The Associated Press reports that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation continues.
A second Time magazine reporter has agreed to cooperate in the CIA leak case and will testify about her discussions with Karl Rove’s attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.
HOOyah!
There are a number of significant Dick Cheney articles on the web now, and I want to link them before they get stale. So, in no particular order and without further ado …
Frank Rich, New York Times, “Dishonest, Reprehensible, Corrupt …”:
If Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney believe they were truthful in the run-up to the war, it’s easy for them to make their case. Instead of falsely claiming that they’ve been exonerated by two commissions that looked into prewar intelligence – neither of which addressed possible White House misuse and mischaracterization of that intelligence – they should just release the rest of the President’s Daily Briefs and other prewar documents that are now trickling out. Instead, incriminatingly enough, they are fighting the release of any such information, including unclassified documents found in post-invasion Iraq requested from the Pentagon by the pro-war, neocon Weekly Standard. As Scott Shane reported in The New York Times last month, Vietnam documents are now off limits, too: the National Security Agency won’t make public a 2001 historical report on how American officials distorted intelligence in 1964 about the Gulf of Tonkin incident for fear it might “prompt uncomfortable comparisons†between the games White Houses played then and now to gin up wars. Continue reading
I want to follow up on the last post as well as this one from Friday on extracating ourselves out of Iraq. James Glanz writes in today’s New York Times about historical precedent for leaving without (necessarily) losing.
… Even in the absence of a sudden and dramatic shift on the battlefield toward a definitive victory, there may still be a slight opening, as narrow as the eye of a needle, for the United States to slip through and leave Iraq in the near future in a way that will not be remembered as a national embarrassment.
Most of the recent parallels do not seem to offer much encouragement for a confounded superpower that wants to save face as it cuts its losses and returns home. Among them are the wrenching French pullout from Algeria, the ill-fated French and American adventures in Vietnam, the Soviet humiliation in Afghanistan and the disastrous American interventions in Beirut and Somalia.
Still, there are a few stories of inconclusive wars that left the United States in a more dignified position, including the continuing American presence in South Korea and the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. But even those stand in stark contrast to the happier legacy of total victory during World War II.
Since World War II, how many wars have been fought on this planet that somebody, totally and finally, won? There’s the Chinese Civil War, which left the Communists in charge of all of China, and North Vietnam certainly won the Vietnam War, even if the U.S. never formally conceded that it lost. But of course Vietnam wasn’t a formal war to begin with, which is part of the problem.
In the old days one nation would declare war on another nation, and then the two of them (and their allies) would pound the stuffing out of each other until one of them surrendered. Then treaties would be signed and the war would be declared over. In other words, there was a mutually agreed upon beginning and end to the war, and a mutually agreed upon result. That sort of thing doesn’t seem to happen much any more, does it?
Instead, we have “police actions” and other military activies that aren’t formally declared wars, and the enemy is not a nation but some amorphous entity with shifting territories, or no territories, and leadership as ephemeral as ghosts. Conflicts go on for years, for generations, with no apparent resolution. That seems to be the nature of war these days.
In our current war, even if some of the big names on the other side, like bin Laden or Zarqawi, were to formally capitulate and signal an end to conflict (which I can’t imagine would ever happen), it wouldn’t mean much. Neither of these guys were elected, notice. They’re just guys who jumped in to lead at a time when people wanted leading. If they go, others will take their place, and the conflict will continue.
In a World War II-style conflict, armies conquered territories and destroyed enemy armies so that the enemy leaders would agree to surrender. And when the leaders surrendered, the soldiers (as a rule) would stop fighting and go home. These days we have enemies with no territory to conquer and leaders who lack authority to surrender. So how can there be an old-fashioned, VE Day victory? It’s odd to even think in those terms any more, yet that seems to be what the pro-war Right wants.
