Discussion Forum for Prosecuting Terrorists

INSCT Presents: When "High Value Detainees" Meet Juries: The Challenge of Prosecuting GITMO Prisoners in Our Civilian Courts

Video of entire 150 minute event is available at this link:

Attorney General Announces Forum Decisions for Guantanamo Detainees

Attorney General Announces Forum Decisions for Guantanamo Detainees

Washington, D.C. ~ Friday, November 13, 2009

 

Good morning.  Just over eight years ago, on a morning our nation will never forget, nineteen hijackers working with a network of Al Qaeda conspirators around the world launched the deadliest terrorist attacks our country has ever seen.  Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives in those attacks, and in the years since, our nation has had no higher priority than bringing those who planned and plotted the attacks to justice.

One year before, in October 2000, a terrorist attack on the USS Cole killed seventeen American sailors.

Today we announce a step forward in bringing those we believe were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole to justice.

Five detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before military commissions with participation in the 9/11 plot:  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammed Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi. Those proceedings have been stayed since February, as have the proceedings pending in military commissions against four other detainees accused of different crimes. A case in military commissions against the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was withdrawn in February.

For the past several months, prosecutors at the Department of Justice have been working diligently with prosecutors from the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions to review the case of each detainee at Guantanamo who has been referred for prosecution. Over the past few weeks, I have personally reviewed these cases, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, have made determinations about the prosecution of ten detainees now held at Guantanamo, including those charged in the 9/11 plot and the alleged mastermind of the Cole bombing.

Today, I am announcing that the Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. Further, I have decided to refer back to the Department of Defense five defendants to face military commission trials, including the detainee who was previously charged in the USS Cole bombing.

The 9/11 cases that will be pursued in federal court have been jointly assigned to prosecutors from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia and will be brought in Manhattan in the Southern District of New York. After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11^th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.

I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures.

I also want to assure the American people that we will prosecute these cases vigorously, and we will pursue the maximum punishment available. These were extraordinary crimes and so we will seek maximum penalties. Federal rules allow us to seek the death penalty for capital offenses, and while we will review the evidence and circumstances following established protocols, I fully expect to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty against each of the alleged 9/11 conspirators.

In his speech at the National Archives in May, the President called for the reform of military commissions to ensure that they are a lawful, fair, and effective prosecutorial forum. The reforms Congress recently adopted to the Military Commissions Act ensure that military commission trials will be fair and that convictions obtained will be secure.

I know that the Department of Defense is absolutely committed to ensuring that military commission trials will be consistent with our highest standards as a nation, and our civilian prosecutors will continue to work closely with military prosecutors to support them in that effort.

In each case, my decision as to whether to proceed in federal courts or military commissions was based on a protocol that the Departments of Justice and Defense developed and that was announced in July. Because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors – including the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated – that must be considered. In consultation with the Secretary of Defense, I looked at all the relevant factors and made case by case decisions for each detainee.

It is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions. Just as a sustained campaign against terrorism requires a combination of intelligence, law enforcement and military operations, so must our legal efforts to bring terrorists to justice involve both federal courts and reformed military commissions. I want to thank the members of Congress, including Senators Lindsay Graham, Carl Levin and John McCain who worked so hard to strengthen our national security by helping us pass legislation to reform the military commission system.

We will continue to draw on the Pentagon’s support as we bring cases against the alleged 9-11 conspirators in federal court. The Justice Department has a long, successful history of prosecuting terrorists for their crimes against our nation, particularly in New York. Although these cases can often be complex and challenging, federal prosecutors have successfully met these challenges and have convicted a number of terrorists who are now serving lengthy sentences in our prisons. And although the security issues presented by terrorism cases should never be minimized, our marshals, court security officers, and prison officials have extensive experience and training dealing with dangerous defendants, and I am confident they can meet the security challenges posed by this case.

These detainees will not be transferred to the United States for prosecution until all legal requirements are satisfied, including those in recent legislation requiring a 45 day notice and report to the Congress. I have already spoken to Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg and am committed to working closely with them to ensure that all security and related concerns are properly addressed. I have every confidence that we can safely hold these trials in New York, as we have so many previous terrorism trials.

For the many Americans who lost friends and relatives in the attacks of September 11, 2001 and on the USS Cole, nothing can bring those loved ones back. But they deserve the opportunity to see the alleged plotters of those attacks held accountable in court, an opportunity that has been too long delayed. Today’s announcements mark a significant step forward in our efforts to close Guantanamo and to bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack our nation and our interests abroad.

