reflectivepundit

Playing Political Football with the Trial of 9/11 Plotters in New York

By Brigitte L. Nacos

More than eight years after the 9/11 attacks, more than six years after the breaking news of the 9/11 mastermind’s arrest, and after many years of secrecy, human rights violations, legal maneuvering, and inaction—most of it during George W. Bush’s presidency--, the Obama administration decided to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four others in a federal court in downtown Manhattan.

This seemed a logical choice. After all, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the mastermind of the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, one of the participants in a plot to bomb several Manhattan landmarks, and a number of other terrorists were tried, convicted and sentenced to life or long prison terms in the same court house without any problems.

Yet, Attorney-General Eric Holder’s announcement that the 9/11 plotters will be tried in a civil court in New York City rather than before military tribunal at Guantanamo was greeted with far louder opposition than support. Republicans were shameless in playing political football as they once again exploited the families of 9/11 victims for their partisan games.

As the Washington Post reported, before the attorney-general began his testimony before the Senate Judiciary, GOP Senators introduced “[m]ore than a dozen friends and relatives [that] had assembled in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday morning to watch the hearing.” After the hearing ended, Holder met with families and friends of 9/11 victims and listened to their opposition to bring them to justice in a civil court. The Post described the meeting as an “encounter with grief-stricken relatives.”

While one certainly sympathizes with the emotions of relatives and friends of 9/11 victims, eight years after the terrorist attacks politicians and reporters should stop dramatizing and amplifying the emotional plight of these families as if it were forever unique to this particular group of people.   

From Wichita to Fort Hood: Justifying Terrorism as God-Given Responsibility

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Earlier this year, Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider, in a Wichita church, where Tiller served as an usher. The other day, in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, the jailed Roeder justified his deed with the necessity to defend pre-born children’s lives. As Roeder admitted and defended his act of terrorism, the most fanatic and violent anti-abortion fringe released the third edition of a so-called “Defense Action Statement” that characterizes Roeder’s action as a just and defensive action—obviously because he discharged his “God-given responsibility” that is explained at great length in the document. The latest declaration that ends with the call “Take defensive action!” mirrors the hate messages publicized on the web sites of the so-called Army of God.

All indications are that the killer of Dr. Tiller acted as a lone wolf without the backing of a terrorist cell behind him. But since Roeder was a frequent visitor to and participant in discussion board exchanges on extremist anti-abortion web sites, there is no doubt that his is a case of inspirational recruitment to the unholy cause of violence by extremists who deem the relevant laws of the land as contrary to the will of God.

To recognize Scott Roeder and previous killers of abortion providers as terrorists who claim to be the instruments of God does not mean an association between the large mainstream of the pro-life movement and the very small fringe of violent anti-abortion terrorists. The non-violent mainstream of that movement works within the legitimate political process for change and has the right to do so.

It seems that there are parallels between anti-abortion extremist Scott Roeder and the Fort Hood mass-shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan. There are indications that both had psychological problems and that both had become intensely religious in the years preceding their steps toward violence. Just as Roeder drew from and contributed to extremist anti-abortion web sites, Dr. Hasan visited reportedly jihadi web sites and corresponded with an extremist Muslim cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who once associated with several of the 9/11 terrorists and who now praises Dr. Hasan on his web site as a model for doing the right thing in attacking soldiers on their way to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Starring in the Media: Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin

By Brigitte L. Nacos
Today, the New York Times published an article by Motoko Rich that describes TV- and radio talk show host Glenn Beck as the new Oprah for the writers of thrillers. Yesterday, Maureen Dowd devoted her column in the Times to Rush Limbaugh. The paper wrote about and referred to Sarah Palin repeatedly before and after Tuesday’s election, especially in the context of the election contest in the 23rd congressional district in up-state New York. While one would expect that the press reports on the influence of the triumvirate Beck, Limbaugh and Palin on conservatives and politics in the Republican Party, one wonders how much of this trio's influence is the result of the extraordinary media attention that these three noise-makers rake in.

Never mind that stories about and references to those three are often critical in nature. That actually enhances their credibility as attackers of the so-called liberal media and as darlings of the conservative fringe. More importantly, their starring roles in the mainstream media helps their promotion of what Palin calls “grass-root patriots” and their intimidation of the few moderates left among Republican Party leaders.

To be sure, Palin, Limbaugh and Beck have a core of enthusiastic followers that share the triumvirate’s ideology and believe whatever they are told. But the extraordinary attention that the mainstream media bestow on them bolsters their star status at a time when celebrity tends to matter most in our society. 

My too-much-attention-argument is backed up by a quick count of newspaper articles and radio- and television transcripts during the last three months (August 5 through November 5) as contained in the Lexis/Nexis electronic archive.

During that period, newspapers across the country carried a total of 1,986 stories that were about or mentioned Sarah Palin with The Washington Post (93), The Washington Times (87), and the New York Times (86) publishing most of such articles. There were 1,988 news transcripts from TV- and radio networks—342 from CNN, 181 the Fox News Network, 141 MSNBC, 59 National Public Radio, 47 NBC News, 35 ABC News, and 17 CBS.

1,591 newspaper stories were about or mentioned Limbaugh—53 of those in The New York Times, 46 in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and 46 in The Washington Times. Television and radio networks reported about or mentioned Limbaugh in 962 segments. CNN has 191 such stories followed by Fox (150), MSNBC (85), National Public Radio (33) NBC (31), ABC (27) and CBS (12).

Finally, Glenn Beck was covered or mentioned in 1,394 newspaper stories, 66 of those in The New York Times, 56 in The St. Petersburg Times and 51 in The Washington Post. Beck was covered or mentioned in 502 TV- and radio segments (not counting 170 on the Fox News Network that carries Beck’s talk show) with CNN (100) segments paying most attention followed by MSNBC (85), National Public Radio (33), NBC (31), ABC (27) and CBS (12).

That much for Palin’s, Limbaugh’s, and Beck’s big publicity helpers in the media!