And, Lord knows, Bush intended to give it to them. That’s what the flight suit victory prance was supposed to be. And, in a narrow sense, the enemy Bush set out to vanquish in mid-March 2003 was pretty much vanquished. But in the process we made new and worse enemies. And so the war continues, and there will be no mutually agreed upon end to it. Indeed, in the insurgents v. “coalition” war, as opposed to the jihadists v. “coalition” war, we really have reached a stalemate; the insurgents fight because we’re there, and the U.S. stays because the insurgents are fighting us. And our true enemies, the jihadists, are more strengthened than weakened by our prosecution of the war. The very means we use to vanquish them — bombs, checkpoints, white phosphorous, prisons — give them and their cause energy and focus. Truly, the Iraq War is probably the best thing that ever happened to al Qaeda.
Bush talks about victory without explaining what victory will look like, which is something you have to explain these days. His job is made more difficult by the fact that the objectives presented to the American people before the invasion turned out to be more amorphous than al Qaeda. If you have no firm objectives, how do you know when you’ve accomplished them?
Back to James Glanz:
The highly qualified optimism of these experts about what may still happen in Iraq – let’s call it something just this side of hopelessness – has been born of many factors, including greatly reduced expectations of what might constitute not-defeat there. The United States already appears willing to settle – as if it were in a relationship that had gone sour but cannot quite be resolved by a walk out the door, punctuated with a satisfying slam.
Now we’re in the process of deciding what positive outcome might still be achieved, so that we can achieve that and go home. Yet our political processes are so poisoned we can’t even accomplish that without rancor, even though it’s obvious both major parties are hurtling toward the same conclusion. That’s because our arguments about Iraq aren’t really about Iraq, but about ourselves. You know this is true when Republicans continue to use Iraq to bash Dems even though few Dems have the cojones to disagree with Bush’s stated policies on the war. Note “stated policies,” as opposed to what Bush is actually doing. But that’s another blog post.
When Democrats said we should pull out our troops from Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and others were quick to label them defeatists. When the administration floated the idea this week of bringing home a third of the troops by election time next year, it was presented as good old patriotism. As the church lady on “Saturday Night Live†used to say “How convenient!â€
The striking change of tone is all about politics, and perhaps that’s how it should be in a democracy. Public support for the war has collapsed. The administration wants to avoid an embarrassing debate over who lost Iraq, so there won’t be the precipitous pullout that would look like a retreat. The troop withdrawals will be dictated by the election calendar, both in Iraq and here at home.
Clift writes that “we’re seeing the beginnings of a stampede among politicians to re-position themselves.” I think this is true. The stampede is going to accelerate after the December elections in Iraq, and by this summer there will be considerable troop reduction, although Bush will leave in a token force to save face. Possibly “not enough troops left in Iraq to do the job, but enough to keep taking casualties,” writes Clift, but politics rule. And “victory” will be whatever it is. We’ll know it when we see it.
Update: Read Digby!
As you know, Democrats have long been insisting that the US stay in Iraq indefinitely. It was only through the wise counsel and patient persuasion of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush that they were convinced that a timed withdrawal was the best way to go.
While it’s great news that the Iraq war is over and done with (and the liberals can finally stop obsessing over it) it’s going to take some work to get them to stop lobbying for more tax cuts and destroying social security. When are they going to get some responsibility and recognize that there is no free lunch?
Heh.
I missed Joe Biden’s op ed on Iraq yesterday, but the big breakthrough is that the Senator is boldly (snark) endorsing a timetable for withdrawal. He isn’t clear about what the timetable should be, mind you, but he thinks there ought to be one.
The Heretik sums it up: Biden blows.
Perhaps it’s too much to ask our current crop of Dems in Washington to keep up with the rest of us. But it would be nice if some of them were only a few weeks behind, instead of months. Or years.
More interesting (in a road kill sort of way) are the apologists who denounce Biden. “The only timetable that matters is victory,” rumbles Captain Ed. That sounds grand, and we could probably take all the time we wanted if we were having our war in our own country. But since we’re having it in someone else’s country, and they’re fixin’ to kick us out, it’s about time to finish our drinks and find the car keys, so to speak.
