What is President Obama Thinking?

President Obama's national security advisor, James Jones, is resigning as part of the reshuffling going on among the President's advisors. There are conflicting reports as to whether Jones is leaving of his own accord or is being forced out.

So who has President Obama chosen to replace him? Past National Security Advisors have brought with them a wealth of experience in foreign policy and military policy experience. Some of them include Robert Cutler, McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger,Zbigniew Brzezinski, Colin Powell, Brent Scrowcroft, Anthony Lake, and Condoleeza Rice. Many came to the position either through a ix of military and government service, usually in the department of Defense or the Department of State. Some were academics who had long been active in participating in studies and think tanks which helped influence US security policy.

Presiden Obama's nomination for the position is a man named Thomas "Tom" Donilon. His resume is unlike any of the examples of previous NSA's that I've listed above. For most of his career,he has been a lobbyist and partner at O'Melveney and Meyers. Now while this should not necessarily exclude him from consideration, especially when you consider that one of the best advisors that FDR had on national security was a lawyer named William Donovan (this was before there was an NSA position), he seems well... massively unqualified to be the NSA.

How unqualified? Remember Michael Brown, President Bush's FEMA chief when Hurrican Katrina hit? Yeah. That sort of qualifications.

Other than being a lobbyist, Mr. Donilon has held a few other jobs. For foreign policy experience, he Served from 1993 to 1996 as the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Sounds impressive? Maybe. But the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs is the title they give to the Secretary of State' press secretary. Basically,he was the PR face for the US media. After retiring from that position, Mr. Donilon was, as I mentioned before, a registered lobbyist. Who did he represent? Fannie Mae.

The he joined the Obama campaign as a foreign policy advisor. As a reward for being a loyal member of the winning team, he was given the position of Deputy National Security Advisor. As Woodward noted in his book Obama's Wars,

The Pentagon also had concerns about Donilon. When criticism of Jones had reached a high-water mark the previous year, Gates had decided to publicly embrace him. “I think of Jim as the glue that holds this team together,” Gates told The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, whose “Jim Jones’s Team” ran prominently on the op-ed page.

Gates did this in part, he told an aide, because he did not think Donilon would work out as Jones’s successor. Gates felt that Donilon did not understand the military or treat its senior leadership with sufficient respect. The secretary later told Jones that Donilon would be a “disaster” as Obama’s national security adviser.

So, for a position that requires a person to interact with the military regularly, you would think that the President would choose someone tah had an understanding of the people who carry out our security and foreign policy, and at least a respect for the military establishment. Instead, the President has chosen a man who deeply distrusts the military and has reportedly gone put of his way to violate his own chain of command by cutting his predecessor out of the loop with the President and his Chief of Staff.

So let's recap. No military experience. No academic experience. His only real experience in the foreign policy experience, as other than a kibitzer, was as part of Warren Christopher's team while Secretary of State. Making that an apprenticeship under one of the worst Secretaries of State we've had since World War II. His relationship with military is politely described as piss poor. So what in this backgrounds leads anyone to think that this is the man who should be the NSA for the United States of America.

So, what is President Obama thinking?

Who Can Be The Target?

That's really the question that the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights is asking.

Anwar Al-Aulaqi (aka Anwar Al-Awlaki) is a radical cleric who was born in the United States. Unlike some radical clerics, he takes his preaching very seriously. In the 1990s, he traveled to Afghanistan. It is unclear whether he participated in training, but it appears that he was taken in by the Islamic teachings of those supporting Jihad. By 1998, after a few arrests for soliciting prostitutes, he was the vice-president for Charitable Society for Social Welfare, an organization with ties to Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida. Not content to work for CSSW, from 1999 to 2000, he was a fundraiser for Hamas.

Already, you can see that this is a person with whom I would have a fundamental difference.

Although Al-Aulaqi was under surveillance by the FBI, there was never enough information pre-9/11 to make a case against him. According to reports, he was in contact with associates of Omar Abdel Rahman (aka The Blind Sheikh who had a hand in the 1993 attempt on the World Trade Center). He also helped get a battery for Bin Laden's satellite phone.

