Even congressional Democrats are disgusted with the Obama administration's phony accounting of what the stimulus plan supposedly is accomplishing. Earlier this week, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey lambasted the government's flawed data purporting to show that $160 billion in stimulus spending has created or saved at least 640,000 jobs. In response to reports that the administration has been forced to delete 60,000 jobs from its list and that it claimed to have created 30 jobs in a non-existent congressional district, Obey had this to say:
The inaccuracies are outrageous and the administration owes itself, the Congress and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes. We designed the Recovery Act to be open and transparent. Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now.
At the Washington Post, however, Alec MacGillis sees the problem not as a combination of dishonesty and incompetence by the Obama administration, but rather as the administration's "decision to provide numbers in the first place." This seems like an odd position for a newspaper man to take. Isn't lack of transparency a bad thing? That was always the Post's view during the Bush administration.
MacGillis points out that it is "exceedingly difficult for even the most conscientious government agency to calculate the jobs impact of a stimulus grant." But if that's true, and I'm pretty sure it is, then it must be even more difficult (and probably impossible) to calculate the jobs impact of stimulus legislation before it has been adopted. Yet, Obama didn't hesitiate to make this "calculation," promising that the stimulus proposal would save or create 3.5 million jobs in two years.
The essence of the problem, then, is Obama's bogus projection. But MacGillis apparently is willing to give the president a pass on that.
Once Obama made his baseless promise about the impact of the stimulus legislation, he had little choice but to track in some fashion the legislation's impact on employment. Had he declined to do so, surely the Washington Post and other MSM watchdogs would have been all over the administration, citing the president's promises of "transparency" and the need to hold him accountable for....
Come to think of it, MacGillis is right -- Obama did make a strategic mistake by agreeing to provide data.
There's a stock column appearing in left-liberal MSM outlets all over the country, The author varies, but the main point is the same: Republican Senators are guilty of "hypocrisy" for attempting to filibuster one of President Obama's judicial nominees after having criticized Democrats for filibustering a host of President Bush's nominees a few years ago. This piece by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post is an example of the genre.
But why is it hypocritical for Republicans to resist a regime under which judges nominated by a Republican president need 60 votes for confirmation -- as so many did for years and some did until the bitter end -- while judges nominated by a Democratic president need only 50 votes? Milbank has no answer. His response to Senator Sessions' articulation of this point is to sniff "Un-huh."
This is vintage Milbank -- fourth-rate analysis coupled with third-rate irony.
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner appeared before the Joint Economic Committee today. One striking feature of Geithner's testimony was how partisan it was. In keeping with the Obama administration's mantra, he repeatedly tried to cast blame on the Bush administration while failing to acknowledge that when the financial crisis developed, he was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and as such one of the most influential figures in our financial system. If he saw the crisis coming, or thought that the administration's policies were badly misguided, he had every opportunity to speak up, and his words would have been highly influential. But he did no such thing.
I had lunch with Geithner a couple of years ago, when he headed the New York Fed and before the crisis developed. It was an odd encounter: he seemed to want to convey the impression that he was in the knowand privy to deep secrets, and that he was wiser than the other leading figures responsible for economic policy. But he did this without ever saying anything substantive or even, frankly, very coherent. If he had any disagreement with the policies of the Fed or of the Bush Treasury Department, henever hinted at what they might be.
Fireworks broke out on several occasions in today's hearing, as when Kevin Brady of Texas called on Geithner to resign. I thought this exchange with Congressman Michael Burgess was actually more interesting; I've bolded some of Burgess's key observations:
BURGESS: Secretary Geithner, you were referencing in your answer to an earlier question about when the financial catastrophe started in September, October of last year, if I understood you correctly, you said that this country did not have the tools to manage that panic. But the inference that I took from that was that there were countries overseas that did have such tools.
Now, I recall a phone call with your predecessor in late October of 2008, when it became public that the United States was pumping monies into the central bank in Europe, and other places. And I suggested that was not the correct thing to be doing. And he said, if the United States is not helping these countries, then they will collapse.
So, which is it?
Were we the savior of those countries that, according to the current president, didn't even like us that much until he took office? Were we the savior of those banks and those countries? Or were we, in fact, incapable of dealing with the problem?
