Mr. President-Elect, Don't Fool with the Law on Terror
If the Obama administration arrogantly disregards the implications of the Mumbai attack and foolishly fails to heed the advice of the Attorney General and Mrs. Long, it will violate its constitutional duty to”provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”
President-Elect Obama needs to learn from the mistakes of the Clinton administration and the success of the second Bush administration and treat the War on Terror as a war, not a crime.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Judicial Confirmation Network Counsel Wendy E. Long are right about the law on terror.
The terrible terrorist attack on Mumbai, India put an exclamation on what the Attorney General explained and Mrs. Long subsequently emphasized as the mainstream media paid much more attention to the Attorney General’s collapse during his speech than to his speech’s content.
Mrs. Long did not stint in praising the Attorney General’s excellent legal analysis:
“Last Thursday night, at the annual gala of the Federalist Society, Attorney General Michael Mukasey delivered a keynote address that will go down as a speech of historic proportions: a solemn, powerful, and disarmingly blunt apologia for the Bush Administration's legal positions and actions in War on Terror.
“The tough, no-nonsense, stoic former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, who inherited from his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, a Justice Department that had become a shooting target for liberal critics in Congress, the legal academy, and the media, answered those critics head-on.
“And he put down a marker for the incoming Obama administration: given the dangers involved and the stakes for the security of Americans, there will have to be a better reason than the empty criticisms voiced to date to justify an Obama departure from the Bush legal architecture.”
Unfortunately, the Attorney General’s collapse during the speech was a distraction from his powerful message.
Fortunately for America, the tragic Mundai terrorist attack proved the Attorney General’s main point BEFORE the next Congress convenes and the President-Elect is inaugurated next month.
Mrs. Long: “The familiar refrain that the War on Terror has trampled constitutional rights, civil liberties, and even the rule of law itself rests ‘on a very dangerous form of amnesia that views the success of our counterterrorism efforts as something that undermines the justification for continuing them.’ Because the Administration's strategy has been ‘successful based on what matters most’ -- that in the more than seven years since September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda hasn't launched another terrorist attack on American soil -- the critics seem to assume that Al Qaeda ‘never posed much of a threat after all.’”
That's because the Left and its media allies were intent on denying President George W. Bush credit for what he did very well: prevent another attack on the Homeland by taking the fight to the enemy elsewhere as well as being vigilant.
Mrs. Long assessed the situation realistically, quoting the Attorney General:
”…[T]he threat that materialized on 9/11 was as unprecedented as it was real. The fact that ‘19 lightly armed terrorists could murder nearly 3,000 Americans’ in the ‘most catastrophic attack on our homeland since Pearl Harbor,’ Mukasey said, created a new kind of ‘asymmetric warfare’ that forced President Bush and his advisors to reassess and revise not just the military, but also the legal, tools to fight back. The Bush response, as he summarized it, was to:
• Declare war: Some critics still argue that ‘war’ in this situation is unjustified. One does not declare war on isolated instances of crime. But systematic terrorism can't be addressed after the fact, as America did as late as the 1990s, just by sending the FBI to collect evidence and then prosecuting the perpetrators. Indeed, Osama bin Laden was already under indictment for the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. On September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration finally recognized the war that Al Qaeda and other groups had declared years earlier.
• Capture and detain the enemy: Unlike ordinary criminals who are apprehended, indicted, and often freed on bail, terrorist warriors captured by the U.S. military should not be returned to the battlefield (or released to join it). They needed to be detained, and where appropriate in military judgment, transferred to the U.S. naval station at Guantanamo Bay.
• Reorganize government to keep Americans safe from attack: Domestic security agencies throughout the executive branch were brought under the umbrella of the new Department of Homeland Security, and a ‘Director of National Intelligence’ was established to coordinate intelligence efforts in tracking and preventing terrorist attacks. The FBI was restructured to gather intelligence beforehand, not just gather evidence after, attacks.
• Enhance intelligence gathering: The lightning pace of technological advances in recent years required new legislation -- the Patriot Act and modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- to allow analysts, investigators, and intelligence professionals to access data about the enemy's communications and movements.”
The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
The Attorney General rightly dismissed the foolhardy critics.