And, frankly, Biden doesn’t suggest much that Bush isn’t about to do anyway.
But speaking of victory, I was taken by this post on a pro-war blog called No End But Victory. I’m sure the author, Aziz, and I do not see eye to eye on many things. But I appreciate the author’s honesty.
First, Aziz writes that since the threat of WMDs was the sole plank upon which the case for war was publicly made, the administration owes the American people an apology and a tangible reason — not mushy metaphors and empty slogans — for continued sacrifice. “Until the WMD daemon is excised, there can be no forward motion on rebuilding trust and will,” Aziz writes. “And public demand for withdrawal will only increase.”
The Bushies are firmly in the “end justifies the means” camp. We know that they played up WMD scare stories and links to al Qaeda to sell the war, even though they had other motives, most notably Neocon desires to spread American hegemony. And they also exploited Iraq as a handy-dandy weapon for bashing Democrats. But now the Bushies must repackage their war in order to re-sell it now that opposition is rising. If anything resembling a good result is still possible, that possibility is being sorely compromised by lack of trust in the Bushies.
The lesson here for future governments is that if you can’t get the public behind your real motives for going to war, you probably shouldn’t go.
Second, Aziz correctly notes that politics is driving policy.
The simple fact is that the Administration itself is preparing to withdraw significant fractions of our troops from Iraq. Even supporters have cause to question the motivation therein. The position of most Democrats, that a phased and benchmark-driven withdrawal is neccessary, has been both vilified by the Administration (including the Vice-President) even as they prepare to implement largely the same plans. If there was a real will to succeed, the Democrats would be brought to the table and a bipartisan effort at formulating a withdrawal timetable or benchmark set would be made. Such an effort, instead of attack-dog postures as usual, would create a genuine feeling that there is both a commitment to win and a sincere understanding of the pressures on the home front.
This is exactly right. Put another way, if success in Iraq were more important to the Bushies (and most of the GOP) than politics, bipartisan policy consensus would probably come pretty easily. The fact is that even last year during the presidential election campaigns, Kerry’s and Bush’s stated positions on Iraq were not exactly miles apart. The GOP made Kerry’s suggestions out out to be radically different from where Bush seemed to be going. But if you just look at statements and speeches both candidates made last year, there really wasn’t a big bleeping difference in what they were saying. And, frankly, all the Dems are doing now is describing the few options actually left to us.
A real leader would be bringing the parties together to create policy with bipartisan ownership. Instead, the Right continues to exploit Iraq as a wedge issue, even though the wedge is working against them. It’s all they know how to do.
Third, Aziz writes, “A clear sign of moral righteousness is needed to send a message to Iraqis that we are in a different league altogether from the terrorists who seek domination of their nation.”
If all parties agree that there is a war for hearts and minds, then we cannot rely solely on Al Qaeda to poison the well. We must not be passive, we must be proactive. For every Iraqi child killed by Al Q, we must also offer a tangible piece of evidence of our contrast in the positive. Rebuilding schools is neccessay, but not sufficient. There has yet to be an accounting of higher-level responsibility for Abu Ghraib, for example. The utter depravity of the pro-torture position has been implicitly endorsed by the Vice President rather than utterly repudiated. And the erosion of our civil liberties at home continues apace, with no tangible improvement in our security as conslation prize. The Padilla indictment is the perfect if not the latest example of how the Administration willingly embraces Franklin’s dictum of those who desire security over liberty deserve neither. Why should the public take the Administration at face value?