Then in January 2001, he settled in Falls Church, VA, where he started to preach at the mosque there. A native English speaker, combined with his charisma, made it easy for him to attract non-Arabs to joining Islam. In addition to new converts, there were two other men who were regular attendees at his mosque: Nawaf Al-Hazmi, Hani Hanjour, Nidal Malik Hasan. Al-Hazmi and Hanjour would soon crash an aircraft into the Pentagon. In 2009, Hasan, now a Major in the U.S. Army would be the Fort Hood Shooter.

In the investigation which followed, the FBI interviewed Al-Aulaqi about the hijackers. They also discovered Al-Aulaqi's phone number with the reported 20th Hijacker, Ramzi Binalshib. The FBI and the Congressional investigators both felt he was more involved than simply being the Imam at the Mosque that these men attended. However, there was no concrete evidence to allow them to move forward with any sort of prosecution.

As the investigations continued, Mr. Al-Aulaqi's preaching began to become more open and widely spread in support of Jihad. He praised suicide bombers in articles and in sermons. Moving to the United Kingdom, he continued to preach his version of radical Islam, claiming that the West was trying to kill Islam. The British government began looking into his connections with the Muslim Brotherhood.

With greater scrutiny on actions, Al-Aulaqi moved to Yemen, setting up at a Imam University. Imam University is reputed to being controlled or associated with Al Qaida. It was one of the places where John Walker Lindh studied for a time.

In his time at Imam University, it is reported that Al-Aulaqi has been acting as an agent of Al Qaida. Reports have been made that he negotiated agreements with Yemeni tribes to provide protection for Al Qaida. He has also issued communiques to Muslims living America, urging them to rise up against the U.S. All along, it is charged, that Al-Aulaqi has been recruiting for Al Qaida.

All of this has resulted Al-Aulaqi being placed on the terrorist watch list. It is also said that he is on a kill list that authorizes the CIA to assassinate him.

Lets Just Shred The Constitution While We're At It, Shall We?

Because that seems to be what our esteemed attorney general, Eric Holder, wants to do.

Now, I know some of you out there may ask you pay attention to things like the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions. And, you may also know that nowhere in the Constitution does it expressly mandate that when a person is taken into custody by police officers or any other law enforcement personnel, or for that matter any agent of the government wants to put someone under arrest, that they must be read certain rights that everybody knows if they've watched more than one episode of Law and Order.

In case you didn't know, the warnings that a person is given when they are in the custodial interrogation are known as Miranda rights. the reason they're known as Miranda right is because they come from a case decided by the US Supreme Court called Miranda v. Arizona. Essentially what the court found in the Miranda case is that while the Constitution didn't specifically mandate that you be read your rights, that the Constitution required the rule to be made so that the rights enshrined in the Constitution were respected by the police. he also had the nice side effect of ending the argument, to an extent, of whether a person need to be coerced or on coerced confession and whether the confession was made with their rights being knowingly waived.

Strict textual interpreters of the Constitution have always hated this rule. They feel that it was the court creating new constitutional rights rather than just applying the ones that existed. Initially police departments around the country warned that it would mean the end of effective police work, that criminals would no longer confess their crimes during interrogations because they would all take advantage of their right to silence and the right to counsel once they've been reminded of this.

It's 40 years later, and the police are still locking up bad guys.

But in recent years, the Miranda warnings have come under attack. And oddly it hasn't been attacked from just one side of the aisle, it's been attacked from both Democrats and Republicans. The critics of the Miranda warnings fear that it prevents the United States from effectively compare getting terrorists. The reason for this is that the Supreme Court has ruled that once a person asks for a lawyer than the intent addition must cease until a lawyer arrives to counsel the suspect.

Part of the confusion over the use of Miranda warnings has to do with the Democratic Party's knee-jerk reaction to anything that George W. Bush might have favored. Brenda warnings are meant for people arrested in US territory. The territory of the United States is made up of the 50 United States from overseas possessions that we administer, such as the Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and various other United States installations. The Miranda warnings were never intended to be used on the battlefield. Yet somehow, we've managed to foul the whole rule up about where the U.S. Constitution applies and does not apply to the point where now we are trying to extend Miranda rights to enemy noncombatants captured in the course of military operations.

Never before in history the United States have we ever tried to apply our constitutional rights to foreigners captured on the battlefield and held as hors de combat. Yet for some reason, there elements of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that wants to do just that.

