Obama's Military Tribunals Another Friday, another bow to Bush's antiterror legacy.

(Compiler's note: There two related articles are an interesting read.)

· REVIEW & OUTLOOK

· MAY 16, 2009

President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions.

White House officials insist that their tribunals will be kinder and gentler, stressing additional due-process safeguards for terrorists on trial for war crimes. But the debate that has convulsed the political system since 9/11 isn't about procedural nuances. It has been over core principles, with Democrats decrying a "shadow justice system" and claiming that "Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."

The latter quote is from a speech by Senator Obama in 2007 denouncing "a legal framework that does not work." He also referred to the civilian criminal justice system and courts martial that Democrats then claimed, and many still claim, are the right venues for antiterror prosecutions. After the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision gave terrorists habeas rights, Mr. Obama again laid into the Bush Administration's "legal black hole" and "dangerously flawed legal approach," which "undermines the very values we are fighting to defend."

At least some people in the White House must now be embarrassed by their boss's switcheroo, though you can't tell from Friday's declaration. Part of the tribunal face-lift is that "the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel." Say what? Enemy combatants already have better access to attorneys -- white shoe and pro bono, no less -- than nearly every criminal defendant in America. Perhaps this means Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 90 Yemenis and the rest will now be able to choose lawyers from both Shearman & Sterling and Covington & Burling, instead of one or the other.

Another red herring is supposedly tightening the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Tribunal judges already have discretion to limit such evidence, and the current rules are nearly indistinguishable from those of the International Criminal Court. The sensible exceptions involve evidence obtained under combat conditions or from foreign intelligence services, which are left untouched by Mr. Obama's nips and tucks.

In any event, Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that the civilian courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favored by Dick Cheney -- and which, contrary to the narrative that Democrats promulgated for years, will be the fairest and most open war-crimes trials in U.S. history. Meanwhile, friends should keep certain newspaper editors away from sharp objects. Their champion has repudiated them once again.

· OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH

· MAY 15, 2009

Democrats Discover Gitmo's Virtues

Move the detainees? Not to my backyard

· By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

'We're not going to bring al Qaeda to Big Sky Country. No way, not on my watch," declared Montana Sen. Max Baucus. "I wouldn't want them and I wouldn't take them," insisted Nebraska's Ben Nelson. Not Quantico, piped up Virginia's Mark Warner. After all, it "is in a very populated area in the greater capital region." Look, "Alcatraz is a national park and a tourist attraction, not a functioning prison" for terrorists, said the office of California's Dianne Feinstein.

All Democrats in favor of standing with your president to shout out the evils of Guantanamo, shout aye! "Aye!" All Democrats in favor of doing what would be necessary to close Guantanamo, shout aye! . . . What, nobody?

On day two of his presidency, Barack Obama issued an executive order to shut down, within one year, the Gitmo prison that still houses 241 detainees. Four months later, he may be about to be handed his first defeat of a major campaign promise, and by his own party. Faced with the actual politics of bringing terrorists to U.S. soil, congressional Democrats are running for the exits.

President Bush never closed Gitmo because, put simply, the options were to transfer detainees to foreign countries or to transfer detainees here. Attorney General Eric Holder in April embarked on a "please take back your bad guys" road show through the very European countries that had sermonized about America's offshore prison. The Brits and Germans sent the president their regards and promised to think about it.

That leaves the U.S. as the destination for Gitmo inmates, and Republicans have slowly but consistently turned Gitmo into a debate over Democrats' ability to handle national security. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has been hitting on Guantanamo since February, warning that the administration's decision to put "symbolism" over "safety" might result in Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al Shibh coming soon to a neighborhood near you. House Republicans last week released a chilling video showing footage of 9/ 11, mug shots of the aforementioned murderers, and the question "How does closing Guantanamo Bay make us safer?"

Public outrage has already inspired officials in Louisiana, California, Mississippi, Missouri and Virginia (for starters) to introduce or pass resolutions to stop terrorists from being sent to their communities. Playing off this, the House GOP introduced legislation that would prohibit the administration from transferring Gitmo detainees to a state without permission from that state's governor and legislature. They then dared Democrats to vote against this "Keep Terrorists Out of America Act."

Democrats don't dare. The House instead last week yanked from an appropriations bill the $81 million Mr. Obama wants as a down payment to begin the process of shuttering the prison. Worried that even this didn't provide enough cover, they also inserted language barring detainee transfers to the U.S. until at least October.

Appropriations chief David Obey explained that the only reason Congress didn't provide the money is that it first wants to see the administration's "plan." In truth, Democrats don't want to touch this debate -- certainly not now, in the middle of the what-Nancy-knew-and-when discussion. So they're kicking the can back to Mr. Obama.

The Senate is also set to deal with an appropriations bill, and Democrats are growing very wary that Republicans will introduce some awkward amendments that will force them to actually vote to bring terrorists to the U.S. Not surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now saying he, too, would first like to see some "specifics" from the administration.

This was not part of the Obama team's calculation. It figured it would get its bucks and make its calls. Releasing specific plans for where it intends to land these detainees will cause geographic uproars. But six weeks ago, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions sent the first of two letters to Mr. Holder demanding to know the administration's legal authority for transfers, given that the federal Real ID Act prohibits admission to the U.S. of any alien who has engaged in a terrorist activity. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive a response.

The administration might have the ability to shuffle some funds and do this unilaterally. But it is already four months into its one-year deadline, and transfers take time. The other option is for the administration to start triangulating, blaming Congress for not funding the program, and pushing back the deadline.

If so, Guantanamo will join the growing list of security tools that President Obama once criticized as out of keeping with American values but has since discovered are very in keeping with protecting the nation. Wiretapping, renditions, military tribunals, Gitmo -- it turns out the Bush people weren't a bunch of yahoos but often thoughtful defenders against terrorism. This is all progress, though America might wonder if it could have been spared the intervening drama.