The GOP Is Soft On Terror

Ever since Obama became president, the suddenly chatty former VP Dick Cheney has been running around beating his chest about how strong he is on terrorism and that Obama is weak. In fact, a lot of criticism for the right is that Obama doesn’t say the word “terror” enough. Ever since the Christmas Day attempt, Republicans have been screaming even louder and Democrats are finally fighting back. There have been a lot of Republicans who have criticized the decision to try the underpants bomber in U.S. federal courts even though shoe bomber Richard Reid was tried the same way. They want to send Abdulmutallab to Guantamo, try him under the untested military commissions and subject him to torture.

Perhaps we should look at the record here. Americablog explains:

A reader writes:

Let us consider the likely outcome of the civilian trial. There is no disputing the fact that he was carrying the explosives on the plane or that he was aware that he was carrying them or that he attempted to ignite them. He was arrested immediately in circumstances that give no possibility of a mistaken identity defense. A guilty plea is highly likely, a guilty verdict all but certain. Given the known facts there is no The almost certain outcome of a civilian trial therefore is a guilty verdict and a sentence of lifetime imprisonment without parole.

Compare that to the consequences of attempting to use the Bush administration’s military tribunals. Here a guilty verdict is not certain, not because there is any doubt as to his guilt but because there is considerable doubt as to the constitutionality of the process, a doubt that will continue as long as there are any prisoners left in custody who were tried by military tribunal. Contrary to the claims of the Republicans, there is absolutely no reason to be sure that their Rube Goldberg trial procedure will withstand constitutional scrutiny in the future. Which means that there is a very real probability that at some date in the future, all the verdicts of the military tribunals will become void. While the prospects for a civilian trial now are pretty good, the prospects for a civilian trial following a failed military tribunal are much less good.

Aravosis also points out that a lot of the suspects we held in Guantanamo were released and at least on former detainee was probably involved in planning the attack. Let us not forget how badly the Bush administration has botched terrorism cases.

Bush/Cheney did the following:
* Did not prioritize terrorism before 9/11 and ignored warnings
* Let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora by pulling U.S. forces too early
* Pulled forces from searching for Bin Laden to focus on phantom weapons in Iraq
* Tortured innocent people
* Opened extra-legal prisons to keep suspects
* Botched up so many terrorism cases that we are not able to try the suspects in court
* U.S. courts with majority conservative judges have ruled many times that extra-legal prisons and torture are illegal

So, why would we want to give up the sure conviction of Abdulmutallab in U.S. court? Abdulmutallab will end up in a Supermax prison like other dangerous people. We are currently holding Reid, Moussaoi, Ramzi Yousef (1993 WTC bomber) as well as domestic terrorists like Ted Kaczynski (Unabomber) and Eric Rudolph (Olympic Park bomber). In other words, we have lots of experience trying terrorism suspects in U.S. courts and absolutely none trying them in special military tribunals.

Steve Benen also points out in a brilliant post that Republicans often talk about domestic policy in terms of terrorism:

Specifically, Boortz argued, “ObamaCare will do more damage than a successful terrorist bombing of an airliner … and kill more people as well.” [ellipses in the original]

Obviously, no sane person seriously believes this. But I can’t help but notice how frequently far-right voices compare terrorism to other policy developments, and consider terrorism less dangerous.

Terrorism is bad, conservatives say, but Democrats are worse.

Terrorism is bad, conservatives say, but health care reform is worse.

Terrorism is bad, conservatives say, but unionized TSA employees are worse.

Terrorism is bad, conservatives say, but liberal federal judges are worse.

There seems to be a disconnect within the right-wing worldview. On the one hand, the standard conservative line insists that the threat posed by violent religious extremists, determined to kill Americans through acts of terrorism, is the existential threat facing the West in the 21st century. On the other hand, it’s surprisingly common to hear conservatives suggest terrorism isn’t as threatening as whatever issue has Republicans worked up on a given day.