For over two hundred years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims. Once again we will ask our legal system, in two venues, to rise to that challenge. I am confident it will answer the call with fairness and justice.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, November 13, 2009

Departments of Justice and Defense Announce Forum Decisions for Ten Guantanamo Bay Detainees

Decisions on Accused 9/11 Plotters, Alleged Mastermind of USS Cole Attack & Others

WASHINGTON – The Departments of Justice and Defense today announced forum decisions for ten detainees at Guantanamo Bay whose cases were previously charged in military commissions, including five detainees accused of conspiring to commit the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks and a detainee accused of orchestrating the attack on the USS Cole.

 

  “Today we announce a step forward in bringing those we believe were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole to justice,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.  “For over two hundred years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims.  Once again we will ask our legal system to rise to that challenge, and I am confident it will answer the call with fairness and justice.”

 

    "Bringing terrorists to justice is an integral part of our national security,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.  “The reform of Military Commissions and today's announcement are important steps in that direction."

 

The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, has determined that the United States government will pursue a prosecution in federal court against five detainees who are currently charged in military commissions with conspiring to commit the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 individuals.  These detainees are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi.

 

The Department of Justice intends to pursue a prosecution against these five individuals in the Southern District of New York as soon as possible.  Prosecution of these detainees will be co-managed by teams from the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia.  These detainees will be transferred to the United States for trial after all legal requirements, including a 45-day notice and report to Congress, are satisfied, and consultations with state and local authorities have been completed.  The detainees will be housed in a federal detention facility in New York, which includes maximum security units that have securely held terrorism suspects in the past.   Once federal charges are brought against these detainees, military commission charges now pending against them will be withdrawn. 

 

The Attorney General has also determined, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, that the prosecutions of five other Guantanamo Bay detainees who were charged in military commissions may be resumed in that forum.  These detainees include the detainee accused of orchestrating the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured dozens of others, and a detainee who is accused of participating in an al-Qaeda plot to blow up oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz.

 

The Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense are confident that detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay can be detained securely in U.S. detention facilities and that their trials can be conducted effectively and safely in the United States, whether in federal court or in a military commission.

 

Over the past decade, the Department of Justice has successfully prosecuted many terrorism defendants in our federal courts.  Today, there are more than 200 inmates who have a history of or nexus to international terrorism, who have been convicted in federal courts, and are now housed securely in Bureau of Prisons facilities.  The Department has already transferred one former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to the Southern District of New York to face trial for his alleged role in the 1998 East Africa Embassy bombings.

 

With regard to military commissions, the reforms Congress recently adopted to the Military Commissions Act will ensure that commission trials are fair, effective, and lawful.  Military commissions have been used by the United States to try those who have violated the law of war for more than two centuries.   Further, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Congress’ power to determine the need for military commissions and to provide their jurisdiction and procedures, and this Congress has recently reiterated its support for commissions in adopting important reforms to the Military Commissions Act. 

 

Finally, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense understand and share the concern of the victims of terrorist attacks about the length of time it has taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.  Justice has been delayed far too long.  Prosecutors in both departments are committed to moving forward with all these cases as quickly as possible and to working together to see that justice is served, consistent with our nation’s values.

 

The Washington Post reports today:

The Justice Department has begun to hint in court filings that at least some of the defendants in the Sept. 11, 2001, case, as well as other prominent suspects, will be transferred to federal custody in the United States.

The main point of the article is that most are better off at GITMO.  KSM currently enjoys 4 hours a day sitting in the Caribean sun and talking to other prisoners.  "Mohammed can also use that time to visit a media room to watch movies of his choice, read newspapers and books, or play handheld electronic games. He and other detainees have access to elliptical machines and stationary bikes."  The Bureau of Prisons's Supermax facility, on the other hand, is largely underground and typically includes 23 hours per day of solitary confinement.

Zazi and conspiracy

Consistent with our discussion in class, Najibullah Zazi has been indicted on conspiracy to commit a terrorism offense.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, September 24, 2009
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

AG
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Najibullah Zazi Indicted for Conspiracy to Use Explosives Against Persons or Property in the United States

The Justice Department today announced that Najibullah Zazi, 24, a resident of Aurora, Colo., and legal permanent resident of the United States from Afghanistan, has been indicted in the Eastern District of New York on a charge of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction (explosive bombs) against persons or property in the United States.

* * *

Yesterday, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York returned a one-count indictment alleging that between Aug. 1, 2008 and Sept. 21, 2009, Zazi knowingly and intentionally conspired with others to use one or more weapons of mass destruction, specifically explosive bombs and other similar explosive devices, against persons or property within the United States. The indictment also alleges that, in furtherance of this offense, Zazi and others traveled in interstate and foreign commerce, used email and the Internet, and that this offense and the results of the offense would have affected interstate and foreign commerce.

