Yet again, the system works
The failed Times Square bomber pleads guilty,, proving yet again that the law enforcement approach works
Yet again, the system works
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square bomber, pleaded guilty yesterday in federal criminal court. He didn't seek leniency in exchange for his plea. He faces a mandatory term of life imprisonment, the maximum sentence for the 10 counts listed in the criminal indictment. He outlined his criminal behavior to the federal judge yesterday, just as he had cooperated with the authorities for several weeks following his May 3 arrest, when he had waived his Miranda rights and spoken openly without counsel.
Yesterday's successful conclusion of the Shahzad case is worth a quick mention, if only to remind us how the Republican right had predictably attacked the Obama administration's May decision to pursue the case via the criminal courts, assailing it (naturally) as a sign of weakness.
The usual critics claimed that the Obama team was supposedly wimping out by treating Shahzad as a potential criminal rather than as a military combatant. Various Fox Newsers complained that Obama was afraid to use the word "terrorist." Former New York Gov. George Pataki complained that terrorist suspects should not be allowed to "lawyer up" and thus "weaken our security." Liz Cheney complained that the Obama people "aren't willing to acknowledge that (they're) facing a committed network of terrorists." John McCain and GOP congressman Peter King complained that it was a mistake to read Shahzad his Miranda rights (despite the fact that Shahzad, as an American citizen, was entitled to the reading; and that he willfully cooperated before the authorities finally read his rights).
And as recently as yesterday morning, conservative commentator Andrew McCarthy of The National Review was assailing the purported weakness of the law enforcement approach. He claimed that the government's 10-count criminal indictment was proof that Shahzad was not coughing up crucial terrorist info. When a bad guy is really and truly cooperating with the authorities, he wrote, "the standard practice is to strike a deal, complete with a cooperation agreement and a guilty plea." Ooops! Late in the day, the authorities announced that they had struck a deal with Shahzad for a guilty plea.
In reality, of course, it was no surprise that Shahzad was successfully routed through the criminal court process - because that's precisely what has happened, hundreds of times, in terrorist cases dating back to the early days of the Bush administration. As I've noted here previously, Richard Reid, the failed ’02 shoe bomber, was processed through the criminal courts. The 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui was processed through the criminal courts. The Bush team also prosecuted '01 "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla via the criminal courts. Indeed, the Bush team, in one of its own budget documents, reported that, between 2001 and 2008, it had utilized the criminal courts to obtain 319 convictions in "terrorism or terrorist-related cases" – roughly 90 percent of all cases, with the average sentence running for 16 years.
Let's see whether the McCain/Fox/Limbaugh nexus will rise up today and assail Obama's Justice Department for sending the cooperative Shahzad to the slammer for life. I suspect not. In our attack culture, there's no percentage in saying, "Gee, I guess we were wrong."
-------
The sole proprietor of this blog is on the road for the month of June. Virtually all June posts will be briefer than the norm, except on the rare weekdays when posts won't show up at all. Apologies in advance for this disturbance in the force. The standard verbosity will return next Monday.
Tom: Get your facts straight. That wasn't the SCOTUS, that was the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and it is expected to be appealed to the SCOTUS. I think the Obama administration's detention of people at Bagram without charges or trial is repugnant, considering it's previous remarks about Guantanamo. So the CIA can abduct someone in Thailand and send him to Bagram (as has happened) where he is afforded no habeas rights, instead of Guantanamo, where he would be. It's especially sickening considering the documented abuses, even killings, of prisoners at Bagram. But this shouldn't be a partisan issue (it's not to me).— p-diddy- tom: diddy beat me to Bagram. He also left out that Bagram is in a war zone. There is a long historical precedent ragarding non-combatants captured in a war zone (flying them there is a separate matter). But I wanted to respond to your War on Drugs" and "War on Poverty" comments. Fell free to call it a "War on blank". It's catchy, albeit kind of stupid (drugs and poverty are objects, terrorism is a tactic). But the difference is that on the "War of Terror", the government actually acts as if it's a traditional war, and claims war powers; that's not something done in the other cases, Clancy novels aside. We always here that the detainess will be kept for the duration of the war. So, my basic question is this - when is the war on terror over? The president can't declare wars, so he can't stop them. Does congress need to rescind the broad authorization they gave Bush after 9/11?— still_independent