Because of this insanity, Miranda warning is coming under attack when it's used with in the United States territories when the American citizen is captured performing acts of terrorism. Sen. McCain spoke out saying that when the suspect for the New York City Times Square bombing attempt was eventually captured that they should not eat read their Miranda warnings. Attorney General Holder, an appointee by President Obama, wants to do just that the next time there is a terrorist attack in the United States.

Atty. Gen. Holder wants to ask Congress to create an exception to Miranda rule. He argues that interrogators need greater flexibility when questioning a terrorism suspect. The exception that he is proposing, he claims, will be narrowly tailored to only include people being questioned for terrorism charges. The question then becomes, who decides what constitutes terrorist act?

You'd think that would be easy wouldn't you? There's only one problem, and that is the exception that is being proposed could be used against virtually any group which opposes the party, or the man, in power. Right now it seems all very simple. Terrorists are the ones that come out of the Middle East or Central Asia, usually Pakistan, and try and bomb us because we don't agree with their brand of Islam.

However, the current administration views a number of other groups as being potential threats, and specifically potential terrorist threats, to the United States in general. back in April of last year, the Department of Homeland Security released report stating that possible domestic terrorism groups included "groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,...".

Remember, a terrorist doesn't necessarily need to be the bomb planter or the one shooting up a hotel full of tourists. It can also be someone who donates money to a group recognized as a terrorist group. So someone brought up on terrorism charges could be a person who belongs to the younger a poor person, under a future Republican administration, who donates to Planned Parenthood.

If you want to trade your rights for security, and you'll have neither.

Too bad that neither of the parties in power seem to remember that this is a country in which people, citizens and noncitizens alike, are entitled to certain basic rights. Rather than dealing with the root of the problem effectively, they want to chase after the poll numbers and do things which degrade our civil rights. I had hoped that Atty. Gen. Holder with a better sense than to make such a proposition, but then I remembered this was a man put into office by Pres. Obama.and the one thing that Pres. Obama has demonstrated so far during his tenure of office is that he has little respect for those who do not agree with him or those who threaten his power base. Unfortunately, this ends up resulting in legislation that hurts all, instead of the people that the president is engaged in a grudge match with.

In its zeal to win, the Obama administration seeming to forget that it was put in power to help people. To protect the Constitution. Not to shred it.

And This Is The Kind Of Court Some People Want Us To Join

Apparently it was not enough that he was elected president of a country. It was also not enough that as president of Serbia that he was a member of the "Supreme Defense Counsel" or that he had control over the police and army in Serbia during the the atrocities in Kosovo against the ethnic Albanian Kosvars.

The UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (UNICTY) found Milan Milutinović innocent yesterday.

Either these judges cannot recognize a war criminal when they see one or the prosecutors went to the Clark-Darden School for Prosecutors Who Want To Lose Their Cases.

This is an odd result to me for a couple of reasons. In addition to Milutinović, there were five others who were charged with the same or similiar crimes. The other five were all convicted. Yet somehow, the court drew a distinction for Milutinović. Yet even though Milutinović was a memebr of the same groups, they somehow came to the conclusion that he did not have authority that the others did.

To me that's like saying Hitler would be convicted but not convicting von Ribbetrop because he was not in the direct chain of command becasue he was a diplomat.

For all the carnage and death caused by the Serbians in Kosovo, the five will get between 15 and 22 years in prison minus the time they have already spent in custody. Have to love European sentences. Be responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and end up with a sence as low as 9 years in jail.

Seems ridiculous to me.

Just Like Old Times (or Scary Times (Part II)

To think that I used to miss the Cold War.

Well it appears that a cease-fire has been negotiated in Georgia. Again. Let's see if the Russians respect it this time.

For an interesting article about what has been going on, I suggest reading Steve Levine's articles over at The Oil and The Glory.

As it appears right now, Russia will be retaining control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Officially Russia will only be there as "peacekeepers". However, what will more likely happen is that in a year or so, I anticipate that there will be a Russian-sponsored referendum where the people of South Ossetia will "vote" to be annexed by the Russian Federation.

Just as the Georgian situation starts to, hopefully, calm down, a new situation is on the rise. As some people may know, for months, the Bush Administration has been seeking partners in Europe to act as location sites for a missile defense system. Among those that have been targeted are nations in Eastern Europe including Poland and the Czech Republic. Today, it was announced that Poland and the U.S. have reached an agreement on the missile defense program.