"The indictment alleges that Najibullah Zazi conspired with others to use explosive devices against persons or property in the United States," said Attorney General Eric Holder.  "We are investigating a wide range of leads related to this alleged conspiracy, and we will continue to work around the clock to ensure that anyone involved is brought to justice. We believe any imminent threat arising from this case has been disrupted, but as always, we remind the American public to be vigilant and to report any suspicious activity to law enforcement."

* * *

Najibullah Zazi Indictment

Najibullah Zazi - Government's detention memo

###

09-1017

Prevention Paradigm

This summary from U.S. News and World Report this morning exemplifies the "prosecution as a tool for disruption" approach and the "spitting onthe sidewalk" method.  Although substantive "terrorism" offenses may well be added later, for now a "varsity level" attack near execution is thwarted by use of routine Section 1001 Lying to Investigators charges.

The FBI arrests on Saturday of Najibullah Zazi, his father Mohammed Zazi, and New York Imam Ahmad Afzali in the ongoing investigation into a possible liquid bomb terror plot -- and subsequent release on Sunday of documents detailing the allegations against the three -- continue to garner increasing media coverage, including lead reports on Sunday's network broadcasts and stories by major wire services and newspapers this morning. Although many reports note prominently that none of the three actually have been charged with plotting terrorism -- only lying to the FBI during the course of the investigation -- they detail Najibullah Zazi's alleged bomb-making notes and Al Qaeda training, and emphasize that the FBI continues to investigate other suspects in the alleged plot.
  ABC World News reported, "Investigators are calling it a quote, 'varsity level terror plot inside of this country,' one that was nearing the attack stage," and "officials are saying" Saturday's arrests are "just the beginning." NBC Nightly News reported that "federal agents are trying to unravel the details of a plot they believe targeted New York City for another terror attack." Officials "say more charges may be coming and that other people are involved, but they say that no matter what happens in the criminal cases, they believe this has been successful in a different way in disrupting a potential attack." (emphasis added)

 

 

UPDATE:  FBI press release and links to charging documents:

U.S. Department of Justice For Immediate Release September 20, 2009

ASG (202) 514-2007 TDD (202) 514-1888 www.usdoj.gov

Three Arrested in Ongoing Terror Investigation

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced that two individuals in Colorado and one individual in New York have been arrested on charges of making false statements to federal agents in an ongoing terror investigation.

FBI agents in Colorado arrested Najibullah Zazi, 24, a resident of Aurora, Colo., and legal permanent resident from Afghanistan, and his father Mohammed Wali Zazi, 53, a resident of Aurora and a naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan. In addition, FBI agents in New York arrested Ahmad Wais Afzali, 37, a resident of Flushing, N.Y., and a legal permanent resident from Afghanistan.

Each of the defendants has been charged by criminal complaint with knowingly and willfully making false statements to the FBI in a matter involving international and domestic terrorism. Najibullah Zazi and Mohammed Zazi are scheduled to make their initial appearances on Monday in federal court in the District of Colorado. Ahmad Afzali is scheduled to make his initial appearance on Monday in federal court in the Eastern District of New York. If convicted, each faces a potential eight years imprisonment.

“The arrests carried out tonight are part of an ongoing and fast-paced investigation. It is important to note that we have no specific information regarding the timing, location or target of any planned attack. As always, however, the American people should remain vigilant and report any suspicious activities to their local authorities,” said David Kris, Assistant Attorney General for National Security. “I would like to thank the many agents, analysts and attorneys who are working extremely hard on this important matter.”

According to affidavits filed in support of the three criminal complaints, the FBI is investigating several individuals in the United States, Pakistan and elsewhere, relating to a plot to detonate improvised explosive devices in the United States.

Records from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reflect that, on Aug. 28, 2008, Najibullah Zazi flew to Peshawar, Pakistan from Newark International Airport via Geneva, Switzerland and Doha, Qatar. CBP records further reflect that Najibullah Zazi traveled from Peshawar to John F. Kennedy International Airport on or about Jan. 15, 2009.

According to the affidavits, on or about Sept. 9, 2009, FBI agents observed Najibullah Zazi depart his residence in Colorado in a rented car. He drove to New York City, arriving the following day, and spent the night at a residence in Flushing, Queens (“the Queens Residence.”)

