[T]here is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder’s critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including “shoe bomber” Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant’s ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom.

Comey and Goldsmith are hardly the first conservatives to support Holder’s faith in the U.S. justice system. In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr wrote Sunday, “We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries. … The scare-mongering about these issues should stop.”

GOHMERT: You’ve got millions of New Yorkers that would be put at risk [by trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City] … Unless they’re trying to create a new jobs bill by allowing terrorism back in New York, this is insane. And even that would be insane.

Watch it:

(HT: Media Matters Action)

She commented on the trail of evidence linking the alleged Ft. Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, to militant Islam. “There were such clear, obvious, massive warning signs that were missed,” she said. “This terrorist, even having business cards” that identified him as an “SoA” or soldier of Allah. Palin blamed a culture of political correctness and other decisions that “prevented — I’m going to say it — profiling” of someone with Hasan’s extremist ideology. “I say, profile away,” Palin said. Such political correctness, she continued, “could be our downfall.” If the upcoming investigations into the attack reveal bad decision-making on the part of senior officials, Palin continued, those officials ought to be fired.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, which is set to air in full tonight, Palin predicted the backlash that would come from her embrace of profiling. “Because I use the word profile, I’m going to get clobbered tomorrow morning,” said Palin. “The liberals, their heads are just going to be spinning, they’re going to say, ’she is radical, she is extreme.’” Watch it:

“I say profiling in the context of doing whatever we can to save innocent American lives, I’m all for it then,” concluded Palin.

But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:

O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?

NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused.

Later in the program, Fox analyst Brit Hume said he’d “been scouring the columns of various people opining about this to see if somebody makes a good argument for doing it,” adding, “And I really haven’t heard one.” Hume then noted Napolitano’s opinion and said, “I’m not certain I agree with that.” Watch it:

Holder’s “bold and principled” decision was “a victory for the rule of law and the American system of justice,” the Center for American Progress’ Ken Gude said.

“If you are accused, you get to know what you know what you are accused of, you get to face your accusers, and you get to defend yourself in court, and then you face a trial and a conviction. This is who we are as a system,” said Tom Andrews, director of the National Campaign to Close Guantanamo. “The Taliban? You can get a trial and a beheading in a few hours. That’s not our system of justice.”

Read more about Holder’s decision in today’s Progress Report.

But the U.S. justice system apparently isn’t good enough for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who believes that the White House has a “Department of Law“). Last night she went on Facebook and posted a message calling the Obama administration’s decision “atrocious”:

Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision. [...]

Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their “clients.” The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans. [...]

If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang ‘em high.

Palin further insulted the U.S. legal system by lamenting that a “hung jury” or “court room technicalities” may allow the defendants to walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment.” But the decision to make terrorists face the U.S. court system isn’t just an idea dreamed up by the Obama administration; there’s a strong precedent for it in this country. The U.S. has already successfully prosecuted 145 terrorism cases in federal court,including shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui.

In fact, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani praised the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers:

-– “‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ he [Giuliani] said, ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-– “[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. … Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’” [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-– “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead,” said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

Even in the weeks after Sept. 11, Giuliani “framed the attacks in the language of crime, describing the hijackers as ‘insane murderers’ and calling for restoration of the ‘rule of law.’” As CAP’s Ken Gude explains, Holder’s decision is a “victory for the rule of law and the American system of justice.”

Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. … I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room — this very room — and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

Watch it:

Asked whether al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden could be alive, Bush said “I guess he is not dead.”

He, however, noted that Laden is hiding and “not leading victory parades” or “espousing his cause” on TV.

He expressed confidence that Laden will be brought to justice which “he deserves to be” and it was a matter of time.

Bush, who failed to properly resource the Afghanistan war over the term of his presidency, had some advice for Obama as he considers whether or not to send more U.S. troops into that conflict. “I hope we don’t abandon the people of Afghanistan,” Bush said, adding that U.S. withdrawal would cause the return of “brutal tyranny” in the nation.