Mrs. Long dismissed and refuted the carping critics this way:
“Typical of the critics of these and other Bush legal policies, Mukasey said, was the head of a nonpartisan legal organization who gave a speech condemning the ‘oppressive, relentless, and lawless attack by our own government on the rule of law and our liberty.’ Mukasey noted that the lawyer didn't rely for his criticisms on the text of the Constitution, statutes, treaties, or laws. Instead, he cited the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the New York Review of Books. There has been a widespread condemnation of the Bush War on Terror by critics who fail to distinguish between ‘whether a course of action is permitted as a matter of law, and whether that course of action is prudent as a matter of policy.’
“And even when legal arguments are raised against the Bush policies, they fail to acknowledge that there is an equally, if not more, powerful legal justification to support the Bush course in uncharted waters when Americans' safety and security is at stake. For example, the Bush position that such non-citizens held abroad cannot use the U.S. civil courts to challenge their detention is grounded in the text of the Constitution, historical practice, and -- before several months ago -- Supreme Court precedent.
“As Mukasey noted, even the majority of the Supreme Court in the recent Boumedienne decision (allowing Guantanamo inmates to file habeas corpus petitions in U.S. federal courts challenging their detention) acknowledged that the Court had never before held that noncitizens detained by our government outside the United States had any rights under our Constitution. (Hitler's ‘willing executioners’ would doubtless have been pleased to assert their rights under the U.S. Constitution to challenge their detention while awaiting trial at Nuremberg.)
“Now that a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court has given those detainees such ‘rights’ (the text of Constitution actually calls the writ of habeas corpus a ‘privilege,’ and says that it ‘shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it’), the first federal court rulings handed down last week ordered 5 of the first 6 detainees released. In an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal the morning after his speech, Mukasey said the general problem with these hearings is the attempt to apply ‘a civil litigation framework to wartime decisions that often must be made on the basis of the best available intelligence.’ Accordingly, he warned, courts are going to arrive at different answers in the some 250 Guantanamo habeas cases now pending. And ‘I fear,’ he said, that some of those answers will ‘create risks for our national security.’”
Mrs. Long explained that the Bush haters’ demands for investigations are politically, not legally, based:
“Bush antagonists in Congress have asked the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel to open a criminal investigation into the actions of the President, cabinet members, administration lawyers, and intelligence officers in connection with CIA interrogation of captured members of Al Qaeda. Mukasey said they've presented no evidence that these government officials acted with ‘any motive other than a good-faith desire to protect the citizens of our Nation from a future terrorist attack,’ and there is no indication that any government official ‘sought to authorize any policy that violated our laws.’”
It was fitting, in a peculiar way, that a heckler interrupted the Attorney General’s speech before he collapsed, and Mrs. Long did not hesitate to make the point that the Attorney General did not.
Mrs. Long: “IRONICALLY, IN THE MIDDLE of Mukasey's speech about opponents of the War failing to make their case in law or reason, he was interrupted by a heckler -- a state court judge -- who stood and shouted at him, ‘Tyrant! You ARE a tyrant!’ Pausing briefly to look in the direction of the heckler, but returning immediately to his speech, Mukasey was too much of a gentleman to quash the outburst by saying that such wild charges and name-calling illustrated precisely the point of his remarks.”
In the War on Terror, being a perfect gentleman or lady is NOT necessarily the best strategy, as Henry Stimson, Secretary of War during World War II, learned.
Mrs. Long lamented both the Attorney General’s collapse and the distraction that followed, as follows: “The Attorney General made it almost to the end of his speech, and then, suddenly and inexplicably, he faltered and collapsed. Shock and concern over his collapse overshadowed his final point: that the Bush administration had tried ‘to make sure that our counterterrorism efforts stood on a sound institutional and legal footing so that the next Attorney General and the new Administration have what they need to assure the safety of the Nation.’”
Mrs. Long continued:
”The Obama administration, as he noted, will review those institutions and legal decisions that have kept us safe for the past seven years. He expressed ‘hope’ that the Obama administration ‘understands the threat we continue to face and that it shares the priority we have placed on remaining on the offense to prevent future terrorist attacks.’
“As we left the ballroom after the Attorney General was rushed to the hospital, those present had a dual sense of uncertainty -- about his condition and about the future course of the War on Terror.
“As to the former, thankfully, the word came within hours that the Attorney General was well. As to the latter, one can say only one thing for sure: the Mukasey speech is one that history will vindicate, in one way or another.”
If the Obama administration arrogantly disregards the implications of the Mumbai attack and foolishly fails to heed the advice of the Attorney General and Mrs. Long, it will violate its constitutional duty to ”provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.