And was that money, in fact, going to foreign banks at that time, in October of last year? This was widely reported in the press.
GEITHNER: Congressman, there is no country that came into this crisis with the tools to manage it effectively. And the basic failure I described here was a common failure.
One thing you saw around the world was...
BURGESS: Well, let me ask you a question. Then how did George Bush cause those countries to be unprepared for a financial crisis?
Glass-Steagall has come up this morning. If I recall, Glass- Steagall was repealed -- that bill was signed by Bill Clinton...
GEITHNER: You're right about that.
BURGESS: ... not George Bush.
GEITHNER: You're absolutely... BURGESS: And I frankly don't understand. If that's such a good protection, this president's been in office for 10 months. Where's the signed legislation reinstating Glass-Steagall? What...
GEITHNER: Actually, I would not support reinstating Glass-Steagall. And I don't actually believe that the end of Glass-Steagall played a significant role in the cause of this crisis.
But...
BURGESS: Well, that's not being stated to this committee. Let me move on, because my time is going to be limited. I do hope we'll be able to submit some of our questions in writing... because this is a critical hearing, and time is limited.
All right. We've got the TARP. It's supposed to expire. Why won't we let it die a natural death, rather than letting it painfully linger and absorbing tax dollars?
GEITHNER: We are working to put the TARP out of its misery. And no one will be happier than I am...
BURGESS: Well, according to my figures...
GEITHNER: .. to see that program terminated and unwound. And I want to point out that, we are moving very aggressively to close down and terminate the programs that defined TARP at the beginning of the crisis. Now...
BURGESS: Well, it looks like the money is going out with little or no oversight...
GEITHNER: No, that's absolutely not true.
BURGESS: Well...
GEITHNER: The Congress established three separate oversight committees...
BURGESS: Your own special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program has got several concerns about it. Why not just stop spending on the TARP funds? And why not repeal the program? We don't need it anymore. The American people never liked it. Let's just do away with it.
GEITHNER: Let me just point out the disagreement between what your colleague said and I think what most people across the country understand and believe, which is that, if you look at what's happening in housing, if you look at what's happening to small businesses, this economy still faces tremendous financial challenges.
BURGESS: What's happening in small businesses is people are frightened to add jobs, because they don't know what we're going to do to them in health care. They don't know what we're going to do to them in financial regulation. They're scared of what we might do with energy prices in the future with cap and trade. Small business -- medium sized business is frightened at jobs right now.
I could help the president and his panel. He doesn't need another program. We don't need another stimulus. We need to provide some tax relief and then get the heck out of the way, and the American economy will recover as it has always done.
GEITHNER: That broad philosophy helped produce the worst financial crisis and the worst recession we'd seen in generations. We had a pretty good test of that philosophy -- a pretty good test of those policies that did not serve the country well. Now...
BURGESS: Mr. Geithner, when I came here in 2003, we were in a jobless recovery. Tax relief was passed in May of 2003, and as a consequence by July of that year, we were adding jobs at a significant rate. It seems to have worked fairly well.
Note how dishonest Geithner's response to Burgess is. The recent financial crisis arose largely out of, and was fueled largely by, government policies and programs--the Community Reinvestment Act; other regulatory policies that pressured banks to make bad loans to underqualified borrowers; Fannie Mae; Freddie Mac; the multiple bailouts of the 1990s that convinced Wall Street that the government would come to its rescue if risk-taking didn't pan out. For the details, read Architects of Ruin. It is telling that our Secretary of the Treasury is not able to rise above such crude and misleading partisanship.
We noted last night that under the Obama administration's law-enforcement approach to terrorism, if we capture Osama bin Laden the first things we'll have to do are read him his rights and get him a free lawyer. When Lindsay Graham pointed this out to Eric Holder in yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Holder feebly responded that maybe we wouldn't have to Mirandize bin Laden because the evidence against him is "overwhelming."
This answer was essentially nonsensical, but Pat Leahy amplified it this morning, in a further effort at spin control:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of that committee, said that arguments raised by Republican senators about whether bin Laden would be afforded Miranda rights if he were captured was a "red herring."
"The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was covering is not realistic," Leahy said during an appearance on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN.
"For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden -- we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.
There you have it: under the Obama administration's approach we won't be able to interrogate bin Laden, but that's OK--we don't need to! Do you think bin Laden might know a thing or two about al Qaeda's plans, operations, personnel and methods that it might be useful for us to find out? Leahy's claim is beyond stupid, but this is what happens when the administration embarks on a policy that simply cannot be defended.
Responding to Sen. Lindsey Graham's concern that under administration policy we might have to "Mirandize" Osama bin Laden, Sen. Patrick Leahy claims that "If the U.S. captures bin Laden, there's no need to interrogate him." Leahy explained that we already "have enough on" bin Laden.
Conservatives like to say that the Democrats are reverting to a pre-9/11 mentality whereby we treat Islamist terrorism mainly as a law enforcement issue. But I'm pretty sure that, even pre-9/11, we would have interrogated a captured terrorist leader not just to "get enough on him" for a prosecution, but also to find out where his fellow terrorists could be found and what they might be planning.
We've commented before on how often voters' experience and common sense allows them to see through the fog of misdirection that emanates from politicians and the media. The latest example: 62% say that "tax cuts are a better way to create jobs and fight unemployment. Only 21% believe that additional stimulus spending is a more effective tool." Overall, 58% say that increased government spending tends to be bad for the economy. Consistent with these views, 58% don't believe the government's claims about how many jobs the stimulus bill has "saved or created."
This reveals what a hollow exercise the administration's "jobs summit" next month will be. Here as in other areas, the Obama administration will dither because its ideological blinders won't allow it to consider what most people know is the most effective course of action. This will only deepen the general perception that the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats are out of touch with the nation's problems.
I'm currently finishing the last volume of Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time. One of the book's themes is the decline and fall of Kenneth Widmerpool, a friend (sort of) of the narrator who is introduced in the first pages of the first volume, some forty years before the series' end.
It occurs to me that there are several parallels between the collapse of Kenneth Widmerpool and that of Andrew Sullivan, who was once a respected journalistand even called himself a conservative. For whatever reason, Sullivan has now fallen to a state from which one can only avert one's eyes. Cassandra takes a last look at Sullivan's terminal obsession, Trig Palin--he is a "birther" of a particularly crazed sort. The most sympathetic thing we can do at this point is draw the curtain.
PAUL adds: John, I'm delighted that you enjoyed Dance enough to have made it to the end of Powell's twelve volumes. Sir Kenneth (or "Ken" by the end, if I recall correctly) strikes me as rather more interesting than Sullivan.
JOHN adds: Paul introduced me to Dance several years ago. My wife, who is also an astute literary critic, says that Sullivan reminds her of Ralph Trilipush, the title character in Arthur Phillips' The Egyptologist, in the obsessive and delusional ravings that occupy the (somewhat too long) last chapters of the book. Phillips is, I believe, a family friend of Scott's.
Arthur Phillips's father is Minneapolis attorney Felix Phillips. I worked as a summer clerk for Felix between my first and second year of law school, and wrote about my attendance at the Federalist Society 2006 annual conference with Felix in Washington in "Are you now or have you ever been?"
Some of us went to law school hoping we might one day participate in the "trial of the century." That trial would command universal attention, involve the central issue of the epoch, and result not only in a just verdict but also a vindication of our way of life.
There may be an element of this sort of juvenile thinking in the decision to try KSM in federal court in New York. The trial will certainly command vast attention and it concerns matters that have dominated this century to date.
Most of all, some liberals seem to think that when a New York jury convicts KSM it will vindicate our justice system and, indeed, our democracy. Think of the New Yorkers as the Amish at the end of the classic movie "Witness;" the prosecutors as Harrison Ford saying "enough," and KSM as that cop who "lost his religion" and is forced to bow his head in shame in front of the assembled, God-fearing Plain People.
It's a nice fantasy, but no more. KSM is not going to bow his head; he is going to pitch his cause. Few in this country will sympathize, though some will. But in certain quarters of the world, his message will resonate.
Nor can the trial vindicate our system of justice. For, as John and others have pointed out, KSM will not be freed if he is acquitted. This makes the trial a sham.
Thus, when the judge delivers his or her message to KSM (he or she will probably unable to resist), the words will not impress him and should not particularly impress us. The MSM will tout them, as they did Judge Brinkema's words to Moussaou (she said he would "die with a whimper") but the victims of 9/11 will still be dead, the defendant will still be unrepentant, and we will still be regarded as a laughingstock by our enemies for having been played by KSM.
The judge will probably claim that we are the winners and KSM is the loser. The judge will be correct. But not because we wasted millions of dollars providing the terrorist with a platform, only to achieve a preordained outcome that could have been obtained without doing so.
We are the winners because KSM's fellow terrorists have, against the odds, been unable so far to strike us again. And that's not down to our legal system; it's down to the way we went about fighting terrorism, including the tough tactics we employed against KSM and other terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11.
Herein may lie the most fundamental reason why President Obama and Attorney General want to have this trial. They would like to move our courts to the center of the stage in the fight against terrorism and associate the judicial system, and themselves, with a success story that actually was achieved through less lofty means.
Lindsay Graham frequently drives us crazy, but it can't be denied that he has his moments. In today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he took Eric Holder to the woodshed:
Graham is right, of course. Under the Obama administration's policies, if we capture Osama bin Laden tomorrow, the first thing we will have to do is read him his rights, and the second is get him a lawyer at taxpayer expense. The argument that Holder tries to interpose--maybe we won't have to Mirandize bin Laden because the evidence of his guilt is "overwhelming"--is pathetic. Can you imagine trying to explain to a federal judge that a criminal defendant had a constitutional right to have his rights read to him, but you skipped that step because the evidence of his guilt isoverwhelming? The fact that the Obama administration needs to resort to such silly evasions demonstrates that its policy is indefensible.
To the extent that the Obama administration tries to justify its criminalization of the war against terror, its excuse is that doing so "vindicates the rule of law." But, as Holder's exchange with Graham showed, the administration is happy to abandon the "rule of law" as soon as it becomes inconvenient. In that regard, one basic question has always been, what happens if we prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates and the result is an acquittal or a hung jury? Senator Kohl asked Eric Holder that question today:
KOHL: Mr. Holder, last week you announced that the department will bring to Guantanamo detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks to trial in federal court in New York, as we've talked about this morning. On Friday you said that you'd not have authorized prosecution if you were not confident that the outcome would be successful. However, many critics have offered their own predictions about how such a trial might well play out.
One concern we have heard from critics of your decision is that the defendants could get off on legal technicalities, in which case these terrorists would walk free. Does this scenario have any merit? If not, why? And in the worst case scenario that the trial does not result in a conviction, what would be your next steps?
HOLDER: Many of those who have criticized the decision -- and not all -- but many of those who have criticized the decision have done so, I think, from a position of ignorance. They have not had access to the materials that I have had access to.
They've not had a chance to look at the facts, look at the applicable laws and make the determination as to what our chances of success are. I would not have put these cases in Article III courts if I did not think our chances of success were not good -- in fact, if I didn't think our chances of success were enhanced by bringing the cases there. My expectation is that these capable prosecutors from the Justice Department will be successful in the prosecution of these cases.
KOHL: But taking into account that you never know what happens when you walk into a court of law, in the event that for whatever reason they do not get convicted, what would be your next step? I'm sure you must have talked about it.
HOLDER: What I told the prosecutors and what I will tell you and what I spoke to them about is that failure is not an option. Failure is not an option. This -- these are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result.
Failure is not an option! Let's hope that's true, in the sense that if a jury acquits KSM or fails to reach a verdict, he would be kept in custody anyway. But, that being the case, isn't the criminal prosecution fundamentally fraudulent? Barack Obama, like Eric Holder, has assured the American people that KSM will be convicted:
In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."
Can you imagine any other context in which the President of the United States would assure the public that a criminal defendant is guilty; that he will be convicted by a jury; and that he will be executed? Such comments make a mockery of the "rule of law" as normally understood.
It's true, of course, that Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed are obviously guilty of the terrorist attacks of which they proudly boast. We don't need a judge and jury to tell us this. In my view, we would be amply justified in simply shooting them.
But if only one jury verdict is acceptable; if the President is willing to assure the American people of conviction; if acquittal or a hung jury is "not an option;" if, assuming such a result, the defendant would be returned to prison anyway--then it is ridiculous to say that we are going through this charade in order to "vindicate the rule of law."
The 32 teams that will compete in the 2010 World Cup finals in South Africa have now been determined. They are:
Italy
Germany
Holland
Spain
Denmark
Switzerland
England
Slovakia
Serbia
Portugal
Greece -- upset winners over Ukraine in today's play-in match in Donetsk
Slovenia -- shock winners over Russia; the former Soviet Union states are shut-out
France -- overtime winners over Ireland, a victory accomplished via a blatant hand-ball
Brazil
Paraguay
Chile
Argentina
Uruquay
Mexico
United States
Honduras
Ghana
Ivory Coast
Nigeria
Cameroon
Algeria
South Africa
Australia
Japan
South Korea
North Korea
New Zealand
At this point, Brazil and Spain stand head-and-shoulders above the rest of the field. Not only did they win their respective continental championships two years ago, but as a result they were able to play in the Confederations Cup this summer, won by Brazil, where they continued to jell. Their respective victories of England and Argentina in "friendlies" on Saturday confirmed how well they have come together as teams. And both are brimming with talent. The rest of the pack has a good deal of catching up to do over the next six months.
Watch out for the African teams, though. For once, the strongest black African teams all made it through the preliminary rounds -- there will be no Togos competing next year. And with the competition in Africa, I expect more to see more than the usual one African team in the final 16, and quite possibly one in the final 4 for the first time.
On Saturday, we'll know the composition of the eight groups that will compete in the first round to determine who advances to the round of 16.
CORRECTION: The "draw" will occur the first week of December, not this coming Saturday.
The Phillips Foundation is now accepting applications for the 2010 Robert Novak Journalism Fellowship Program. Print and online journalists with less than 10 years of professional experience are eligible. The Foundation created this program to provide fellowships for projects by journalists who share its mission to advance constitutional principles, a democratic society and a vibrant free enterprise system.
The Phillips Foundation awards $75,000 and $50,000 full-time fellowships and $25,000 part-time fellowships to undertake and complete a one-year project of the applicant's choosing focusing on journalism supportive of American culture and a free society. In addition, the Foundation offers separate yearlong fellowships on the environment, on the benefits of free-market competition, and on law enforcement.
To apply, contact: The Phillips Foundation, 1 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 620, Washington, DC 20001, Attention: John Farley. Phone: 202-250-3887, ext. 609. Or you can email Mr. Farley at jfarley@thephillipsfoundation.org.
Applications must be postmarked by February 22, 2010.
In his press conference this past Friday and in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, Attorney General Holder has explained his decision to refer KSM and his 9/11 co-conspirators to trial based on a "protocol" released in July.
What protocol? I don't recall reading anything about it at the time it was released, or seeing anything about it in connection with Holder's decision to deliver KSM et al. to federal court in NewYork for trial cloaked with the constitutional rights of American citizens.
I called the Justice Department this morning to ask for a copy of the protocol and was directed to the document in issue. It is titled "Determination of Guantanamo Cases Referred for Prosecution." The first paragraph describes a process for determining which cases are to be referred for criminal prosecution. The second paragraph sets forth the "Factors for Determination of Prosecution." It reads as follows:
There is a presumption that, where feasible. referred cases will be prosecuted in an Article III [federal] court, in keeping with traditional principles of federal prosecution. Nonetheless, where other compelling factors make it more appropriate to prosecute a case in a reformed military commission, it may be prosecuted there. That inquiry-turns on the following three broad sets of factors, which are based on forum-selection factors traditionally used by federal prosecutors:
A. Strength of Interest. The factors to be considered here are the nature of the offenses to be charged or any pending charges; the nature and gravity of the conduct underlying the offenses; the identity of victims of the offense; the location in which the offenses occurred; the location and context in which the individual was apprehended; and the manner in which the case was investigated and evidence gathered, including the investigating entities.
B. Efficiency. The factors to be considered here are protection of intelligence sources and methods; the venue in which the case would be tried; issues related to multiple-defendant trials; foreign policy concerns; legal or evidentiary problems that might attend prosecution in the other jurisdiction: and efficiency and resource concerns.
C. Other Prosecution Considerations. The factors to be considered here are the extent to which the forum, and the offenses that could be charged in that forum, permit a full presentation of the wrongful conduct allegedly committed by the accused, and the available sentence upon conviction of those offenses.
Despite the bare bones nature of the enumerated factors and the lack of detail regarding how they are to applied, this is a shocking document. The operative presumption is a rule in favor of criminal prosecution. Nothing could more clearly indicate the Obama administration's treatment of the war on terrorism as a venture in aw enforcement. In the words of the late John Lennon: "WAR IS OVER! (if you want it)."
Given the referral of the case against KSM et al. for prosecution in federal court, we can do a little reverse engineering to figure out how the enumerated factors are apparently applied by the Obama administration. If the attack occurred in the United States, it weighs in favor of criminal prosecution. If the attack focused on American civilians, it weighs in favor of criminal prosecution. (It is less clear to me how the other factors are weighed and applied in practice.) Application of these factors can convert heinous acts of war and war crimes into criminal offenses with respect to which the perpetrators are subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States.
That way madness lies. The Obama administration is engaged in a venture that will simultaneously undermine the prosecution of the war in which we are engaged while it blurs the distinction between war and crime. It is a venture that works a great burden on the federal courts and prosecutors. To what end?
With a few exceptions, Attorney General Holder has been exceedingly wary of articulating the application of the "factors" to KSM et al. other than by general reference to the "protocol." As we pointed out, what Holder has said about application of the factors makes no sense at all. Attacks on Americans in the United States are presumably to be treated as crimes subject to prosecution in federal court. Why? What is the underlying rationale? Again, Holder has been wary of articulating it.
Whatever it is, notice should be taken. The Obama administration's "protocol" sends up a red flag signaling a great danger to the people of the United States.
Attorney General Holder is testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning. We have obtained a copy of Holder's opening statement from the Justice Department. On the question why Holder has decided to bring KSM et al. up on criminal charges in federal court in New York, Holder made these preliminary reflections:
I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case in the best forum.
I studied this issue extensively. I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. I asked a lot of questions and weighed every alternative. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.
I know there are members of this committee, and members of the public, who have strong feelings on both sides. There are some who disagree with the decision to try the alleged Cole bomber and several others in a military commission, just as there are some who disagree with prosecuting the 9/11 plotters in federal court.:
Okay, so why did he decide in favor of federal court rather than a military commission? Holder then made the following points:
This was a tough call, and reasonable people can disagree with my conclusion that these individuals should be tried in federal court rather than a military commission.
The 9/11 attacks were both an act of war and a violation of our federal criminal law, and they could have been prosecuted ineither federal courts or military commissions. Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism.
Therefore, at the outset of my review of these cases, I had no preconceived views as to the merits of either venue, and in fact on the same day that I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case in the best forum.
I studied this issue extensively. I consulted the Secretary of Defense. I heard from prosecutors from my Department and from the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions. I spoke to victims on both sides of the question. I asked a lot of questions and weighed every alternative. And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court.
I know there are members of this committee, and members of the public, who have strong feelings on both sides. There are some who disagree with the decision to try the alleged Cole bomber and several others in a military commission, just as there are some who disagree with prosecuting the 9/11 plotters in federal court.
Despite these disagreements, I hope we can have an open, honest, and informed discussion about that decision today, and as part of that discussion, I would like to clear up some of the misinformation that I have seen since Friday.
First, we know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years. There are more than 300 convicted international and domestic terrorists currently in Bureau of Prisons custody, including those responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the attacks on our embassies in Africa. Our courts have a long history of handling these cases, and no district has a longer history than the Southern District of New York in Manhattan. I have talked to Mayor Bloomberg of New York, and both he and the Police Commissioner Ray Kelly believe that we can safely hold these trials in New York.
Second, we can protect classified material during trial. The Classified Information Procedures Act, or CIPA, establishes strict rules and procedures for the use of classified information at trial, and we have used it to protect classified information in a range of terrorism cases. In fact, the standards recently adopted by Congress to govern the use of classified information in military commissions are derived from the very CIPA rules that we use in federal court.
Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions. Before the commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an "inquisition," condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.
Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I'm not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.
Fourth, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes. And I expect that they will be held in custody under Special Administrative Measures reserved for the most dangerous criminals.
Finally, there are some who have said this decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don't realize this nation is at war. Three weeks ago, I had the honor of joining the President at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of the remains of eighteen Americans, including three DEA agents, who lost their lives to the war in Afghanistan. The brave soldiers and agents carried home on that plane gave their lives to defend this country and its values, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to carry on the work for which they sacrificed.
I know that we are at war.
I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. I have personally witnessed that somber fact in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad, and I have seen it in the daily intelligence stream I review each day. Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.
Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power - civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others - to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.
We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.
In making this and every other decision I have made as Attorney General, my paramount concern is the safety of the American people and the preservation of American values. I am confident this decision meets those goals, and that it will withstand the judgment of history.
A close reader will observe that, at least in this opening statement, Holder doesn't actually explain "why [he] made this decision" between military commission and federal court. He begs the question and simply reiterates his conclusion.
I'm sure some of the senators will seek to explore the question with Holder and to obtain an answer. But it is a peculiar fact that Holder simply does not answer the question he purports to address in his opening statement. The answer is, so to speak, the dove that dare not speak its name.
PAUL adds: Rarely has a public official said less in more words. My takeaway, though he never quites says it, is that Holder opted for federal court because he's a prosecutor; in other words, this is his instinct and what he knows. The "biographical explanation" is pretty hollow, but at least it's more innocent than other plausible alternative ones.
UPDATE (by Paul): Andy McCarthy provides this account of Holder's testimony, including Holder's attack on McCarthy himself.
The Rasmussen survey finds that Republican candidates continue to enjoy a six-point lead over Democrats in the generic Congressional preference poll. This survey offers more evidence that independent voters are decisively turning away from the Democrats, as independents favor the generic Republican candidate by a rather shocking 41 to 24 percent.
Today is the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Johnny Mercer. With the publication of The Complete Lyrics of Johnny Mercer last month, Mercer's place in the pantheon of artists responsible for the great American songbook seems more secure than ever.
Among the more than 1,000 songs for which Mercer is known to have written the lyrics are "I Remember You," "That Old Black Magic," "How Little We Know," "Hit the Road to Dreamland," "One For My Baby (And One More For the Road)," "Accentuate the Positive," "P.S. I Love You" (not the Beatles song), "Come Rain or Come Shine," "Any Place I Hang My Hat Is Home," "Days of Wine and Roses," "Blues In the Night," "Day In--Day Out," "Moon River," "I Thought About You," "I Remember You," "I Wanna Be Around," "This Time the Dream's On Me," "Something's Gotta Give," and "Satin Doll."
He was an utterly brilliant lyricist. Among the composers to whose work he contributed the lyrics are Harold Arlen, Hoagy Carmichael, Jimmy Van Heusen, Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn, Jerome Kern, Gordon Jenkins and Henry Manicini.
I owe the estimation of the number of Mercer songs to biographer Philip Furia in Skylark. Furia's calculation of the hit songs for which Mercer wrote the lyrics is also striking. Between the mid-'30s and the mid-50s, he had at least one or more songs in the pop music top 10 for 221 weeks. Yet by far the most striking aspect of Mercer's work is neither its volume not its success, but rather its consummate artistry.
His "One For My Baby (And One More For the Road)" surely stands as one of the peaks of the great American songbook. Harold Arlen composed the music and Frank Sinatra contributed the definitive performance (on "Frank Sinatra Sings for Only the Lonely," 1958). Terry Teachout provided an eloquent tribute to Mercer in general and "One For My Baby" in particular in his 2004 Commentary essay "Too Marvelous for Words" (subscribers only; Teachout excerpted his essay last week in his commemorative post "A kind of poet") .
My own favorite of Mercer's songs is "Midnight Sun," originally an instrumental by Lionel Hampton and Sonny Burke. Driving along the freeway from Newport Beach to Hollywood and back in 1955, Mercer heard the song on his car radio. He promptly pulled off the road to call the station and ask for the song to be played again. Back on the road, he memorized the melody and wrote the lyrics in his head as he drove. Nancy Wilson performs the song in the video above.
Your lips were like a red and ruby chalice,
Warmer than the summer night.
The clouds were like an alabaster palace
Rising to a snowy height.
Each star its own aurora borealis,
Suddenly you held me tight --
I could see the Midnight Sun.
Furia writes: "It's as if the lyric itself is a midnight sun, a last blaze of an Alley style extinguishing itself..."
