The jury in the Moussaoui case handed in a life sentence; one less body on the 9/11 heap, and that’s all to the good… particularly since the government wanted so badly to burn this mad Frenchman, throwing every grisly detail of the terror attacks at the jury. Total victory has been elusive in the prosecutorial war on terror. This perhaps explains the administration’s preference for military tribunals and the legal limbo of “enemy combatant” status. All this due process nonsense really gets in the way when you want to get some decent sentencing done. Still, the news isn’t all bad for the Department of (In)Justice. They managed to put Lynne Stewart away for the heinous “crime” of violating an administrative 
agreement, once again stoking the jury with a stack of evidence from unrelated terror attacks and playing tapes of uncle Osama. Even more outrageously, they’ve convicted an NYU grad student — Mohammad Yousry — because he performed his normal duties as translator for the defense team. (See David Cole’s essay in last week’s Nation for more.) Don’t you feel a whole lot safer now? Okay, how about now?
Most of these cases are built on sand, wholly dependent on an extremely weak guilt-by-association component. That’s why the Lodi, California terror case is a shambles and why they failed to convict Sami Al-Arian on a single charge (though federal prosecutors pulled a fast one on this one at the last minute, agreeing to a plea bargain that would amount to time served and deportation for Al-Arian, then apparently getting Alberto Gonzales to intervene with judge Moody so that he would add 18 months to Al-Arian’s sentence on the basis of testimony thoroughly discredited in court and rejected by the jury — see John Sugg’s piece in Creative Loafing for details). Washington is looking for people to take the blame, whether or not they are demonstrably guilty. There’s a kind of circus show-trial feeling to the proceedings, like the Moussaoui case, the sentencing phase of which degenerated into an “I won,” “No, we won” dispute with a madman. How is it that the press can still report with amazement the stuff that comes out of that guy’s mouth? What do they expect him to say? Here’s a guy who exaggerated his own importance in the 9/11 plot in an effort to get himself executed — a ploy so lacking in credibility that the jury could not send him to the death chamber. It’s as if the TV reporters are saying, “Yes, Tom… he’s still crazy.”
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is continually setting new benchmarks for its own illegal and extra-constitutional behavior. Just this week it was revealed that the president has issued “signing statements” on a large number of laws passed by Congress during his tenure — these documents essentially announcing his administration’s intention to ignore the law or apply it as they see fit. Their reading of the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military is extremely expansive, bordering on banana republic-type “strong man” powers. Russ Feingold’s censure motion is designed to call the president on this arrogation of near-dictatorial power and hold him responsible for breaking the law, but it appears the Senate Democrats haven’t got the belly for it. One would think they might want to make an issue of this for the fall elections — you know, position themselves as the party of the constitution, the party of rights and the rule of law, that sort of thing. I for one am not holding my breath. They feel, I’m sure, that if they defend the rights of the accused, it makes them look “soft on terrorism” or, in pop jargon, “gay.”
Slogan for the Republicans this fall: We suck. Slogan for the Dems: We suck, only less hard.
