Security Insiders Support Federal Trial for Qaida Suspect Anas al-Libi

Sara Sorcher, National Journal
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sara Sorcher, National Journal
Oct. 22, 2013, 4:02 a.m.

Three-quar­ters of Na­tion­al Journ­al’s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders over­whelm­ingly sup­por­ted the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de­cision to bring al-Qaida op­er­at­ive Anas al-Libi to New York fed­er­al court for tri­al after the sus­pect was cap­tured from Tripoli, Libya.

Libi last week pleaded not guilty to ter­ror­ism charges. “His kid­nap­ping from a friendly coun­try was kinda du­bi­ous, to put it mildly,” one In­sider said, “but bet­ter to bring him to a fed­er­al court than to a mil­it­ary court, or one of our new secret courts.”

An open tri­al in which Libi has leg­al coun­sel will “shine pub­lic light on vi­cious ter­ror­ist activ­ity,” an­oth­er In­sider said, and “help fam­il­ies of vic­tims achieve clos­ure, and in­crease the in­ter­na­tion­al le­git­im­acy of whatever pun­ish­ment he re­ceives.”

Many In­siders hoped the move would ce­ment the trans­ition away from the use of Guantanamo Bay pris­on, which Pres­id­ent Obama has pledged to try to close. “Hope­fully it’s a move away from tor­ture, Gitmo, and black pris­on sites and a move back to the rule of law,” one In­sider said. Gitmo, an­oth­er In­sider ad­ded, “is a blight on our in­ter­na­tion­al polit­ic­al im­age. We keep tens of thou­sands of dan­ger­ous crim­in­als in our jails. We can handle al-Qaida.”

Be­cause Libi’s court case — with charges link­ing him to bomb­ings of two U.S. em­bassies in East Africa in 1998 — pred­ates 9/11, one In­sider said, “It will be a use­ful ex­per­i­ment in bal­an­cing the two re­sponse op­tions for ter­ror­ist at­tacks, one of law en­force­ment or one of mil­it­ary ac­tion. We need to do bet­ter at in­teg­rat­ing the two ap­proaches, and this case is a good one to try to do that.”

Yet 24.5 per­cent of In­siders op­posed the move. Al-Libi should be treated “as the en­emy com­batant he is, not like a bank rob­ber,” an­oth­er In­sider said. “After a much more ex­tens­ive in­ter­rog­a­tion than he was giv­en, Libi should be sent to Guantanamo with the rest of his kind, to face a mil­it­ary tribunal in a re­vamped sys­tem set up to spe­cific­ally ac­com­mod­ate tri­als of cap­tured ter­ror­ists.” Oth­er In­siders agreed that Libi, the sub­ject of a rendi­tion, should have been in­ter­rog­ated more ex­tens­ively be­fore U.S. crim­in­al-law pro­tec­tions kicked in.

Ter­ror­ists are not or­din­ary crim­in­als and should not be dealt with as such, an­oth­er In­sider ad­ded. A fed­er­al tri­al “sends a mes­sage that with clev­er law­yers, they can go free to wreak more may­hem an­oth­er day.”

Sep­ar­ately, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­cent de­cision to sus­pend some aid to Cairo — in­clud­ing high-pro­file items such as tanks and fight­er jets — will prove in­ef­fect­ive in achiev­ing Wash­ing­ton’s goal of in­flu­en­cing the Egyp­tian mil­it­ary to trans­ition to demo­cracy and re­duce vi­ol­ence in the coun­try, vir­tu­ally all of the In­siders said.

“The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s sus­pen­sion of mil­it­ary aid came at an awk­ward time and only serves to un­der­cut and an­ger the Egyp­tian mil­it­ary,” one In­sider said. “The ad­min­is­tra­tion used a ‘cook­ie-cut­ter’ ap­proach to a for­eign policy de­cision when a more nu­anced ap­proach would have been much more ef­fect­ive.”

Obama has got­ten “everything wrong in Egypt,” be­gin­ning with the Cairo speech, an­oth­er In­sider said. “There is no reas­on to stop that streak now. It’s the wrong policy, and if he feels so strongly, why did he wait? One more con­fus­ing sig­nal from a for­eign policy without a rud­der.” The Egyp­tian mil­it­ary ous­ted demo­crat­ic­ally elec­ted pres­id­ent Mo­hamed Mor­si, of the Muslim Broth­er­hood, this sum­mer, and vi­ol­ence has con­tin­ued since; the crack­down on civil-so­ci­ety groups with­in the coun­try began years ago. “In both Egypt and Syr­ia, delay has had ex­actly the same ef­fect — to nar­row Amer­ic­an op­tions and in­flu­ence,” an­oth­er In­sider said. “Obama stayed on the side­lines by choice — now he has no choice.”