While discussing the Newsmax column on his XM Sirius radio show last week, Michelangelo Signorile heard from a caller, “Jim from Oklahoma,” who explained that the idea of a coup is already being planned by a group of at least 200 people:

Pulling our government down, pulling our President out, and putting him back where he should be [...] [using] the right to bear arms, it’s in the Constitution. [...] We need a coup, there needs to be a coup and if the United States military won’t do it, we’ll do it.

Jim confirmed that he was “dead serious.” Although he was coy about specific details, Jim said that he was motivated by homophobia and an interest in bringing back slavery. A second caller confessed that her own mother has been scheming against the government because she has been captivated by racist thoughts and a belief that “Jesus is coming to overthrow Barack Obama.” She pleaded for people to recognize the extremist threat against Obama. Watch it:

While the intentions of these anonymous calls are difficult to confirm, they are indicative of a pattern of violent rhetoric being voiced by unrepentant conservative figures:

– One of the paying sponsors of the 9/12 anti-Obama rally in September was the National Association for Rural Landowners, a group that references the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge to call for attacks on “government entities” and liberals. In a YouTube video posted in July, the group makes the case for a secession, followed by a violent civil war.

– Calling the government “destructive of our rights,” the founder of the popular conservative website FreeRepublic called for “removing from office the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States and all U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives effective immediately” in July. Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), regularly use the website as a portal for talking points.

– Tea parties have been a constant venue for right-wing rage and calls for violence against the government. In April, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) told a crowd, “Thomas Jefferson once said that the tree of liberty will be fed with the blood of tyrants and patriots. You are the patriots.” ThinkProgress documented similar rhetoric from Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and from rallies attended by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). Americans for Prosperity, a group funded Koch Industries’ David Koch that works to plan tea parties, has sponsored speakers comparing health reform to the Holocaust.

– Prominent Republican politicians have framed top Obama agenda items as deserving violent resistance. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has said, “I want people…armed and dangerous” against clean energy reform. Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has floated the idea of secession in response to policies like the economic stimulus.

– Leading right-wing media outlets have called for “revolution.” Glenn Beck has hosted segments predicting “violent tax revolts,” Michael Savage often says, “We’re going to have a revolution in this country,” radio show host Jim Quinn has called for “riots” because “our country was built on revolution, and it’s about time we took it back.”

There have already been incidents of violence motivated by right-wing hate-speech. Richard Poplawski, who killed three police officers in April, posted videos of Glenn Beck on neo-Nazi websites and had said he was scared of the government. The Southern Policy Law Center has documented a steady rise in militia activity, and today reported on a new ominous YouTube video warning President Obama: “If you stay…‘We, The People’ will systematically dismantle you, destroy you and reclaim what is rightfully ours.”

“Ha ha,” she added dryly, when I told her that Imus, in a discussion with another first-day guest, Sen. John McCain, repeated a “joke” that after 9/11 “President Obama was the second attack on America.” (McCain, on the phone, laughed more heartily.)

After McCain laughed at the joke, Imus attempted to distance himself from the comparison, calling it “an idiotic thing to say.” Watch it:

Transcript:

MCCAIN: Well, you’ve got to hand it to our law enforcement and homeland security people that they’ve been finding out about these plots, several of them before they’ve been able to act. I think we ought to give them some credit. And maybe we might give George Bush a little credit for the fact that we’ve not had another attack on the United States since 9/11. We blame him for everything else. Hahahaha

IMUS: Somebody told me, somebody told me off the record — well, they didn’t tell me off the record. They just, I just couldn’t use their name, but they said — we’re talking about why there’d been no second attack — and they said they thought President Obama was the second attack.

MCCAIN: Hehe.

IMUS: That was an idiotic thing to say.

It’s really not the way I would go, tying my movement in with a historical terrorist attack, especially in post-9/11 America.

Beck, however, has also said that he “hates” the families of the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Although Beck conceived of the 912 Project, most of the day-to-day organizing has been orchestrated by a familiar set of lobbyists and Republican operatives who helped plan anti-Obama “grassroots” tea party events since February.

