NBC Bureau Chief: KSM trial in civilian court would be a ’self-inflicted wound’
(Image from wikipedia)
If you want to see exactly why the mainstream media sucks, check out this glorious clip from Chuck Todd’s (sigh) new MSNBC show, The Daily Rundown. The guest is Mark Whitaker, Washington Bureau Chief for NBC, and as co-host Savannah Guthrie sycophantically adds in the last few seconds of the segment, their boss.
Let us marvel at the rich tapestry of opinions embedded in this thorough 4-minute examination of what Guthrie adorably calls “terror politics.” Whitaker makes several confusing statements that warrant a closer examination.
Savannah Guthrie: Let’s move on to terror politics. This has very much been in the news. Assuming the administration believes it’s right on the policy, for example, that KSM should be tried in civilian court as opposed to military commissions, are they getting the politics wrong here? It doesn’t seem like anyone is coming out on their side and forcefully defending these decisions.
Mike Whitaker: Well, first of all, just on the legal issue, frankly, I think they’re a little bit confused because on the one hand they’re saying that the argument for trying Khalid Shiekh Mohammad in a civilian court is that it gives it more legitmacy. Well, what’s the legitimacy come from? It basically comes from the presumption of innocence. Meanwhile, you have Gibbs and Holder, and so forth, guaranteeing a conviction. I’ve been told-
Chuck Todd: Guaranteeing the death penalty!
Whitaker: Right, and I’ve been talking to prosecutors in New York, who have tried a lot of these cases, and say you never — in a civilian court with a jury — you can never guarantee anything. I think on the politics, frankly, I think this is a pure, self-inflicted wound.
In other words, the only time trying KSM in a civilian court would be considered “legitimate” is if the outcome was a guaranteed guilty verdict. Is that how the justice system works now? If prosecutors can’t guarantee guilty verdicts, should detainees be locked away — without trial or evidence brought forth against them — indefinitely?
Whitaker: I don’t see anybody, politically — from New York, around the country — who is impressed with this idea of giving these kinds of terrorists the same rights as Americans and trying them in a civilian court. Allegedly, it’s supposed to impress the Arab world, the rest of the world, I’m not sure that the kind of people that we really need to impress out there with this are going to be moved by it.
There seems to be some widespread confusion (even among our stalwart media betters) that KSM has somehow been invested with special privileges from the liberal fringe because he is going to be tried in a civilian court (though that meager offering by the Obama administration appears to also be in jeopardy.) This kind of logic defies precedent established by some of the most radical Republican administrations, including the Bush and Reagan regimes (h/t Greenwald)
[R]ead the official policy of the Reagan Administration when it came to treating Terrorists, as articulated by the top Reagan State Department official in charge of Terrorism policies, L. Paul Bremer, in a speech he entitled “Counter-Terrorism: Strategies and Tactics:
“Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are — criminals — and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.
Terrorists are criminals, who should be tried in court, not just because the process is transparent and supposedly what democratic nations do, but because trials rob terrorists of their only tool: fear. Locked away in a secret dungeon for the rest of his life, KSM would haunt Americans like some undying nightmare. Brought into the light — in a public courtroom — he’s revealed for what he is — a criminal.
Also, since when does political consensus override the rule of law? The law is important because — believe it or not — sometimes the Villagers mess up and decide to do dumb things, like say, go to war for no good reason. That’s when, theoretically, the courts and laws are supposed to exercise restraints upon power-hungry idiots. Alas, the law doesn’t matter in America anymore.
Just as the Bush administration tossed aside the shackles of international law in the name of preemptive war, so men like Whitaker appear prepared to toss out the idea of public trials for declared enemies of the state if guilty outcomes can’t be guaranteed.
Furthermore, the reason the outcome of KSM’s trial is so unpredictable is because the CIA waterboarded him over 183 times, thereby permanently tainting any evidence collected against him. Some media forums might use this reality as an excellent opportunity to discuss the consequences of torture. MSNBC took it as a chance to tee off on the legal system. Why have trials at all if we can’t use our torture confessionals??
And then there’s the amazing “We’re doing this to impress the Arabs” statement.
Setting aside the fact that America’s reputation in the world has been devastated, and perhaps working to mend the nation’s image isn’t the worst idea in the world, this is the NBC bureau chief saying the law is only being applied to impress foreigners.
Now, it’s possible Whitaker means the KSM trial is Kabuki theater, and while the Obama administration pretends to honor the justice system with one hand, with the other it continues to facilitate a secretive detention system at Gitmo. I would actually agree with that statement, but unfortunately Whitaker never makes that clarification, so I have to assume what troubles him about the DOJ’s actions is that he thinks Eric Holder wants to impress Arabs.