I’ve said before that we could win an overwhelming military victory in Iraq and still blow our political objectives. If the political objectives were to spread stability, democracy, and pro-Western sentiment in the Middle East — Neocons have claimed these as their objectives, anyway — then invading Iraq was an utterly ass-backward way to go about it. Our current course will not take us to that victory if we stay in Iraq for a century. Although most of ’em won’t admit it, both Democrats and Republicans are wrestling with the same question — what “victory” will we settle for before we withdraw? And both the President and Jack Murtha seem to have reached the same conclusion — “victory” means transferring responsibility for Iraq domestic security to Iraqis. And the only major point of disagreement is over time. What is the timetable?
Whether you are asking how long can we stay? or how quickly can we leave? may not matter. I think events and Iraqi politicians will decide on the timetable. All of our posturing and attacking across the political spectrum will prove to be pointless.
Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times writes that Europe is in an uproar over CIA operations on their turf.
From Scandinavia to the tropical Canary Islands, the CIA’s clandestine use of European soil and airspace for counter-terrorism missions is triggering outrage, parliamentary inquiries and a handful of criminal prosecutions.
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, Europe was either silent about or unaware of the ways in which American agents operated within its borders. But in recent weeks several European governments have become much more vocal about alleged CIA activity in their jurisdictions.
Among the complaints: CIA operatives, without formal permission, have seized suspects in European cities and transported them to third countries for interrogation; CIA flights that have transported suspected terrorists around the world purportedly have used European airports for layovers; and the CIA may be operating clandestine prisons in Europe. …
…Two countries where some of the strongest evidence has emerged are Italy, where prosecutors are attempting to arrest 22 CIA operatives, and Spain, where officials have confirmed a steady parade of purported CIA flights into the nation’s airports.
In Germany, prosecutors are investigating both the alleged kidnapping by the CIA of one of its citizens and a number of suspicious flights into German air bases. Sweden and Norway launched investigations after similar incidents. The Dutch accused Washington of hiding its alleged use of secret prisons in Europe, and the 46-member Council of Europe told Romania to investigate reports that it was the site of such illegal detentions.
Investigations into alleged CIA landings or flyovers are underway in Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
The European Union said any of its members housing secret prisons for suspected Islamic terrorists, as first reported in the Washington Post, would be in violation of the law and subject to fines.
Wow, there’s no end to the stuff we can do to piss people off, huh?
Paul Richter and Tyler Marshall report in the Los Angeles Times that President Bush will start laying the groundwork for significant troops pullouts from Iraq.
I guess the boy reads polls after all.
Richter and Marshall write,
Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict.
In a departure from previous statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the training of Iraqi soldiers had advanced so far that the current number of U.S. troops in the country probably would not be needed much longer.
President Bush will give a major speech Wednesday at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in which aides say he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces.
The administration’s pivot on the issue comes as the White House is seeking to relieve enormous pressure by war opponents. The camp includes liberals, moderates and old-line conservatives who are uneasy with the costly and uncertain nation-building effort.
It also follows agreement this week among Iraqi politicians that the U.S. troop presence ought to decrease. Meeting in Cairo, representatives of the three major ethnic and religious groups called for a U.S. withdrawal and recognized Iraqis’ “legitimate right of resistance” to foreign occupation. In private conversations, Iraqi officials discussed a possible two-year withdrawal period, analysts said.
In other words, he’s going to declare victory so the troops can go home. Which is, of course, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT (snark) from “cutting and running.” And I’m predicting now that the “two-year withdrawal period” will be considerably shorter than two years.
Update: Josh Marshall writes,
I’m going to way out on a limb and take James Fallows’ word over the president’s and assume that there’s been no radical turnaround in the training and functioning of the Iraqi Army over the last couple months.
And if that’s true, it clarifies this essential point: there is no debate about withdrawing American troops from Iraq. That’s over. What we have is posturing and positioning over the political consequences of withdrawal. The White House and the president’s partisans will lay down a wall of covering fire, calling anybody who considers withdrawal an appeaser, to allow the president to go about the business of drawing down the American presence in Iraq in time to game the 2006 elections.
Exactly. And the Dems will be outmaneuvered once again.
