President Obama’s endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that’s just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday’s announcement endorsing military commissions.

Can’t He Pick A Position And Stick With It?

White House officials insist that their tribunals will be kinder and gentler, stressing additional due-process safeguards for terrorists on trial for war crimes. But the debate that has convulsed the political system since 9/11 isn’t about procedural nuances. It has been over core principles, with Democrats decrying a “shadow justice system” and claiming that “Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”

The latter quote is from a speech by Senator Obama in 2007 denouncing “a legal framework that does not work.” He also referred to the civilian criminal justice system and courts martial that Democrats then claimed, and many still claim, are the right venues for antiterror prosecutions. After the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision gave terrorists habeas rights, Mr. Obama again laid into the Bush Administration’s “legal black hole” and “dangerously flawed legal approach,” which “undermines the very values we are fighting to defend.”

At least some people in the White House must now be embarrassed by their boss’s switcheroo, though you can’t tell from Friday’s declaration. Part of the tribunal face-lift is that “the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.” Say what? Enemy combatants already have better access to attorneys — white shoe and pro bono, no less — than nearly every criminal defendant in America. Perhaps this means Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 90 Yemenis and the rest will now be able to choose lawyers from both Shearman & Sterling and Covington & Burling, instead of one or the other.

Another red herring is supposedly tightening the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Tribunal judges already have discretion to limit such evidence, and the current rules are nearly indistinguishable from those of the International Criminal Court. The sensible exceptions involve evidence obtained under combat conditions or from foreign intelligence services, which are left untouched by Mr. Obama’s nips and tucks.

In any event, Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney — and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.

Other Junk You Might Like!

• May 16, 2009 -- Pelosi Accuses CIA of ‘Misleading’ Congress on Waterboarding (0)
• March 21, 2009 -- Obama’s Wall Street Bailout Failure…Time To Bailout (0)
• March 9, 2009 -- US Vice President To Meet NATO Allies for Talks on Afghanistan (0)
• February 22, 2009 -- Clinton Takes A Softer Approach To China (0)
• January 30, 2009 -- Obama…A Leftist Partisan Right Out Of The Gate (0)

Related posts

• US Vice President To Meet NATO Allies for Talks on Afghanistan (0)
• Presidential Debates… What Was Thought and What Was Said…. (0)
• Pelosi Accuses CIA of ‘Misleading’ Congress on Waterboarding (0)
• Obama…A Leftist Partisan Right Out Of The Gate (0)
• Obama’s Wall Street Bailout Failure…Time To Bailout (0)

View White Rabbit's Profile      Subscribe via RSS