Guthrie: Well, what’s interesting is — is that the reason or is it because they think federal prosecutors are more experienced, and will get a better result? No one knows because they’re not coming out and explaining this is why we decided to do it.
Todd: Right, nobody is defending the policy.
Whitaker: I think the issue is less civilian versus military courts. It’s transparency. It’s whether it’s out in the open, but they have had military trials — you think about Nuremberg — that have been out in the open. They could have done it that way.
Todd: Mark Whitaker. Thanks for coming on.
Guthrie: NBC’s bureau chief. And our boss. Thanks for being with us.
Nice diverse opinions, gang. We have anti-civilian court trial Chuck Todd, anti-civilian court trial Savannah Guthrie, and their boss, anti-civilian court trial Mark Whitaker.
Glad we’re all in agreement: transparency is a self-inflicted wound.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Allison, I agree with your complaints about the lack of diverse opinions on MSM shows. However, I think you mischaracterized the first exchange here.
Whitaker is not saying that only guaranteed conviction is legitimate, he’s saying that legitimacy comes from the presumption of innocence, and you can’t have that presumption/legitimacy if the administration is running around guaranteeing conviction and the death penalty. The administration can’t have it both ways. They’re saying that a civilian court trial equals legitimacy AND conviction is guaranteed. I support these trials, but I think Whitaker is right on this point.
I’m convinced that the reason there is so much mainstream media opposition to criminal trials is the fact that the “war on terror” as a brand and marketing platform, only makes sense in a make believe world where the US can cast itself as the victim and vengeful warrior at the same time. The major news networks have been milking the fear cow now for close to nine years. Who in their right mind would give up ratings for thoughtful analysis? You don’t have to dig too deep to expose guys like Chuck Todd as subdued Glenn Becks with a patina of yesteryear’s Cronkite and Murrow.
And it’s really the whole “can’t treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter,” line that brings the duplicity of the notion’s proponents into full relief.
I’d be interested to see a poll where those that are strongly opposed to the idea of civilian trials are asked about their views on law enforcement in general.
My guess is that so-called terrorism is the one area where these people don’t think law enforcement can get the job done. Whatever the hell that is.
Certainly, advocating for public trials may involve a mea culpa moment for the press. They spent nearly a decade as war cheerleaders, so to suddenly add, “and these are human beings that deserve their day in court, which is the cornerstone of our democracy,” may give the appearance of a 180-degree reversal. But beyond that, the government has really backed itself into a corner here. Evidence gained via torture is not legally submissible, so in order to gain a conviction for KSM, there’s great incentive to drive the process underground into a military tribunal-type setting. And the media is now just an arm of the government, so it’s unsurprising that they’re going along with all the blind fear-mongering.
The KSM national polls amuse me because they illustrate why we don’t put the Constitution or the Bill of Rights up to a popular vote every few years. Imagine if we left black people or women’s rights to vote up to a popular vote. It doesn’t matter if the media and government have been successful enough in disseminating their propaganda (again) that they (once again) have scared Americans into believing war is peace and military tribunals are justice. The reason America has laws is precisely to maintain order and justice during chaotic, fear-mongering times.
In response to another comment. See in context »At first, Whitaker’s actually making a kind of good point — the Obama administration’s trying to have its cake and eat it too. It’s true that the presumption of innocence is what gives civilian courts their legitimacy, and that the Obama administration’s attempt to use civilian courts for that legitimacy while at the same time guaranteeing a guilty verdict is cynical and deeply problematic.
Then — and this is the weird part — Whitaker goes on to argue that the only reason why we should care about the legitimacy offered by the presumption of innocence is in order to impress Arabs. So it’s about weighing your priorities: which is more important to you, the approval of Arabs, or the ability to convict someone using evidence obtained through torture?
The really disturbing part of this is that he’s managed to cast a fair trial as a propaganda device, rather than as a cornerstone of democracy.
[...] doesn’t have Miranda rights.” MSNBC personalities Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie chatted yesterday with their boss, MSNBC Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, all agreeing that the decision to [...]
[...] doesn’t have Miranda rights.” MSNBC personalities Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie chatted yesterday with their boss, MSNBC Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, all agreeing that the decision to [...]
[...] Miranda rights.” MSNBC personalities Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie chatted yesterday with their boss, MSNBC Washington Bureau Chief Mark Whitaker, all agreeing that the [...]
[...] So, they are going to use the trial as a recruitment and radicalization tool by exalting their past acts, but they might just decide to blow up New York instead? Which is it? I suppose they could do both, perhaps those wily terrorists will wait until the very last day of the trial when we find them guilty, and then they will strike? Oh, but those opposed to civilian trials also point out that we might not get a conviction. They argue that once we allow constitutional and legal protections for terrorists, they will use those against us and they might be found not-guilty. See, for example, this exchange from MSNBC: [...]