Hard on the heels of the great menacing “X” panic — now a large segment of the Right Blogosphere has persuaded itself that the United States Postal Service is dissing Christianity and will stop issuing Madonna and Child Christmas stamps. Never mind that the USPS features the Madonna and Child stamps on its web site. According to this blogger, who got it from her mom who got it from a clerk at the local post office, the USPS will no longer print Madonna and Child stamps, so there will be no more when the current stock runs out. Further, the clerks have been instructed not to wish customers Merry Christmas; it’s Happy Holidays only.
Roger Ailes is claiming victory. Of course, we’re dealing with people whose spokespersons are still claiming a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It doesn’t take much …
So I’m trying to think of some utterly absurd rumor about dissing Christmas I can plant in some little corner of the blogosphere. Then we can hold a contest to guess how many seconds it takes for Michelle Malkin to report it. Suggestions?
Update: See World o’ Crap on the great post office stamp massacre.
Next atrocity: Liberals ban reruns of the “Peanuts Christmas Television Special.” (Yeah, that’s good. The righties would believe it. Then we’ll tell them we’re putting drugs in the eggnog.)
Dan Balz writes in today’s Washington Post that President Bush plans to prop up support for his war in Iraq by … making speeches.
Bush plans to use the time before the December elections in Iraq to talk about the U.S. stake and make the case that he has a strategy that is working, beginning on Wednesday with a speech in Annapolis that will focus on what the administration says is clear progress in training the Iraqi security forces. Other speeches will follow as White House officials attempt to use the final weeks of this year and early next year to shape public opinion.
This compelling strategy may be flawed:
Bush’s historical burden is that there is no recent precedent for a leader using persuasion to reverse a steady downward slide for a military venture of the sort he is facing. Only clear evidence of success in Iraq is likely to alleviate widespread unease about the central project of this presidency, public opinion experts and political strategists say.
That leads to the White House’s most daunting political problem. Even if Iraq is someday viewed as a success — and Bush’s decision to try to make that country a democratic beacon in the Middle East seen as visionary — it is an open question whether this proof can arrive during his presidency. Most military appraisals of Iraq foresee a long road of violence and instability ahead, as well as a substantial U.S. troop presence for the indefinite future.
“People are willing to pay a certain price . . . but for many people, it’s too rich for their blood,” said John Mueller, a political science professor at Ohio State University and an authority on wars and public opinion. “So even if it turns out well, they’re still going to see it as a mistake.”
That last sentence is a point righties seem unable to grasp. For example, yesterday the Washington Times did its part for the war P.R. effort with an article by Jennifer Harper, “Public ignores Iraq war naysayers,” which argued that people really are for the war in spite of what the news media says.
Negative press coverage of the war in Iraq in recent weeks has emphasized rising pessimism among the American public about the conflict. But a new survey found that 56 percent of the public thinks that efforts to establish a stable democracy in the country will succeed.
The survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press — which also plumbed opinions of journalists, university presidents and others in academe, diplomats, government officials, religious leaders, members of the military, scientists and international security specialists — revealed a marked disconnect between the perceptions of the general public and many of the so-called opinion leaders.
Significantly, only 33 and 27 percent of liberal elitist America-hating snobs in the news media and academia, respectively, had faith in a good Iraq outcome.
“The media and academia have always been more to the left, so how they report these things is not necessarily the way the country sees things,” said Charles Gravely, 56, a real estate executive from the District.
And the glass is half full —
Meanwhile, close to half of the American public — 48 percent — think the decision to take military action in Iraq was the right one.
You can see the results of the Pew poll here. Remarkably, the group with the biggest negative numbers about Iraq were not journalists or academics, but scientists and engineers, a fact the Washington Times didn’t mention.