Wash­ing­ton, one In­sider said, “over­es­tim­ates” the im­pact on oth­er coun­tries be­ha­vi­or of its “lar­gesse.” Aid as a means of lever­age has not worked in Afgh­anistan or Pakistan, the In­sider ar­gued. Sev­er­al In­siders said the move will be coun­ter­pro­duct­ive — “worse” than simply be­ing in­ef­fect­ive. “The Egyp­tians will look to China. Is that what we really want?” one In­sider said. 

Yet some In­siders who be­lieved the move would not ac­tu­ally in­flu­ence Cairo’s be­ha­vi­or said the de­cision was cor­rect to sus­pend aid. “It prob­ably won’t cause the Egyp­tians to demo­crat­ize, but we should sus­pend the aid any­way,” one In­sider said. “The ar­gu­ment that aid gives us in­flu­ence is un­der­mined by con­tinu­ing aid to a re­gime that ig­nores our policy pref­er­ences — all this does is to show oth­ers that you can do what you want and the Amer­ic­ans will still pay you any­way. That’s not in­flu­ence.”

1. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de­cision to bring al-Qaida op­er­at­ive Anas al-Libi to New York fed­er­al court for tri­al was the:

(54 votes)

— Right de­cision 75.5%

— Wrong de­cision 24.5%

RIGHT DE­CISION

“Fair tri­als ne­ces­sary, even for ter­ror­ists.”

“The blen­ded use of na­tion­al se­cur­ity tools in the al-Libi case should be the mod­el for how the U.S. con­ducts coun­terter­ror­ism op­er­a­tions in the fu­ture.”

“The man is un­der fed­er­al in­dict­ment and should be brought to tri­al in a fed­er­al court.”

“This one is prob­ably jus­ti­fied to take through the courts.”

“[Gitmo] for many reas­ons is not work­ing. We need to have con­sequences as­so­ci­ated with ac­tion, and these people to be ac­count­able. Same pro­cess was used for pir­ates and worked.”

“He is ac­cused of com­mit­ting a fed­er­al crime. Art­icle III courts have re­peatedly demon­strated their abil­ity to try people ac­cused of such crimes, in­clud­ing ter­ror­ist crimes.”

“Ter­ror­ists are crim­in­als who in­stead of be­ing mo­tiv­ated by profit and greed are driv­en by ideo­logy and hate. Our justice sys­tem is well ac­quain­ted with crim­in­al ter­ror­ists and will in­vest­ig­ate, send to tri­al, and con­vict those who do harm against us and our in­terests. Once in a Su­per­max, they can con­tin­ue to be in­ter­viewed to gain in­form­a­tion about their ter­ror net­works. [Gitmo] has been and con­tin­ues to be an ex­pens­ive fail­ure.”

“This provides the ad­min­is­tra­tion with a sol­id case study for try­ing ter­ror­ists in fed­er­al courts.”

“Well ex­ecuted rendi­tion in Libya and the time aboard ship was a good idea; hop­ing they gave the team enough time; more con­cerned over the lack of ‘fin­ish’ in Somalia.”

WRONG DE­CISION

“The po­s­i­tion the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has taken in the past in sim­il­ar cases — that it will af­ford crim­in­al tri­als to these kinds of ter­ror­ists, but has no in­ten­tion of re­leas­ing them if they are ac­quit­ted by a jury — shows what a trav­esty this ex­er­cise is.”

“Anas al-Libi should be treated as the en­emy com­batant he is, not like a bank rob­ber. After a much more ex­tens­ive in­ter­rog­a­tion than he was giv­en, Libi should be sent to Guantanamo with the rest of his kind, to face a mil­it­ary tribunal in a re­vamped sys­tem set up to spe­cific­ally ac­com­mod­ate tri­als of cap­tured ter­ror­ists.”

“He is a sig­ni­fic­ant in­tel­li­gence re­source and should be in­ter­rog­ated by [Joint Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Com­mand] and the CIA without a law­yer.”

“Wrong but con­sist­ent with the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s view that coun­terter­ror ef­forts ought to be based on law en­force­ment. Libi will be grate­ful for Mir­anda, but the na­tion’s safety will pay the price.”

2. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de­cision to sus­pend some mil­it­ary aid will prove ___ in in­flu­en­cing the Egyp­tian mil­it­ary to trans­ition to demo­cracy and re­duce vi­ol­ence in the coun­try:

— In­ef­fect­ive 86%

— Ef­fect­ive 14%

IN­EF­FECT­IVE

“Our abil­ity to shape events in Egypt is quite lim­ited.”

“The ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­pears de­term­ined to ant­ag­on­ize all sides in Egypt. The Camp Dav­id as­sist­ance the U.S. has giv­en Egypt for more than three dec­ades is a re­ward for main­tain­ing peace with Is­rael, not a bribe con­di­tioned on demo­crat­ic be­ha­vi­or.”

“Ef­fect­ive or in­ef­fect­ive, it’s the law, and the sus­pen­sion should have been ap­plied com­pletely from the be­gin­ning.”

“It prob­ably won’t cause the Egyp­tians to demo­crat­ize, but we should sus­pend the aid any­way. The ar­gu­ment that aid gives us in­flu­ence is un­der­mined by con­tinu­ing aid to a re­gime that ig­nores our policy pref­er­ences—all this does is to show oth­ers that you can do what you want and the Amer­ic­ans will still pay you any­way. That’s not in­flu­ence.”

“The sus­pen­sion of some U.S. mil­it­ary aid will not have im­me­di­ate ef­fect on the mil­it­ary re­gime, but will en­cour­age op­pon­ents to see an op­por­tun­ity to gain more in­ter­na­tion­al sup­port if they pur­sue demo­crat­ic change.”

“The aid sus­pen­sion is driv­en by do­mest­ic polit­ic­al reas­ons and has little chance of help­ing move Egypt in a more pos­it­ive dir­ec­tion.”

“This move doesn’t get the ad­min­is­tra­tion much—they have lost lever­age; should have done this soon­er, if they wanted to cut off aid.”

“The sus­pen­sion will also hurt our abil­ity to in­flu­ence the Egyp­tian lead­er­ship.”

“But it was still the right thing to do, as a state­ment of the U.S. po­s­i­tion.”

“Pub­lic em­barass­ment is rarely a high prob­ab­il­ity shot.”

“While I think it is too early to see, I fear that giv­ing ra­tion­al thought to a cur­rently ir­ra­tion­al situ­ation may not fore­cast the ac­tu­al res­ults re­gard­ing what the fu­ture holds.”

“The Egyp­tian mil­it­ary will take this ac­tion as a be­tray­al while we are still pay­ing Is­rael.”

“The Egyp­tian mil­it­ary has set its own course and will not al­low the Muslim Broth­er­hood to re­gain power. What the United States does or doesn’t do in re­sponse will not al­ter this real­ity.”

“It will hurt their crony mil­it­ary in­dus­tri­al com­plex but not enough to bend them to our well. Sanc­tions don’t work and this is just an­oth­er sanc­tion.”

“The Saudi and oth­er Middle East­ern dic­tat­or­ships will make up the dif­fer­ence. It is simply a ‘feel good’ polit­ic­al ges­ture from an ad­min­is­tra­tion des­per­ately try­ing to be a ‘play­er’ in Egypt.”

“In­ef­fect­ive but cor­rect. We should have cut off the aid a long time ago, but in­er­tia is a power­ful force in U.S. for­eign policy. Also, U.S. law ought to be fol­lowed where pos­sible, and it’s pos­sible here.”

“Hope­fully man­aged care­fully be­low the sur­face, but real risk of erod­ing in­flu­ence with the last in­sti­tu­tion of stature and in­vit­ing chaos to fill the void.”