Russia reacted predictably. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy commander of the Russian Air Force and a deputy of the Chief of Staff, stated, when asked about the agreement, "Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent[.]" He also quoted Russian doctrine which permits the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them."

Aside from the fact that Russia has shown that its true colors are no different from those of Imperial Russia or Soviet Russia, it is interesting that it has taken this long for it to do so. Looking at what Putin has been doing to Russia since he took over in 1999, he has been trying to restore the old luster to Russia.

Now what is interesting is the timing of Putin's actions. From my less trained eye, the timing of the Georgian invasion seems to have been delayed. Judging from reports of what happened in Georgia, the Russian response to the situation appears to have been planned and not improvised. If it was planned, why did they wait so long? If this is the first step in Russia attempting to bully its way into recreating a bipolar world, why did they wait so long.

Start from the position that U.S. is only world superpower. As such, the U.S. is the preeminent threat to any country which seeks to establish itself as a hegemon in a region, continent, or hemisphere. Simply put, the U.S. has the ability diplomatically, economically, and militarily to project its power to any corner of the world. When bullets start to fly, as they have in Georgia, or are threatened, as is the case of Poland, then the most concrete form of U.S. intervention is the military.

The threat of a carrier battle group being dispatched to a region, of USAF aircraft being dispatched to create a no-fly zone, or of a U.S. Army Division being dispatched, causes many countries to pause before embarking on a military option. However, the threat of U.S. intervention is diminished if we are already engaged in a large campaign elsewhere which requires us to commit large quantity of our resources.

Which has been the case for the past five years. For five years, the bulk of the U.S. Army and USMC have been rotating through either Iraq or Afghanistan. This has left the bulk of U.S. deterrence to the U.S. Navy, USMC MEU units (when they aren't needed in either Iraq or Afghanistan and Air Force. In many cases, this has been enough. However, Russia has a large army, with an air force which boasts approximately 850 modern combat aircraft. They also have a sizeable nuclear arsenal.

Had Russia rattled its saber against Poland and attacked Georgia even a year ago, this would have left the U.S. in a position where it could do almost nothing concrete. A year ago, the U.S. was in the midst of the Surge in Iraq. Troops were committed there and withdrawing them , or even threatening to, would have been incredibly difficult. Had Russia, or any other nation which aspires to the position of superpower (i.e. China) or regional superpower (i.e. Iran), made their move then, the U.S. would not have been in a position to easily act to counter them.

However, times are changing. No matter who becomes president in November, the reality of Iraq has changed because of the events that occurred during the Surge. The Iraqis are increasingly eager to provide for their own security and to see all or the majority of the U.S. and Coalition forces in the region withdrawn. Although Afghanistan will continue to be a work a progress over the next few years, it is not Iraq. Large conventional forces that are deployed there do not pay the same dividends as they would in other areas.

Essentially, it's almost as if the Russians have begun flexing their overt muscles too late. In some areas, it has been suggested that Putin feels that the U.S. cannot do without his influence over events in Iran. Perhaps, but if we do decide to forgo Russian help there, it could lead to failure which will only cause Russia more trouble as it tries to bring the Central Asian republics back under its influence.

That being said, the Georgian operation could have been spurred by Putin wanting to accomplish his objective before the U.S. is in a more balanced position to meet overt threats to its allies. Therefore, could we be in a sitaution where for the next year to two years, Russia will be pressing its agenda (i.e. bringing the Central Asian republics back under its hegemony, as well as seeking to keep more of the former Warsaw Pact nations from becoming enmeshed in NATO/U.S. security guarrantees) before the U.S. can do more than just offer unsupported diplomatic notes and presidential proclamations to support its allies?

One thing seems clear: the bear is back in the woods. It would be prudent to be ready to confront this bear, or any other that is lurking there.

Scary Times

I wish I could have spent the last few days just watching the Olympics and cheering on Team USA while I met the cutest little girl ever. Instead, I was watching the Olympics, meeting my niece, and trying to find as much as possible about what is going in Georgia.

I am not talking about the state either.

Georgia is a nation in what is variously known as the Near East or Central Asia. Although the territory has existed for centuries, it has been controlled by Imperial and then Soviet Russia for almost two centuries when it regained its independence in 1991.