The most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll (see Polling Report) said 54 percent of adults nationwide thought going to war in Iraq was a mistake; 45 percent did not. The glass is not half full. Note that the most recent Harris poll (same link) shows that when given a choice between bringing the troops home by next year or keeping them in Iraq until there’s a stable government, people go with “bring ’em home” by 63 to 35 percent.
According to some group called the National Priorities Project, the cost of the Iraq War will reach $251 billion in March 2006. The Pentagon is spending $5.8 billion a month in Iraq. I believe that figure is just for military operations and does not include reconstruction and other non-military costs.
If, without referencing Iraq, you could ask Americans if they’d like to see a ruthless, corrupt, psychopathic dictator removed from power in some hypothetical foreign country, they’d say sure, why not? Then, ask if they ‘d like to see this country run by democratically elected officials instead of a dictator, and I’m sure an overwhelming majority would approve. But if asked if they’d be willing to spend $251 billion in American taxpayer dollars and give the lives of (as of today) 2,105 American soldiers to achieve this result, what would they say? Hell no, is what they’d say. And when you added that deposing the dictator would have no tangible benefit for the United States, they’d say bleeping hell no.
This is called “setting priorities.” And it’s why belief in an eventual good outcome in Iraq is not the same thing as support for Bush’s policies in Iraq.
BTW, Ann Coulter posted this on Townhall yesterday.
In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger.
Kinda makes you wonder what planet ol’ Ann is living on. But this may explain the 35 percent who want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq; they don’t keep up.
I guess we’ll have to cross item #3 off the official White House list of ten serious al-Qaida terrorist plots disrupted since September 11.
Item #3, in case you forgot, is —
The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a “dirty bomb” in the U.S.
Well, forget that. The charges against Padilla do not include plots to bomb apartment buildings or anything else in the United States. In fact, Padilla is such a minor figure he is barely mentioned in his own indictment. Neil Lewis reports in today’s New York Times:
Jose Padilla, whose newly unsealed indictment on conspiracy charges signals a marked change in the Bush administration’s legal approach to dealing with terrorism suspects, is mentioned only sparingly in the government’s account.
The indictment, announced Tuesday by the Justice Department, portrays Mr. Padilla as a distinctly minor though thoroughly willing player in a scheme run by others to support radical Islamic fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and elsewhere.
Padilla is alleged to have acted as a courier for four conspirators who ran bogus charities and businesses to raise money to send to the radical Islamic fighters. The four conspirators were indicted on the same charges last year.
Padilla has been incarcerated since May 2002. The Gubmint finally obtained an indictment against him two days ago.
The Bush Administration claims that it could not bring other charges against Padilla without violating national security. Apparently the “intelligence” that led to Padilla’s arrest came from two senior al Qaeda members held in secret prisons and, most likely, tortured. Douglas Jehl and Eric Lichtblau write in today’s New York Times:
The Bush administration decided to charge Jose Padilla with less serious crimes because it was unwilling to allow testimony from two senior members of Al Qaeda who had been subjected to harsh questioning, current and former government officials said Wednesday.
The two senior members were the main sources linking Mr. Padilla to a plot to bomb targets in the United States, the officials said.
The Qaeda members were Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and Abu Zubaydah, a top recruiter, who gave their accounts to American questioners in 2002 and 2003. The two continue to be held in secret prisons by the Central Intelligence Agency, whose internal reviews have raised questions about their treatment and credibility, the officials said.
One review, completed in spring 2004 by the C.I.A. inspector general, found that Mr. Mohammed had been subjected to excessive use of a technique involving near drowning in the first months after his capture, American intelligence officials said.
Reason #17 torture is a bad idea: You can’t use the “results” in court.
In June 2002 Attorney General John Ashcroft made a big show — via satellite feed while visiting officials in Moscow — of announcing the arrest of Padilla. You can read the transcript of Ashcroft’s statement here.
But just three months after the arrest, word leaked out that there wasn’t much of a case. CBS News reported in August 2002:
The government media blitz after the arrest an American accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive bomb was almost unprecedented for a terrorist suspect post-Sept. 11.