Na­tion­al Journ­al’s Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity In­siders Poll is a peri­od­ic sur­vey of more than 100 de­fense and for­eign policy ex­perts. They in­clude: Gor­don Adams, Charles Al­len, Thad Al­len, James Bam­ford, Dav­id Barno, Milt Bearden, Peter Ber­gen, Samuel “Sandy” Ber­ger, Dav­id Ber­teau, Steph­en Biddle, Nancy Bird­sall, Mari­on Blakey, Kit Bond, Stu­art Bowen, Paula Broad­well, Mike Breen, Mark Brun­ner, Steven Bucci, Nich­olas Burns, Dan By­man, James Jay Cara­fano, Phil­lip Carter, Wendy Cham­ber­lin, Mi­chael Cher­toff, Frank Cil­luffo, James Clad, Richard Clarke, Steve Clem­ons, Joseph Collins, Wil­li­am Court­ney, Lorne Cran­er, Ro­ger Cres­sey, Gregory Dahl­berg, Robert Dan­in, Richard Dan­zig, Daniel Drezn­er, Mack­en­zie Eaglen, Paul Eaton, An­drew Ex­um, Wil­li­am Fal­lon, Eric Farns­worth, Jacques Gansler, Steph­en Gan­yard, Daniel Goure, Mark Green, Mike Green, Mark Gun­zinger, John Hamre, Jim Harp­er, Mi­chael Hay­den, Mi­chael Her­son, Pete Hoek­stra, Bruce Hoff­man, Linda Hud­son, Paul Hughes, Colin Kahl, Don­ald Ker­rick, Rachel Klein­feld, Lawrence Korb, Dav­id Kramer, An­drew Kre­pinev­ich, Charlie Kupchan, W. Patrick Lang, Cedric Leighton, James Lind­say, Justin Lo­gan, Trent Lott, Peter Mansoor, Ron­ald Marks, Bri­an Mc­Caf­frey, Steven Metz, Frank­lin Miller, Philip Mudd, John Nagl, Shuja Nawaz, Kev­in Neal­er, Mi­chael Oates, Thomas Pick­er­ing, Paul Pil­lar, Larry Pri­or, Steph­en Rade­maker, Marc Rai­mondi, Celina Realuyo, Bruce Riedel, Barry Rhoads, Marc Ro­ten­berg, Frank Rug­giero, Kori Schake, Mark Schneider, John Scofield, Tammy Schultz, Steph­en Ses­t­an­ovich, Sarah Se­wall, Mat­thew Sher­man, Jen­nifer Sims, Con­stan­ze Stelzen­müller, Frances Town­send, Mick Train­or, Su­z­anne Spauld­ing, Ted Stroup, Richard Wil­helm, Tamara Wittes, Dov Za­kheim, and Juan Za­r­ate.

 

 

What We're Following See More »
TWO MONTHS AFTER REFUSING AT CONVENTION
Cruz to Back Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST
WHO TO BELIEVE?
Two Polls for Clinton, One for Trump
1 days ago
THE LATEST

With three days until the first debate, the polls are coming fast and furious. The latest round:

  • An Associated Press/Gfk poll of registered voters found very few voters committed, with Clin­ton lead­ing Trump, 37% to 29%, and Gary John­son at 7%.
  • A Mc­Clatchy-Mar­ist poll gave Clin­ton a six-point edge, 45% to 39%, in a four-way bal­lot test. Johnson pulls 10% support, with Jill Stein at 4%.
  • Rasmussen, which has drawn criticism for continually showing Donald Trump doing much better than he does in other polls, is at it again. A new survey gives Trump a five-point lead, 44%-39%.
NO SURPRISE
Trump Eschewing Briefing Materials in Debate Prep
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

In contrast to Hillary Clinton's meticulous debate practice sessions, Donald Trump "is largely shun­ning tra­di­tion­al de­bate pre­par­a­tions, but has been watch­ing video of…Clin­ton’s best and worst de­bate mo­ments, look­ing for her vul­ner­ab­il­it­ies.” Trump “has paid only curs­ory at­ten­tion to brief­ing ma­ter­i­als. He has re­fused to use lecterns in mock de­bate ses­sions des­pite the ur­ging of his ad­visers. He prefers spit­balling ideas with his team rather than hon­ing them in­to crisp, two-minute an­swers.”

Source:
TRUMP NO HABLA ESPANOL
Trump Makes No Outreach to Spanish Speakers
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Donald Trump "is on the precipice of becoming the only major-party presidential candidate this century not to reach out to millions of American voters whose dominant, first or just preferred language is Spanish. Trump has not only failed to buy any Spanish-language television or radio ads, he so far has avoided even offering a translation of his website into Spanish, breaking with two decades of bipartisan tradition."

Source:
$1.16 MILLION
Clintons Buy the House Next Door in Chappaqua
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Bill and Hillary Clinton have purchased the home next door to their primary residence in tony Chappaqua, New York, for $1.16 million. "By purchasing the new home, the Clinton's now own the entire cul-de-sac at the end of the road in the leafy New York suburb. The purchase makes it easier for the United States Secret Service to protect the former president and possible future commander in chief."

Source:
×