On Sept. 10, 2009, New York City Police Department (NYPD) detectives met with defendant Afzali, whom the NYPD had utilized as a source in the past. According to the affidavits, the detectives questioned Afzali about Najibullah Zazi and others and showed him photographs of Najibullah Zazi and others. Afzali allegedly told the detectives he recognized Najibullah Zazi and several of the men in the photographs.

According to affidavits, on Sept. 11, 2009, defendant Mohammed Zazi placed a call to Afzali which lasted approximately 20 minutes. That same day, the FBI lawfully intercepted a phone conversation between Mohammed Zazi and his son, Najibullah Zazi. An affidavit alleges that, during the conversation, Mohammed Zazi told his son that he had spoken to Afzali who had informed him about being visited by law enforcement and shown photographs. Mohammed Zazi told his son that Afzali would call him and he advised his son to speak with Afzali "before anything else,” according to affidavits.

In the midst of this phone call, Najibullah Zazi allegedly received a call from Afzali, who discussed his meeting with law enforcement the day before. According to a draft summary of the transcription, Afzali allegedly stated: “I was exposed to something yesterday from law enforcement. And they came to ask me about your characters.” Afzali also allegedly asked Najibullah Zazi about his last trip to Pakistan and added, “Listen, our phone call is being monitored.”

According to the affidavits, in another legally intercepted phone conversation on Sept. 11, 2009, Najibullah Zazi told Afzali that his car had been stolen and that he feared he was being “watched.” Afzali allegedly asked if there was any “evidence in his car,” and Najibullah Zazi said no.

That same day, FBI agents conducted a legally authorized search of Najibullah Zazi’s rental car, which was parked near the Queens residence. During the search, agents found a laptop computer containing a jpeg image of nine-pages of handwritten notes. According to the affidavits, the notes contain formulations and instructions regarding the manufacture and handling of initiating explosives, main explosives charges, explosives detonators and components of a fuzing system. On Sept. 12, 2009, Najibullah Zazi flew from La Guardia Airport in New York to Denver.

On Sept. 16, 2009, FBI agents interviewed Najibullah Zazi in Denver. According to an affidavit, when he was asked about and shown handwritten notes regarding explosives found on his laptop computer, Najibullah Zazi falsely asserted that he had never seen the document before and stated he had not written the notes.

On Sept. 17 and 18, 2009, Najibullah Zazi was further interviewed by the FBI in Denver. According to affidavits, Najibullah Zazi admitted in the interviews that during his 2008 trip to Pakistan, he attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al-Qaeda training facility in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.

The affidavits allege that, on Sept. 17, 2009, Afzali was interviewed by authorities in New York where he falsely asserted in a written statement that he did not tell Najibullah Zazi or Mohammed Zazi that authorities had approached him seeking information about Najibullah Zazi. According to the affidavits, Afzali also falsely asserted that he never told Najibullah Zazi that they were being monitored on the phone and that he never asked Najibullah Zazi about evidence in his car.

The affidavits further allege that, on Sept. 16, 2009, Mohammed Zazi was interviewed by the FBI in Denver where he was asked whether anyone had called him and told him about his son’s activities and any trouble regarding his son. According to the affidavits, Mohammed Zazi falsely stated that he had never called anyone in New York other than his son and he had never received a call from anyone in New York. He allegedly revised his statement to say he had received one call from an individual who informed him that his son had missed his flight. According to the affidavits, Mohammed Zazi was later asked if he knew anyone by the name of Afzali and he said he did not.

These prosecutions are being handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of Colorado, with assistance from the Counterterrorism Section of the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

The investigation is being conducted by the New York and Denver FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which combined have investigators from more than fifty federal, state and local law enforcement agencies .

The public is reminded that criminal complaints contain mere allegations and a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Criminal complaint and arrest warrant, Najibullah Zazi (pdf)
Criminal complaint and arrest warrant, Mohammed Wali Zazi (pdf)

Why we don't use the report "Trying Terrorists in Article III Courts."

Just two months ago, three groups including the distinguished ABA Standing Committee on Law and National Security published Trying Terrorists in Article III Courts: Challenges and Lessons Learned.  At first sight, that may seem like a perfect text for our course.  Unfortunately, it is so riddled with errors that I can not recommend it for use by persons not already familiar with the subject area.

The report is meant to be a record of discussions at a workshop.  The discussants are distinguished, knowledgeable and in some cases acquaintances or friends of mine.  According to the "Reporters' Note," "the reporters added background and introductory information"(p.6).  Perhaps that is the root of the problem.  In any event, the report is not to be trusted.