Dick Cheney, the former US Vice President, nearly destroyed Britain’s efforts to bring the airline bomb plotters to justice, police and intelligence experts said today.

By ordering the early arrest of Rashid Rauf, the bombers’ link man in Pakistan, Washington forced British police to detain the suspects in the UK before all the evidence had been gathered, it was claimed.

Andy Hayman, who served as the Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations while the terror attacks were being planned, writes today of the Cheney-ordered arrest of Rauf, “[It] hampered our evidence-gathering and placed us in Britain under intolerable pressure.”

We were having a very political discussion [in the 2004 campaign] about terrorism. … But that is quite different from what he very, I think in a kind wussy way, alleges. I mean, this is not a very precise attack. This is — he pondered and wondered if perhaps politics went into it. You know, it’s very fishy to me.

Tad Devine, a senior strategist on the 2004 John Kerry presidential campaign, responded, “I don’t think he’s wussy to expose this. I think he’s shown a lot of courage, and I’m glad he did it.” Watch it:

Wallace’s criticism echoes that of former Bush speechwriter David Frum. “That is the most tentative possible way of advancing an accusation,” Frum said of Ridge’s accusation. Last week, a spokesman for John Ashcroft said, “Now would be a good time for Mr. Ridge to use his emergency duct tape.”

I wondered, “Is this about security or politics?” Post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president’s approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level. … I consider the episode to be not only a dramatic moment in Washington’s recent history, but another illustration of the intersection of politics, fear, credibility and security.

The New York Times’ Peter Baker notes that Ridge’s new claim is a reversal from his previous statements:

Until now, he has denied politics played a role in threat levels. Asked by Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times if politics ever influenced decisions on threat warnings, he volunteered to take a lie-detector test. “Wire me up,” Mr. Ridge said, according to Mr. Lichtblau’s book, “Bush’s Law.” “Not a chance. Politics played no part.”

Osama bin Laden had released a videotape with one more ominous sounding but unspecific threat against the United States. Neither Mr. Ridge nor any of the department’s security experts thought the message warranted any change in the nation’s alert status.

“…at this point there was nothing to indicate a specific threat and no reason to cause undue public alarm,” he writes.

But that view met resistance in a tense conference call with members of the intelligence community and several other Cabinet officers including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

“A vigorous, some might say dramatic, discussion ensured. Ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the threat level and was supported by Rumsfeld.”

Noting the correlation found between increases in the threat level and the president’s approval rating, Mr. Ridge writes, “I wondered, ‘Is this about security or politics?’”

(HT: Marc Ambinder)

Among the headlines promoted by publisher Thomas Dunne Books: Ridge was never invited to sit in on National Security Council meetings; was “blindsided” by the FBI in morning Oval Office meetings because the agency withheld critical information from him; found his urgings to block Michael Brown from being named head of the emergency agency blamed for the Hurricane Katrina disaster ignored; and was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.

Playing politics with terror was a relatively frequent occurrence in the Bush administration. In August 2004, the AP reported that even “some senior Republicans” privately questioned Ridge’s timing of a terror alert that came just three days after the Democratic National Convention. According to the AP report, “One top GOP operative, who works closely with Bush’s political team, said the White House appeared to overplay its hand, and voters may smell politics behind the warning.”

COLMES: You don’t think the President of the United States, Barack Obama, cares about protecting this country.

SCHEUER: No, I don’t. Because I don’t think he realizes what the world is like outside the United States. [...]

COLMES: You don’t think he wants to protect the country?

SCHEUER: I don’t think he can, sir. [...]

COLMES: He doesn’t want to protect the country?

SCHEUER: Not if it costs votes.

Listen here:

A number of progressive bloggers castigated Scheuer for his remarks on Beck’s show. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, however, expressed disappointment in Scheuer’s comments and hoped that he was “being taken out of context,” citing his respect for Scheuer’s previous national security work. Unfortunately, it appears that Scheuer meant what he said.

However, in his column, Gingrich said they posed a “paramount threat and “have been allied with and trained by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups.” In an interview with Fox News, Gingrich added that the United States should just send them back to China.