Almost from the beginning, the newly independent state had two problems. Due, in part to Soviet control, there were significant minorities of non-Georgians in two regions: South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The people living in South Ossetia are Ossetians, essentially descendants of a Sarmatian tribe. Georgians are, well, Georgians. In both cases, most are Orthodox Christians (differing sects from what I can read) and both have Muslim minorities.

The Georgians have always viewed the territory that is known as South Ossetia as part of Georgia. And to date, no member of the United Nations has recognized South Ossetia as an independent nation.

While there is no official recognition, Russia has maintained a "peacekeeping force" in South Ossetia, and Abkhazia, since the troubles there began over a decade ago. Although there is a claim that there is a de facto state of South Ossetia, this undercut by the fact that Georgia has, in fact, maintained government control over a large portion of the territory which South Ossetia claims.

Now, as often happens when "peacekeeping forces" are dispatched to a region, there has been a constant low intensity conflict going on in the region (translation: both sides shoot at each other on occasion). Although generally it was peaceful, things began to intensify in 2004 as the central government in Georgia began to solidify its control over the region. Even though the Russians were supposed to be neutral, the Georgians claimed to have captured Russian spies, in 2006, who were engaged in espionage against Georgia in support of the South Ossetians.

It is important to remember something else Blogger: Wandering Bell - Create Poste. Prior to 2003, Russia liked the way things were in that part of Central Asia. The Georgian President was Eduard Shevardnadze. It was corrupt. It was stagnant. It was not going to pose a threat to a Russian state which was still trying to pull itself back together following the end of the Soviet Union.

Then in November 2003, there was an election. And Shevardnadze tried to rig it. And failed. Demonstrations occurred throughout the month of November, culminating in the non-violent take over of the capital building by protesters with roses in their hands (hence the name the "Rose Revolution").

In the place of Shevardnadze, following the election was Mikheil Saakashvili. While democratically elected, he is no saint, not that anyone should expect to find one in power in virtually any government. However, he does appear to be committed to democracy and ties with the West. To that end, his government has been working towards membership in NATO.

And that is what Russia fears.

First, NATO is still viewed as the enemy (even if they don't use that word). NATO was the organization by which the U.S. brought down the Soviet Union, and in the process humbled Russia. Second, the Caucus region, of which Georgia is a part, has been viewed as a Russian preserve (much like we in the U.S. view the Carribean, Central and South America). The concept of NATO bases (meaning U.S. bases) there on a permanent basis must be terrifying.

And did I forget to mention oil is involved as well? Although Georgia does not have oil reserves, there is the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline running through the country which carry natural gas and crude oil from Azerbaijan. For years, the West has been trying to keep the pipeline free of Russian control. Russian control would give them even more control over the world's oil reserves than it already has. As it stands right now, Russia produces almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia.

Control of the pipeline would add to Russia's petrochemical wealth. It would also give it another hook into Azerbaijan. At this time, the pipeline remains in Georgian hands, but that could change at any time if the fighting continues.

Georgia has firmly placed itself in the camp of the West in general and the U.S. in particular. Georgia's government has welcomed the idea of possibly becoming part of the missile defense shield program. The Deputy Chairman of the Defense and Security Committee, Nikoloz Rurua, stated, "In my view, the closer and more integrated Georgia is to Western defense systems, the better off our country will be." Predictably, the Russian response was not nearly so enthusiastic.

Which brings us back to what started on Friday. In the days leading up to August 8, there was an upswing in the violence. Both sides were accusing the other of initiating it. However, as the violence started to escalate, the Russian army began moving troops into position to enter the conflict. What happened is confused, with both sides claiming that villages were attacked indiscriminately.

What is certain is that on August 8, 2008, the Georgian military launched an assault on the separatist capital of Tskhinvali, almost surrounding and controlling it for a time. Russia then responded. According to the Russian version, Georgian troops were engaged in ethnic cleansing. According to the Georgians, the Russians are engaged in agresssion against Georgia, seeking to topple the nation's government.

So far, I have not been able to find any evidence of ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, Russian troops today have captured the city of Gori. Gori, aside from being the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, is well outside the dispute territory and is located in Georgia proper.

