KSM trial suggests the GOP is the party with power

They may be incessantly trying to obstruct any measure of progress in Washington this year, but one can’t help but admire the GOP for discussing national security as if it was still 2002 - the year when fear tactics were enough to convince an entire Congress to invade Iraq (despite public protests), to pass the Patriot Act, and to violate the civil rights of potential “suspects”.

Eight years later, mounting evidence suggests that such actions led the U.S. to violate several international laws and human rights, not to mention be responsible for rising monetary and human costs of war. Such evidence has been surfacing throughout the years: the 9/11 Commission Report pointed out security and intelligence failures on the part of the U.S., almost immediately into the Iraq War it was confirmed that the alleged WMDs and Al-Qaeda connection was a farce, President Bush revealed the country had been housing suspects without charges for years in Guantanamo Bay, which may have caused the deaths of three inmates (the official line claimed they were suicides), and that water-boarding was not just a “dunk in the water” as Dick Cheney once suggested but actually a meticulous and lengthy torture process.

But such gaping flaws in national security procedures didn’t weaken or silence the party that spearheaded them. Instead, Republicans are still taking the lead on how to deal with “terrorist threats” in the post-9/11 U.S. Although Democrats gained control of the Executive and House in 2008, they are struggling to take control of the national security discussion.

But eight years later, it is difficult to believe that the GOP, that wants more of the same flawed procedures from the past decade, isn’t more concerned with gaining political points rather than actually protecting the country. The debate over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trials suggests enough.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11, has been under U.S. custody for seven years, under which he has been regularly waterboarded – as many as 183 times in one month. In February 2008, he was charged with murder for September 11 attacks, and in October 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. would try KSM in a civilian court. The loud outcry from the GOP and conservative leaders broke out in February 2010, spurring a heated debate in the political sphere about where his trial should be held and causing the White House to seriously consider a military tribunal for KSM – with a suspect military legal framework that was created in 2006 alongside Guantanamo Bay.

While some did protest Holder’s announcement in October, it wasn’t until a couple of months ago that the debate entered the fray. Incidentally, around the time when GOP poster boy Scott Brown was elected to the Massachusetts Senate seat and voiced his disapproval of civilian trials, when Liz Cheney helped organize families of 9/11 victims in rallies against the Attorney General, and after midterm elections came into the fore of national politics. It isn't difficult to imagine that Republicans are playing a political game.

Let’s assume Republicans are really invested in the KSM trial because they are genuinely concerned about how his trial would affect national security. Even then, their arguments don’t make much sense:

1. Argument: A civilian trial for KSM would provide him a public platform to recruit other terrorists.
There isn’t exactly a lack of incentives for terrorists or potential radicals to turn against the U.S.: Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements, drone attacks in Pakistan (besides Al Qaeda, LeT is probably the biggest threat from South Asia), and obviously the continuous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are enough to anger even moderate citizens in those countries. If the goal is to keep people freom becoming terrorists, it is U.S. foreign policy rather than a public trial that may need to be reconsidered.

2. Argument: A civilian trial tells the world that Obama is “soft on terror”
The President increased troop levels in Afghanistan, drastically increased the number of drone attacks in Pakistan as well as weapons and military aid to the country in order to fight terrorists. Obama is not quitting the war on terror anytime soon.

3. Argument: An enemy combatant should be tried in a military court
The military court system in Guantanamo was created recently and there is no guarantee that it would provide due justice. Such claims suggest Republicans doubt the effectiveness of the civilian court system in the country, a system that has tried and convicted 150 terrorists in the past decade. More terrifying, “enemy combatant” is a vague term that can be applied loosely to try suspects in a military court who may not be guilty. This isn’t such a stretch of imagination – many detainees housed in Guantanamo are not guilty or even charged with crimes.

While many Republicans have been quick to criticize the Obama administration’s handling of the KSM trial, not many are concerned with real national security risks: the recent arrest of “Jihad Jane” indicates that terrorists do not dress or look the same, as our current airport security system believes. Yet, there is no debate on how to resolve security flaws that overlook such threats.

It’s not hard to believe, then, that Republicans are using the KSM debate to paint the Obama administration and Democrats as weak and apathetic towards national security. The tactic worked successfully in 2002 when it helped push Democrats to support the Iraq War, and it may prove effective this year to help Republicans win key seats during midterm elections. After carrying the burden of the tarnished reputation of George W. Bush, the Republicans are expertly trying to reclaim the glory days of the past, when they were the ones seen as the aggressive protectors of the country.

The tactic is universal: tea partiers are protecting the constitution, conservative media is protecting values, the recent Texas Education decision is protecting "real history." This is no different. KSM military trials will protect national security. They are all ludicrous notions, but Democrats haven't dismissed them as such. Instead, these notions have put the majority party on the defensive.