One of Gingrich’s Republican colleagues is now calling out his ignorance. At a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Human Rights on Tuesday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said that Gingrich belongs in the “hall of shame” for fear-mongering about the Uighurs. He also said that the Bush administration unjustly detained these men at the bidding of the Chinese government in a “pathetic” attempt to gain the country’s support for the Iraq war:

The Bush administration…held Uighurs in Guantanamo as terrorists, and they did this, I believe, to appease the Chinese government in a pathetic attempt to gain its support at the beginning of the war against Iraq, and also to ensure China’s continued purchase of U.S. treasuries. Many, if not all, the negative allegations against the Uighurs, can be traced by to Communist Chinese intelligence, whose purpose is to snuff out a legitimate independence movement that challenges the Communist party bosses in Beijing. [...]

In the hall of shame, of course, is our former speaker, Newt Gingrich. His positioning on this should be of no surprise — and is of no surprise — to those of who, during Newt’s leadership, were dismayed by his active support for Clinton-era trade policies with Communist China.

Watch it:

Through their translator, the Uighurs have expressed dismay at Gingrich’s ignorant remarks. “How could he speak in such major media with nothing based in fact?” related the translator. As many human rights experts noted, the Uighurs would likely have been tortured if returned to China, as Gingrich had hoped.

Transcript:

ROHRABACHER: And also, right off the bat, I’d like to express my deep appreciation to the leader in Bermuda — it’s Premier Brown — for his courage to do what is morally right in this situation. He’s demonstrated, I think, the best of democracy. That’s what leadership is all about: being willing to take such tough stands. I’m sorry that our own leadership here at home, and even in my own party, seems lacking at this moment. [...]

Much to my dismay, some pundits in the Republican party have fallen for this bait and are lumping the Uighurs in with Islamic extremists. The Bush administration did not help matters. It held Uighurs in Guantanamo as terrorists, and they did this, I believe, to appease the Chinese government in a pathetic attempt to gain its support at the beginning of the war against Iraq, and also to ensure China’s continued purchase of U.S. treasuries. Many, if not all, the negative allegations against the Uighurs, can be traced by to Communist Chinese intelligence, whose purpose is to snuff out a legitimate independence movement that challenges the Communist party bosses in Beijing.

No patriot, especially no Republican who considers themselves a Reagan Republican, should fall for this manipulation, which has us do the bidding of a dictatorship in Beijing.

In the hall of shame, of course, is our former speaker, Newt Gingrich. His positioning on this should be of no surprise — and is of no surprise — to those of who, during Newt’s leadership, were dismayed by his active support for Clinton-era trade policies with Communist China.

BUSH: I’d like to end Guantanamo. I’d like it to be over with. One of the things we will do is we’ll send people back to their home countries. [...] There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts. They’re cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they’re let out on the street. And yet, we believe there’s a — there ought to be a way forward in a court of law.

Further, as Jake Tapper notes, Bush’s remark that “therapy” won’t help rehabilitate some of the detainees is surprising given the fact that Bush himself sent approximately 120 former Guantanamo detainees to a Saudi-based counseling center for rehabilitation. 60 Minutes recently reported on the success of the Saudi program.

They may talk about it less in public now, but law-enforcment and intel officials tell NEWSWEEK they’re quietly scrutinizing threats from the far right just as carefully as those from Islamic extremists.

Even after last week’s shooting by a white supremacist at the Holocaust Museum, conservatives stood by their criticism of the DHS report — despite the fact that the report specifically warned about white supremacist and anti-Semitic extremists.

Panetta, pouring a cup of coffee, responded to Cheney’s speech with surprising candor. “I think he smells some blood in the water on the national-security issue,” he told me. “It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

The language Cheney has chosen to use has suggested he is anticipating another attack. In a CNN interview earlier this year, he explicitly fear-mongered that Obama is “making some choices” that “raise the risk..of another attack.” And in an interview with Politico, Cheney “warned that there is a ‘high probability‘ that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years, and said he fears the Obama administration’s policies will make it more likely the attempt will succeed.”