United States Attorney General John Ashcroft held a news conference via satellite while visiting officials in Moscow. Justice Department officials in Washington called him a significant terrorism figure and President Bush weighed in to agree.
But two months later, U.S. law enforcement officials close to the case, say Jose Padilla is probably a “small fish” with no ties to al Qaeda cell members in the United States.
The FBI’s investigation has produced no evidence that Padilla had begun preparations for an attack and little reason to believe he had any support from al Qaeda to direct such a plot, said one of the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.
When John Ashcroft triumphantly announced the capture of Padilla, he said the U.S. had already captured an accomplice in the nefarious dirty bomb plot. What happened to that guy? Jehl and Lichtblau explain:
In an interview on Wednesday, a British lawyer for another man accused by the United States of working as Mr. Padilla’s accomplice in the bomb plot also accused American officials of working to extract a confession. The lawyer said the United States had transferred the man to Morocco from Pakistan, where he was captured in 2002, in an effort to have him to sign a confession implicating himself and Mr. Padilla.
“They took him to Morocco to be tortured,” said Clive A. Stafford Smith, the lawyer for the suspect, Binyan Mohammed. “He signed a confession saying whatever they wanted to hear, which is that he worked with Jose Padilla to do the dirty bomb plot. He says that’s absolute nonsense, and he doesn’t know Jose Padilla.”
Reason #2 torture is a bad idea: Tortured people will make stuff up to stop the torture.
One suspects the Bush Administration kept Padilla locked up all this time because they didn’t want the world to know Ashcroft had been wrong. But after nearly three years of maneuvering the Bushies were staring at a possible Supreme Court showdown over whether the president can hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without criminal charges by declaring him an enemy combatant.
And the White House does not want that showdown. Even Harriet Miers may have realized the Bushies could lose. They got a big hint in 2004 when SCOTUS told them even “enemy combatants” must have access to courts. And when Padilla’s lawyers were about to challenge his detention in front of the SCOTUS, the Bushies suddenly changed their minds about not allowing Padilla to meet with counsel.
The Justice Department had to file a motion asking the SCOTUS not to take the case by next Monday. Instead, they announced Padilla’s indictment, taking advantage of Thanksgiving to minimize media attention.
Dahlia Lithwick writes in Slate that the mishandling of Jose Padilla is proof that we’d all be better off and safer from terrorists if alleged terrorists were handled by the criminal justice system.
More than three years after the government began holding citizens in jails without charges, there is no proof that anyone in this country is safer for it. Nor is there any proof that ordinary criminal trials for Padilla, Hamdi, and the other terrorists we’ve tagged would have exposed vital intelligence information or resulted in acquittals. Yet with Hamdi sent home, and Padilla shuffled to the criminal courts, there may be no testing the addled theory that President Bush has boundless wartime powers, even after the Supreme Court has told him he doesn’t.
Had Padilla been charged and tried back in the summer of 2002, rather than touted as some Bond villain—the Prince of Radiological Dispersion—his case would have stood for a simple legal proposition: that if you are a terrorist, a supporter of terrorism, or a would-be terrorist, the government will hunt you down and punish you. Had the government waited, tested its facts, kept expectations low, then delivered a series of convictions of even small-time al-Qaida foot soldiers, we in this country would feel safer and we would doubtless be safer. Instead Padilla, like Hamdi, was used as fodder for big speeches. They became the justification for Bush’s position that some people are so evil that the law does not deter them, that new legal systems must be invented—new systems that bear a striking resemblance to those discredited around the time of Torquemada.
Just two months ago, Bush claimed in a speech that the U.S. had foiled ten terrorist plots since September 11. On the spot to back up the claim, White House staffers hustled to patch a list together and handed it to press. The Jose Padilla plot was item #3. Are the other nine items also fakes? Has the Bush White House actually accomplished anything to make us safer from terrorism?
