See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Why Does the Wall Street Journal Hate America?
Source:
No Comment
URL Source: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/05/hbc-90002965
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Scott Horton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 11:49:01 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 308
Comments: 26
Why Does the Wall Street Journal Hate America? By Scott Horton May 20, 10:07 AM “The military tribunals are about justice and upholding proud American traditions—not part of a debate on whether the war in Iraq was, or is, a good thing.” A week ago Friday, Navy Captain Keith Allred, the military judge presiding in the Hamdan case, handed down a ruling in which he concluded that Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann—the legal adviser to the convening authority—had behaved impermissibly in bringing the case, and required Hartmann’s disqualification from the proceedings. In reaching these determinations, Capt. Allred twice cites “The Great Guantánamo Puppet Theater,” my article discussing the controversy about Hartmann’s conduct. And this has the editors at the Wall Street Journal seeing red. In the conspiracy-oriented view of the Journal, the Allred ruling is just more evidence of a “war by lawyers” against the military commissions. I plead guilty to the high crime of being a lawyer, but I was amazed to learn of my opposition to the war. I do feel that I was conned into supporting the war, and that the Journal played a less-than-honorable role in the process. That, however, is history, and feelings about the war in Iraq really have nothing to do with the process of bringing alleged terrorist masterminds to justice. The military tribunals are about justice and upholding proud American traditions—not part of a debate on whether the war in Iraq was, or is, a good thing. The Journal seriously distorts the issues in the Hamdan case. There are three things to consider: Timing. My view, widely shared by the legal community, is that the Bush Administration should have brought charges against the Gitmo defendants in the first two years following their capture. Instead it has inexplicably waited six years, and in the process subjected the prisoners to treatment that will greatly complicate the process of prosecutions. This is bad judgment both because it delays justice for the victims of the acts of which the prisoners stand accused, and because it will inevitably undermine confidence of the larger community in the fairness of our system of justice. The Journal cites the Quirin case, and so did I in an earlier article. The prosecution was conducted within a matter of months, the prisoners were not mistreated, and justice was swiftly dispensed. Political Manipulation. Judge Allred’s decision does not rest on my opinion piece. It rests on evidence taken in the proceedings before him, which I summarized. This includes the testimony of the former chief prosecutor, which the Journal has sanitized. The prosecution was pressured to bring “sexy” cases and to bring them in time for the election season, with the objective of benefiting the political party to which the Journal is closely attached. This is a horrendously improper political manipulation of the justice system and is seen as just that by most of the participants in this system, regardless of their political stripe. One of the strongest cases for prosecutors was that of David Hicks, an Australian accused of taking up arms against U.S. forces. The prosecutors’ efforts to go after Hicks were unsettled when Vice President Cheney decided to set Hicks free as part of an effort to influence the Australian elections. The result was revolting, unseemly (and ineffective, as Howard and his party went down to defeat and the blatant manipulation brought to bear in the Hicks case disgusted the Australian electorate). The Journal, however, is keen to get all the political juice it can for the beleaguered Republicans, even at the expense of the nation’s reputation for doing justice. One would be hard-pressed for better evidence of their cynically partisan and short-sighted perspective. Upholding Military Traditions. The Journal says that the “lawyers” want all Guantánamo defendants to be tried in civilian courts. Lawyers, however, rarely hold unanimous views other than on shared principles. They are united by a concern that whatever system is used, it should reflect our values of justice. In my own view, and that of a large part of the legal community, the American military justice system is a worthy alternative to the civilian courts. It reflects well upon America. It may be criticized on some points, of course, but in many respects it is more efficient and fair than the American federal courts system. The concern here is not that all of these cases must go to the civilian courts. It is, rather, that the Bush Administration has dangerously toyed with the military justice system. I have no objection to court-martialing these defendants. But they should be court-martialed under the normal rules that we apply in courts-martial. The Bush Administration has instead jury-rigged the court-martial system against these defendants, in a manner calculated to embarrass us all. And no one has been more embarrassed by the Rube Goldberg contraption they have constructed than the men and women in uniform who are asked to administer it. When the test came, in the form of the Hamdan case, we saw an amazing spectacle. The attack was led by military lawyers—defense counsel. It was sustained by the former chief prosecutor, an Air Force colonel (whose view was, as we learned, shared by many if not most of the other prosecutors). It succeeded when the judge, a Navy captain, ruled that the motion had scored its points. I can’t think of another case in which the profession has been so brought into harmony about an issue. And this raises the question: Why does the Wall Street Journal so disrespect the men and women in uniform who run our military justice system? They deserve our support and respect. But the Journal, in its partisan fervor, refuses to give them their due. What I see in the Hamdan ruling is something very basic: a vindication of the professionalism and integrity of the uniformed lawyers. They serve their country well, and they continue as the guardians of traditions that others, to their shame and to our own, have forgotten.
Congress didn’t define such unlawful influence, however, so Judge Allred defined it himself. And his elastic definition included the fact that the antiwar Harper’s magazine had published a screed against military commissions and General Hartmann. Seriously.
