If you watched Rachel Maddow last night, you would have seen an interview with author Steve Simon on the national security and counter-terrorism implications of trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a federal court in New York.
Simon was invited to elaborate on his op-ed published yesterday in the New York Times: "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial."
Simon is also a fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Age of Sacred Terror.
In other words, Simon is a well-established member of Washington's elite group of Very Serious People who should be taken Very Seriously in the chattering class on matters of national security.
What he had to say in the paper and on TV last night should be considered by everyone dealing with GOP fear-mongering on the KSM trial in New York.
Video after the jump.
You can read Simon's important op-ed and see some very sharp rebukes of the right-wing, opportunistic, chowderheads:
First, let’s dispose of the straw men. John Boehner, the Republican leader in the House, accused the Obama administration of "treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue" — as though "law enforcement" is an epithet. In truth, the White House’s counterterrorism team is composed largely of the same professionals who battled terrorists under President George W. Bush. They are generally in sync with the White House’s insistence on a strategy that uses law enforcement where appropriate and military force in places, like Afghanistan, where conspirators can’t be arrested by federal agents driving Fords.
Others complain that Mr. Mohammed might take advantage of quirks of the criminal justice system and go free. That’s highly unlikely. First, he has already confessed to the crime; and, given the zero acquittal rate for terrorists in New York previously, any anxiety about a "not guilty" verdict seems unwarranted.
Simon gives some familiar arguments about how proceeding to open civilian courts correspond to our values as Americans, which serve us well in the fight against Al Qaeda.
But Simon was much more succinct on TV about why we should not play into the hands of KSM.
Maddow: What kind of propaganda or PR opportunity might this trial really pose?
Simon: Well, I think the propaganda opportunities are all in favor of the United States.
Well, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed really wanted to be tried by a military commission because if he were tried by a military commission, he would be able to portray himself as a soldier captured on the field of battle doing honorable warfare against the Unite States. Well, that's in fact not what he did. He was a criminal and a terrorist, and he killed 3,000 innocent people and he broke federal statues in the process. If he were actually a combatant captured on the field of battle, that would be a different story. This arrangement is not going to let him make that claim. It's not going to let him portray himself as a warrior in defense of Islam.
That's right, Senators Graham, Cornyn, and Grassley. We're sending KSM to New York because, unlike you and your cowardly brigade, we're actually serious about fighting terrorism. And one aspect to that fight, which should make sense to anyone, is that when Al Qaeda wants us to do something, we should probably do the opposite.
We're sending KSM to New York as the next battle in that long twilight struggle these guys seem so fond of talking about but not actually waging effectively.
Our argument is one of national security and strength. Yes, we are claiming the moral high ground and defending the Constitution, too. But frankly, folks, the winning argument in the face of fear is one of defeating Al Qaeda. We understand all too well that the other side doesn't care about the Constitution. The problem is that the public, when contemplating mortal danger, is less persuaded by the legal argument when the other guy is promising to keep them safe.
The argument has to make sense at an emotional level.
Attorney General Eric Holder couldn't make the national security argument as explicitly yesterday before the Senate Judiciary because he was speaking to the law enforcement question.
We should be backing him up by sending National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Gates, WH counter-terror chief John Brennan, and anybody with a sense of the real counter-terror strategy to shut up the Joe Liebermans on the Sunday shows.
The press has long forgotten that one of the most compelling reasons for electing Barack Obama in the first place was that we could finally get serious about fighting Al Qaeda--no more unilateral invasions of unrelated countries, no more propaganda victories for our enemies, and finally more focused and intense strikes against the terrorist networks where they live. And the person chosen to lead that effort would be a president named Barack Hussein Obama.
The right wing and the neocons are terrified of the prospect of a President Obama doing a better job fighting terror than George Bush, and they will take any opportunity to prevent him from succeeding.
We can't let them.
Obama and AG Holder made a courageous decision in allowing this trial to proceed. But more importantly, it was the decision best suited to achieving American interests.
Let's take this argument and run with it.