Russia is clearly using Georgia as an object lesson. First, it showing that the Russian Bear is back and ready to fight beyond its borders (i.e. Chechnya). Second, it is trying to show those countries in the Near East/Central Asia the consequences for siding with the U.S.

Failure to confront the Russians effectively on this will damage the United States' credibility. Bush has made it clear that he is working to help Georgian aspirations in NATO. Georgia has been a contributor to operations in Iraq, committing approximately 2,000 troops to combat operations there. American forces have been working to help the Georgian military modernized and adopt NATO style doctrine.

Unfortunately, because of our commitments around the world, it seems that Georgia will get nothing from the U.S. The U.S. military is currently deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, and South Korea among other places. It is not easily accessible by the sea (only accessible to the U.S if it were able to transit the Dardanelles into the Black Sea).

Although it seems like we should do something, our leadership, in the form of the Bush Administration, seems content to offer up the language of support without actually doing anything to show tangible support.

Anyone else out there feel like they are watching a repeat of the Sudetenland in 1938? Or for the nightmare scenario, Serbia 1914? Am I overreacting? Possibly. But then again, the Russian Bear, historically, rarely moves when it doesn't intend to stay.

Have to hand it to Iran

Even before the U.N. voted today to sanction Iran, the Iranians were getting ready for the outcome of the vote by grabbing bargaining chips. In this case, it was British military personnel.

In case you had not heard, the Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Corps maritime unit captured 15 members of a Royal Navy and Royal Marine detachment on duty in the Shatt al Arab. Iran claims that the men in captivity have "admitted" to violating Iranian waters. The Iranians have announced that they intend to try the captured British personnel for espionage.

The Iranians claim that the British violated their waters. However, in a similar incident last year, it was clear that the British were clearly within the Iraqi territory. Does it make any sense that they would be invading Iranian territory, in the day, in rigid inflatable boats, and unsupported? Or is it more likely that the Iranians are lashing out at the world's condemnation of their nuclear program and the recent capture of five Iranian Republican Guardsmen in Iraq earlier this year by U.S. forces?

A hundred years ago, the response would have been a swift reprisal raid freeing the prisoners. In today's world, with our lack of certain terms, moral equivalence, and tolerance, the response will definitely be less swift, less certain, and probably result in appeasement.

Hopefully, the Bush administration and Blair government will not repeat the fiasco of North Korean appeasement. Or they could just treat it like they have the rest of Iran's involvement in the Iraqi civil-war.

All Iran had to worry about was a UN sanction for its nuclear program. Those have proven so effective against Iraq, Sudan (for Darfur), Angola, the Former Yugoslavia, Somalia and all the other places the UN has sanctioned.

Now... ?

Mr. Clark, I respectfully disagree

Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States during the Johnson administration, has come out again against the tribunal that is conducting the trial against Saddam Huessein. He says that the court's attempt to protect witnesses have been "absurd" and that the case is in "chaos".

Essentially, he wants the tribunal disbanded and the case transferred to another country. Why?

Mr. Clark has stated that he has been denied access to documents which he maintains are centeral to his client's defense. He also states that his team needs more time to prepare the defense of the former dictator.

However, in this case, Mr. Clark is wrong. Hussein is being charged, primarily, with crimes he committed against his own county and his own citizens. Why should he not be tried by them? An argument could be made that there is not a person there who could be what is known in the United States as an "impartial jurror".

At the same time, the litany of reasons to try him in Iraq by Iraqis is stronger. The crimes he is being accused of happened in Iraq. The witnesses to the crimes are in Iraq. A procedure is in place that would seem to give him more rights that we are affording "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo. More importantly, Iraqis need to see that they can deal in justice and not simply revenge. Finally, if we are to say that Iraq is not being colonized by the United States, then we must allow them to administer their own laws.

For some differing view points about the trial there are pro-tribunal editorials here and anti-tribunal editorials here.

Mr. Ramsey wants the trial moved for one reason: his client is guilty. He wants to stave off the day of decision, whether it come from a judges' tribunal or a jury of impartial jurrors as long as possible. Perhaps he has the hope that he mire the process down to the extent that The Hague allowed to happen during the trial of Milosevic.

Is the Iraqi Special Tribunal perfect? No. Trials are messy things and perfection is sought but rarely ever attained in them. However, it is also seems that it is not a kangaroo court, instead a serious attempt to afford due process to a person who failed to give that to his own people.