swallow it.

[Rick Ballard]

Ras on Friends Don't Let Friends Drive Govmo.

17% is a very good start, 30% with leaners even better and "51% of adults are more likely to buy a car from Ford because it did not any take bailout funding" must be causing smiles in Dearborn.

[Semanticleo]

I will hold every one of you Goldbrick-conspiring rethugicans personally responsible if any harm should come to the imaginary son I have serving in Iraq.

[You don't know me.]

Don't worry, Leo; my real son is over there getting his back.

[RichatUF]

Rick && matt-

Is the Fiat Chrysler deal starting to go south?

[susanne]

God knows:
I am pretty sure that Obama thinks he thought it up himself.
Terry G:
YES! Democrats do play politics with our security - and it will bite them (and us) in the ass.
To all the other thoughtful posters: Thanks for all the insight - I lurk (a lot) and I appreciate and delight in all of the expert knowledge, intriguing thoughts and links offered.

[PD]

Do we have multiple Cleos posting here?

[Danube of Thought]

It's my understanding that the 2nd circuit granted a stay of its ruling until the end of the day on Monday the 8th, in order to allow the appellants a chance to ask the Supremes to stay it further until they can hear an appeal. I have no idea of the likelihood of USSCt action on this.

Assuming both the Chrysler and GM restructurings go forward, it's going to be lots of fun watching the whole thing unravel and circle the drain. Sure, a lot of workers will be harmed, but they're all union types who have brought the whole thing on themselves. May their past actions have the most condign consequences.

[PD]

If you live in Wisconsin, Sen. Feingold is soliciting your input about nominee So-So: link

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

Marchione has stated clearly that the 6 million unit level of production is the minimum threshold of viability for Fiat. Merkel kicked him in the shins and GM wouldn't talk to him about the SA operations. He might have a shot at Peugeot and there is a slim chance that Tata might allow an increase in participation. Fiat wanted 6 billion euros from Merkel to take Opel off of her hands.

I believe that Marchione may be bluffing all round - if he can't assemble that threshold level of production it wouldn't be surprising to see him toss in the hand. A pair of deuces isn't really that strong an opener.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

Would they walk away now? The Chrysler sales numbers have to be a worry but the truck lines and minivans would be valuable properties and worth looting for eventual production in Thailand and Brazil. Or could they start acting like they are getting cold feet and ask the US Treasury to front them about $6 billion to keep the Chrysler doors open? The Obama Administration does seem to be in a box regarding the deal because Fiat didn't put any money into the deal and, as far as I'm aware, there is no break-up penalty.

[matt]

apparently Fiat was trying to get more favorable terms than "free", and then also trying to gain open access to any new technology Chrysler may have developed. If they start building an Italian version of the Challenger, it might get interesting. Chrysler was also concerned about Fiat's financial health. All from today's WSJ.

[matt]

There is some good coming out of all of this. Magna, who are buying Opel, are a pretty well run company, as is Penske, who is buying Saturn.

Saturn was the sacrificial lamb to the UAW if you recall, as they were non union. Perhaps now they can be run with a free hand and build better products. It will be interesting if Penske starts involving some of his racing colleagues.

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

It looks to me like the Fiat-Chrysler-Opel fantasy could be entitled Three Gimps In Search of a Crutch. If Merkel won't toss in a nice 6 billion euro crutch then Team TurboZero may have to come up with a $10 billion double wheelchair. It's clear that Fiat would like to come back into the North American market and it's even more clear that they don't possess the chips to try and play on their own.

I've read the "synergy" gargle and I don't buy a word of it. Fiat just wants a shot at the big DC Hog Trough. It's liars lying to liars about another $50 dead cat swap.

[PD]

Specter 'Pleased and Proud' to be a Pennsylvania Democrat

"I'm no longer a Republican in name only. I'm again a Democrat"

He's not getting a lot of love in the comments section.

[RichatUF]

Rick-

It should get interesting if they decide to back out because there really aren't any other dance partners. I've been in a news bubble pretty much all day and I'm surprised that there are rumblings about the deal.

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

It's been a while since I've read Italian news sources in detail. I'm rusty on the nuance but Marchione seems to be backhanding Berlusconi by complimenting him on remaining silent concerning Fiat's attempted blackmail of Merkel.

I look at Fiat-Chrysler-Opel as a type of left wing political trade union alliance as well as a putative auto company. All three dead would not be a bad thing.

[Pops]

Liberals are curious folk and some quit ignorant. I asked a liberal Obama supporting friend about a video we saw of a man in custody at a local police station. The man, whether drunk or on drugs was non-cooperative with the officer. The man was in custody, under control, non-threatening and handcuffed.
The office was asking the man to do something (stand in a certain location). The man did not comply. After 4-5 requests and non-compliance, the officer TASERED the man.

The man collapsed to the floor, shaking violently. I asked my liberal friend if that wasn't torture, and should be banned in the time of Obama?

He looked me straight in the face and told me NO, it wasn't torture because the officer was not interrogating the prisoner for information. Since the officer was not trying to solicit intelligence information and thus the physical violence was not torture.

I realized after restating my case several times that the liberal only believes torture is forceably attempting to get intelligence information that the terrorist doesn't want to otherwise reveal and harsh physical treatment alone was not his objection.

Amazing.

[zhombre]

Gitmo could be turned into a Chrysler or GM assembly plant and its detainees put on a form of work-release.

[Brian G.]

I predict that, in any event, no convicted terrorist will be executed while Barack Obama is president.

I would tend to agree, unless it becomes expedient for Obama to have one fried in time for the election.

[chsw]

May their virgins all look like Yasser Arafat and Helen Thomas.

chsw

[Neo]

With the like of Evan “sort of god” Thomas writing stuff like this, I wonder if that idea of renaming Gitmo to "Chez Guevara" still has a chance.

[Maureen]

Obama loves throwing annoying facts and people under the bus. So of course he's not worried by the idea of declaring guilt or executing anybody without a full trial. The faster the annoyance goes under the wheels, the better.