- tom/swedesboromike: neither of you responded last blog. Do you remember the "Amazongate" story back in February that you two brought up repeatedly (that the rainforest claims in the IPCC report were from a non-peer reviewed WWF story)? Well, the Sunday Times from the UK, (the paper that ran the story) just retracted it. Turns out that it was peer reviewed. And the author from the times knew it, but printed the story anyway. Here's part of the appology "...The IPCC had referenced the claim to a report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) by Andrew Rowell and Peter Moore, whom the article described as “green campaigners” with “little scientific expertise.” The article also stated that the authors’ research had been based on a scientific paper that dealt with the impact of human activity rather than climate change. In fact, the IPCC’s Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence. In the case of the WWF report, the figure had, in error, not been referenced, but was based on research by the respected Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) which did relate to the impact of climate change. We also understand and accept that Mr Rowell is an experienced environmental journalist and that Dr Moore is an expert in forest management, and apologise for any suggestion to the contrary. The article also quoted criticism of the IPCC’s use of the WWF report by Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. We accept that, in his quoted remarks, Dr Lewis was making the general point that both the IPCC and WWF should have cited the appropriate peer-reviewed scientific research literature. As he made clear to us at the time, including by sending us some of the research literature, Dr Lewis does not dispute the scientific basis for both the IPCC and the WWF reports’ statements on the potential vulnerability of the Amazon rainforest to droughts caused by climate change."— still_independent
- There are numerous cases of people being abducted in Yemen, Thailand, Pakistan and other countries and being sent to Bagram.— p-diddy
- Tom, thanks. It was a lovely weekend. (And I know that irrespective is not a word. People use it, of course, but they also use,"If he would have" instead of, "If he had." It's a sign of the times. No one teaches grammar anymore.) As for the current subject, I think that habeas corpus is what makes us what we are -- that American exceptionalism many of you speak of. We are supposed to be fair. To apply justice to all, including terrorists. If we begin deciding to whom we give fairness and whom we think don't deserve it, we have undermined everything we stand for. We can't automatically decide that someone is a terrorist without any evidence. If there's evidence, that person will no doubt be convicted. No one should judge anyone who hasn't been through our justice system. Do we make mistakes? Yes, sometimes. But more often than not, our juries are quite fair-minded. We should work with them. OK. I'm off for the night. See you tomorrow.— NigeltheMastiff
- Tom, there is a difference between "war on drugs/terror" and "war on poverty". The people who (originally) came up with this "war on" catchphrase were the "war on poverty" people in the 1960's (flaming liberals, no doubt), but they were sincere in wanting to present a sense of urgency about poverty in America. The wars on drugs and terrorism were cynical fabrications from the get-go, and were never about anything but money-making opportunities.— yoda
- Still Independent- I have not commented on that because I have no idea what your talking about. Some UK publications said research was not peer reviewed but now it turns out it was? Is that it? I think you know how I feel about this subject. I think it's all a big con and I think people are making millions of dollars in prosletizing this. See Al Gore
- "BP knew how to play the game. It repeated all the environmentally correct platitudes that tickle the fancy of "NGO leaders, journalists, political elites," in the words of the case study. It supported the fashionable reform of the day, cap-and-trade, knowing that the system would favor the big and connected, like itself. And it showered campaign contributions on the candidate of Hope and Change (its employees gave Obama about twice as much in donations as they did John McCain in 2008).".......................... Beyond Petroleum-BP- so funny-http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/23/opposing_big_business__big_government_106051.html
- swedesboromike: if you have no idea what I'm talking about, then apparently I remember more of the --stuff-- (filter, I hate you!) you post then you do. On 9:34 AM, 02/02/201, tom posted " ... from the UK Times "A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland. The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists.". You then posted about it on Feb 7/8 (and mangled it a bit, somehow tying it into glacial retreat). I was simply point out to you and tom, that further proof of "the hoax", that you two gleefully touted a few months ago, turns out to be incorrect. The paper has issued a retraction AND an apology (for knowingly mischaracterizing a paper).— still_independent
- swedesboromike : while I may agree with you on the current version of "cap and trade", which branch of the government would need to pass any cap-and-trade legislation? Correct, the legislative. And which party, despite having fewer members, received a majority of BP money? Correct again. the Republicans. Now if you're making the point that they ALL take the money, then I'll agree with you. But it always seeems to have an anti-Obama slant with you.— still_independent
- Tom: You're such a partisan tool. You couldn't care less about civil liberties; for you it's all about cheering for your team. Reading over these comments, it's pretty clear that's the case.— p-diddy
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
