Hare Today, Gone Tomorrow

Just a quick link to this article, regarding Phil Hare’s claim to be a veteran.  I don’t care too much about the semantics of the use of the word, but the claim does seem a bit disingenuous. 

What troubles me more is Hare’s reaction to the incident:

“After I pointed out that according to the law he is not a veteran, he became very upset and demanded to know my name. I refused to tell him my name, saying that this was about his claim of being a veteran and not about me.

Mr. Hare then told one of his aides who was with him, to follow me to my car and get my license plate number so he could find out who I was. I have since been told that Mr. Hare’s daughter works for the DMV.

I then asked Mr. Hare if he was going to stop telling people that he was a veteran. Mr. Hare again demanded to know my name, and again told his aide to get my name or to follow me to get me license number so he could find out who I was, so he could tell the former reservists what I said.

I asked Mr. Hare if he as a public official was going to use his official office to run name checks on private citizens, in order to intimidate them into not asking questions he did not want to answer.

As Mr. Hare was turning to walk away from me he paused, and turning back to my direction, he glared at me intently, and while leaning forward pointed his finger at me, and in a threatening and intimidating manner said, “I’ll find out who you are!”

Unbelievable.

Phil Hare is against trying terrorists in military tribunals, at least so says his 2008 Political Courage Test (click on National Security Issues, first question).

In response to the question “Do you support using military tribunals to try suspected terrorists when ordinary civilian courts are deemed inappropriate or impractical?”  Hare answered NO.

So, Hare doesn’t even believe that we should use military tribunals, even if civilian courts are deemed inappropriate or impractical?  Wow.  What is his stance on trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammed in NYC?  Has anyone asked?

He also added “I believe terrorists should be tried through the Justice Department[.]“  What does that mean?  Of course, they will be tried “through the Justice Department,” the question is whether said trial will be in a civilian or military forum.  Phil Hare says civilian.

UPDATE:  From an article on this afternoon’s (March 14) Washington Wire on the WSJ Blog, titled “White House Yet to Settle on Venue for 9/11 Trials“:

The Obama administration is keeping its options open on where to try the alleged perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

White House adviser David Axelrod, speaking Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” said the administration hasn’t made a final decision on the issue yet. “Obviously there are a series of things we have to weigh.” He said it “has to influence our thinking” that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, citing costs, opposed holding civilian trials for terror suspects in the city.

Attorney General Eric Holder last November announced plans to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and other suspects in New York. Recently, White House officials have suggested that they were leaning towards trying the group before a military commission, as part of an effort to win congressional support for the administration’s efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Anyone asked Phil Hare for his thoughts?  Hello?  Anyone?  Bueller?