For example, Section V.D. on Chain of custody states:

The Federal Rules also prescribe specific requirements to ensure the authenticity of evidence for use in prosecutions, known as “chain of custody” requirements. In terrorism cases, it often proves difficult, if not impossible, to observe the mandated level of protection of evidence. ... Moreover, information that the government seeks to use against accused terrorists may have been obtained by the intelligence community without any sense that the information might later be used in a criminal prosecution. This evidence, therefore, has not been subjected to the chain of custody requirements that are imposed on evidence collected for use in court. Discussants were unable to reach a conclusion on whether such information could lawfully be used in terrorism trials. One discussant noted that in at least one international criminal tribunal, the court removed all chain of custody requirements. It was suggested, without consensus, that Article III courts should similarly permit the parties to a terrorism trial to admit all plausible and relevant evidence without regard for chain of custody.

The problem here is just simple ignorance of the law.  Anyone who has ever litigated in federal court (or prepared for the Multi-State Bar Exam) should be able to tell you that a break in the chain of custody of evidence goes to its weightnot its admissibility.  There is no reason to change anything to remove chain of custody requirements in Article III courts, because proof of chain of custody is not required in Article III courts.  Authentication is required, but that is hardly the same thing as proving chain of custody.  In their famous treatise, Mueller and Kirkpatrick write, "Although serious gaps may raise enough doubt to require exclusion, a break in the chain is not necessarily fatal to admissibility..." MUELLER & KIRKPATRICK, EVIDENCE § 9.5, at 1004 (3d ed. 2003).  Put even more clearly and authoritatively, the United States Supreme Court noted just a month before this report was released: “gaps in the chain [of custody] normally go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.”  Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2532 (2009).  [The term "chain of custody" never appears in the Federal Rules of Evidence.]

Although I do not recommend that you use this report for our class, there are two white papers that I do recommend -- In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts and In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts, 2009 Update and Recent Developments -- available as free downloads. The first is here. The second is here.  The primary authors of these papers were Richard B. Zabel and James J. Benjamin, Jr., both former Assistant United States Attorneys.  Judge Brinkema highly recommended the first of these two papers (the only one in existence at the time) to us when she spoke to our class last year.   I do not necessarily endorse their conclusions (I'd prefer you to make up your own mind), but these two papers are accurate, authoritative, and highly useful in our course.  A brief video about the papers is available at this link.

How to close GITMO detention center?

Here are excerpts of a wire service report from today:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration has intensified efforts to send more security detainees from Guantanamo Bay to their own countries but hopes are very dim of closing the prison by year-end, senior U.S. officials say.

A host of legal and practical problems have stalled moves to close the controversial prison at a U.S. naval base in Cuba, which opened in January 2002 to house terrorism suspects caught in President George W. Bush's declared war against terrorism.

Of about 255 detainees now in Guantanamo, government agencies say 60 to 80 face special military tribunals. About 60 are in the process of being sent back to their own countries. The future of the remaining 115 or so is uncertain as there is not enough evidence to charge them and they are deemed too dangerous to send home.

* * *

Both candidates -- Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama -- want it closed.

* * *

There is no resolution on what to do with Guantanamo detainees who are neither charged nor returned home.

Matthew Waxman, a former senior Defense and State Department official who dealt with detainee policy, said options included finding a way to prosecute them either via the military commissions or U.S. courts, or just to continue to detain them at Guantanamo.

Another was to send them to a third country, to their own country or to transfer them to the United States.

How do we close the detention center at GITMO, given that both candidates say it must be closed?  Given the legal prohibition on repatriating people to countries that will torture them, surely some prisoners will be left that the military considers too dangerous to simply release and that we can not send away.  For a variety of reasons, I believe that we should try as many of the remainder as possible in our regular criminal courts.  But, surely, there will be some individuals who can not be tried in federal district court without revealing invaluable sources and methods, even with the classified informtaion procedures act.  Thus, I believe that some few must be tried by military commissions.  But, I hope that their number will be few.

What do you think, and why?

Why no attack for seven years?

Last week marked the seventh anniversary of the most recent attack by al Qaeda on U.S. soil. What accounts for that? What policies should the next administration continue? Was there a U.S. government policy that prevented attacks -- like perhaps denying Afghanistan as a base for “The Base” to launch attacks on U.S. soil -- that should be continued? Was there a policy that hasn’t worked – perhaps because it engendered anti-American sentiment – that needs to be discontinued, like maybe the detentions at GITMO? Is there a policy that worked, but could have been done better, like relying on airpower instead of troops, resulting in too many non-combatant casualties? Surely that lack of an attack for seven years on U.S. soil was not a failure of U.S. policy. Was it a coincidence? What is the metric for determining success? Opinion polls or dead civilians in New York?