The larger game here, among many lawyers and most of the press, is to give the impression that military commissions are unworkable. The critics want to delay the trials long enough to push them into the next Administration, which they hope will then abandon commissions. Their ultimate goal is to get terrorists tried like any other defendant in civilian courts or regular courts-martial—fully aware of how daunting the chance of convictions would be.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
The WSJ is not alone in considering being a lawyer a high crime. By the way, Hamdan was bin Laden's chauffeur. In 1945, the Allies captured Hitler's chauffeur. He was let go, without any charges being brought against him.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Why do you people who support establishment tools hate America?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Hate America? It may interest you to know that I worked in the legal offices of the Pentagon (as a naval officer) back in 1992-4. That was after a long career in Air Force and Naval Intelligence.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
uh huh. Why did you just admit that? Arent you the one that was fishing for someone to make a direct threat against a politician a couple days ago? Or am I mistaking you for another? Tell us about ReX84. Tell us all about the plans they have for us.
Because those in the WSJ doing the bitching have never served in uniform and have no respect for either military personnel or the military justice system. To the WSJ both are to be used as tools to further political goals. Therefore they get outraged when those goals are thwarted in the name of quaint ideas like justice. That's so....parochial.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
And your point would be? A lot of people in government "service" hate America and the American people. Anyone who supports Obummer or any other establishment toady is suspect imo.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Naval Intelligence is an oxymoron.
One has only to view the physical persons themselves to arrive at certain conclusions.
Speak for yourself JT. My naval is very smart, thank you very much.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
hehehehehe
His former position is inconsistent with his current state of mind.
Cheryl Tweedy belly button Ay Carumba!
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976
Years ago I had cause to wander thru an Air Farce intelligence unit... My partner in crime shared the same conclusion, these people looked like the type you see hanging around bath houses. No wonder the intelligence community is so prone to spies and total incompetence. People we would not associate with.
So you think Hitler's chaffeur should have been charge with what crime???
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
Yep, the "intelligence community" had bin Laden all but telling them the floor numbers where the planes would impact, and they remain confused to this day. These are the people, who as kids, liked to play with string and magnifying glasses.
That's easy, he is guilty of not crashing the car killing Hitler instantly when he had the chance. ;-D
The facility I visited was an underground unit and most fitting for rodent looking types that were there. Row upon row of desks, lower rung officer flunkies that seemed to carry acne as a badge.
He's Batman, too.
"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"
* Hitler and Goering are standing atop the Berlin Television Tower. Hitler says, "I'd like to do something to cheer up the Berliners." Goering: "Then jump." (A munitions worker who told this joke was executed after being denounced by her colleague.)
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
Fortunately, few mistakes in life are truly unrecoverable.
If you will go along with me we'll travel with the tide My point was that it was and is outrageous to hold bin Laden's chauffeur prisoner, especially under such awful conditions.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I posted this piece in the expectation that you guys would repeat the neocons' bogus line about people they do not like hating America, and thus reveal yourselves as the neocons that you really are. You could have joined Horton and me in rejecting that charge as bogus. That's not what you have done. You guys have not disappointed me.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
So you share the WSJ's contempt for the rule of law.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
"Since 9/11 things are different...." -Bush, TSA, your police dept., etc.
“The best and first guarantor of our neutrality and our independent existence is the defensive will of the people…and the proverbial marksmanship of the Swiss shooter. Each soldier a good marksman! Each shot a hit!” Schweizerische Schutzenseitunt (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941 And apparently also a good many people on this forum.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I plead guilty to the high crime of being a lawyer
#2. To: aristeides (#1)
Lord Acton
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#4. To: aristeides, ALL! (#3)
(Edited)
Hate America? It may interest you to know that I worked in the legal offices of the Pentagon (as a naval officer) back in 1992-4. That was after a long career in Air Force and Naval Intelligence.
#5. To: aristeides (#0)
And this raises the question: Why does the Wall Street Journal so disrespect the men and women in uniform who run our military justice system? They deserve our support and respect. But the Journal, in its partisan fervor, refuses to give them their due. What I see in the Hamdan ruling is something very basic: a vindication of the professionalism and integrity of the uniformed lawyers. They serve their country well, and they continue as the guardians of traditions that others, to their shame and to our own, have forgotten.
#6. To: aristeides (#3)
Hate America? It may interest you to know that I worked in the legal offices of the Pentagon (as a naval officer) back in 1992-4. That was after a long career in Air Force and Naval Intelligence.
Lord Acton
#7. To: aristeides (#3)
#8. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
Naval Intelligence is an oxymoron.
#9. To: Jethro Tull (#7)
Naval Intelligence is an oxymoron.
#10. To: Hayek Fan (#9)
#11. To: Cynicom (#8)
#12. To: Hayek Fan (#9)
--
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#13. To: Ferret Mike (#12)
Cheryl Tweedy belly button
#14. To: Jethro Tull (#11)
#15. To: aristeides (#1)
In 1945, the Allies captured Hitler's chauffeur. He was let go, without any charges being brought against him.
#16. To: Cynicom (#14)
(Edited)
these people looked like the type you see hanging around bath houses. No wonder the intelligence community is so prone to spies and total incompetence.
#17. To: X-15 (#15)
"Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly." Robert F. Kennedy
#18. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
#19. To: PSUSA (#4)
uh huh. Why did you just admit that?
#20. To: Ferret Mike (#17)
#21. To: aristeides (#1)
I plead guilty to the high crime of being a lawyer
And I will always keep you on the sheltered side
#22. To: X-15 (#15)
So you think Hitler's chaffeur should have been charge with what crime???
#23. To: James Deffenbach (#2)
#24. To: Tauzero (#21)
#25. To: aristeides (#22)
My point was that it was and is outrageous to hold bin Laden's chauffeur prisoner, especially under such awful conditions.
#26. To: X-15 (#25)
Bush, TSA, your police dept., etc.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest