Recently, readers were given a dose of reality through GOP-colored glasses. The author of "Reality," in an attempt to refute my charge of GOP hypocrisy, began by telling us that the report documenting Bin Laden's escape stated "that there were too few troops to cordon off - Tora Bora and prevent Bin Laden from retreating into ..." What he didn't state was that in the NY Times on 09-11-05, "Brig. Gen. Mattis, commander of some 4,000 marines, was convinced ... he could have surrounded and sealed off bin Laden's lair." The report, that the author referred to, also stated that "American military power was kept on the sidelines," and "Instead, the US command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack Bin Laden."
The author states "the report attributes nothing to private contractors." But again in 09-11-05 the NY Times reported that "The view prevailing among senior American military leaders was that overwhelming air power, suitcases full of cash and surrogate militias could win the war." Those suitcases of cash went to Afghan militias making them in essence paid contractors.
On the issue of the hypocrisy shown by the GOP regarding the Christmas bomber and Richard Reid being "mirandized," the writer states "at the time of Reid's arrest (December 2001), military tribunals were not put in place. Thus, Bush did not have the luxury of constitutionally tested military tribunals that Obama now enjoys." This is inaccurate.
On Nov. 13 2001, a month after GITMO opened, President Bush approved the use of special military tribunals that could put terrorists on trial faster and in greater secrecy than a criminal court. Under the new order, the president could establish a military commission in the future by asking the Defense Secretary to establish the rules for one. In fact on ABC news Cheney stated, "Well, we could have put (Reid) into military custody. I don't - I don't question that." But that is off topic since military tribunals are about adjudication (trials) and not about interrogations which is what the Miranda rights are about.
The writer continued, "Reid's criminal prosecution is the reason Republicans passed the military commissions act in 2006 ..." The "constitutionally tested" MCA of 2006 was ruled flawed by the Supreme Court on 06-12-08. They ruled 5-4 that enemy combatants held in U.S. territory are entitled to Habeas Corpus so detainees can't be held indefinitely without receiving fair hearings under civilian courts therefore guaranteeing the right to legal representation which the writer disagrees with since he attempts to demonize lawyers who defended GITMO detainees. Fortunately in America, lawyers are required to argue against the detainment of their clients regardless of whether or not the lawyers believe their clients to be innocent.
The author then continued with "The very policy underlying the creation of Gitmo is to prevent terrorists from returning to the battlefield - a policy Obama actively subverts daily." But the truth is that moving detainees from GITMO to maximum security federal prisons doesn't equal release. To claim otherwise is a misrepresentation of the facts.
