Right wing talking points on everything from torture to terrorism trials is taking a beating this week! Throughout CPAC the crazier the better it was for "getting tough" on terrorism. But as Beck said in his speech, "it is still morning in America. It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting for four hours kind of a morning," and who was delivering that CPAC hangover? A tall, stiff glass of the truth.
"It is still morning in America. It just happens to be kind of a head-pounding, hung-over, vomiting for four hours kind of a morning in America. And it's shaping up to be kind of a nasty day, but it's still morning in America." -- Glenn Beck in his keynote speech to CPAC
Speak for yourself, buddy. I've been having nothing but GREAT mornings since the annual Right Wing Olympics ended!
CPAC finished with Glenn Beck as the keynote speaker and he ended our competition last night with the gold. (With Dick Cheney winning the silver and Michele Bachmann taking home the bronze.) But the thing that really took a beating this week was not the competition at the Right Wing Olympics -- but the rhetoric they used. Celebrating harsh interrogation techniques and pushing for flawed military commissions over criminal trials for terrorists, their ideas were not just wrong, but terribly old hat. General Colin Powell came out for civilian trials. General David Petraeus is (still) against torture and wants to close Guantanamo. Democrats are pushing back, pointing out that Republican criticism was strangely absent during the trial and conviction of the would-be New York Subway bomber and the Republicans responded with ... well, does saying it can't count because he wasn't an illegal alien make sense? Because the underwear bomber came here on a plane, the 9/11 plotters were all here by some legal means and we picked up Khalid Shiekh Mohammed abroad. Who knew that real estate was so IMPORTANT when it comes to collecting and prosecuting terrorists! (Only it isn't really that important.)
Aw, who said it had to make sense when you're playing politics with national security!
From The Hill:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) brushed aside Holder’s assertions that the Zazi case demonstrates the ability of federal courts to handle terrorism trials.
"I think that terrorists ought to be treated like terrorists, not like common criminals," Boehner told reporters Tuesday.
Others vocal opponents of trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts said the administration was comparing apples to oranges in using the Zazi case as an example of a successful federal court prosecution.
"The attorney general claims that the plea of Zazi is proof that federal courts can handle the trials of terrorists currently held at Guantanamo Bay," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). "But comparing the prosecution of Zazi — a legal permanent resident of the U.S. — to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — who engaged in an act of war against the U.S. by plotting the mass murder of Americans on 9/11 — is misleading at best."
So, for the record -- plotting to blow up the New York subway system is NOT "real" terrorism. Actually destroying the Twin Towers, also in New York, is. Even if the known terrorist, Najibullah Zazi, was tried peacefully in lower Manhattan and was, actually, the 73rd al Qaeda-linked terrorist to be tried in New York City. I just want to keep track of the rules of what a terrorist is and isn't according to the illustrious Rep. Lamar Smith. After all, Republicans did a lot of moaning over the underwear bomber being read his Miranda Rights and called his actions "an act of war." It's soooo hard to keep these loosey-goosey, whatever-fits-our-line-of-attack-this-week definitions in tact. Attempting to blow up subways. Attempting to blow up planes. Actually blowing up buildings and planes. All different! if you listen to the hole-riddled arguments from some Republicans. All different as in "the truth is totally messing up my lie" about military commissions and Guantanamo Bay. How can you argue against the prison's closure and against stateside criminal trials when we're already holding terrorists here and trying them in this country successfully?
It's actually easy when the public is largely in the dark about the truth surrounding military commissions (*cough!* only three convictions! cough!) versus civilian trials (more than 300 convictions since 2001).
Here's what a retired brigadier general had to say about the milcoms versus criminal trials debate:
From The New York Times:
Mr. Zazi, who pleaded guilty on Monday and has been cooperating with federal authorities, is typical, said James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general who served as chief judge of the Army’s Court of Criminal Appeals in the Judge Advocate General Corps.
"When these guys get caught, any defense counsel is going to recommend that they make a deal with the feds," said Mr. Cullen, who spent 27 years in the Army and is now a lawyer in private practice in New York City. While military investigators are skilled at getting information in battlefield situations, he said, prosecutors and F.B.I. agents are better able to link intelligence to track down other suspects.
MOREOVER, Mr. Cullen said, military commissions are not as effective as federal courts in delivering justice.
"You’ve had about 800 cases that were supposed to be run through the military commissions in Guantánamo, and there have only been three convictions," he said. "You have three-eighths of 1 percent return on military commissions, versus 90 percent plus when they are tried in the federal court."
Talk about your "inconvenient truths" for right wingers.