Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
Excellent point.
Given that AQ does get bled regularly, we can only surmise that the Obama administration views that as collateral damage while waging war its own against the memory of the Bush administration instead of fighting a winning war against violent Islamic jihadists.
Outstanding point, he promised us change, now we will have a circus going on for months and possibly years that will actually be diversionary tactic, while he works to dismantle and weaken our country further. While we react with disgust at the outrageous benefits given to these mass murderers, Obama will be covertly plotting even greater crimes against the Constitution and our way of life.
This trial is to become a media event with Obumbler as chief justice commentator to the world and while he basks in the new lime light, we had better be vigilant, for there will be more strategic stories happening in Washington.
There is also the distinct possibility, that AQ or a similar group will undertake an even more nefarious outrage against th US and o’s media event will back fire on him.
AQ has not mounted a kidnapping effort to gain the release of captured terrorists like they have in the past with Israel. Now that they will be on public trial, kidnappings and decapitations may become more advantageous in the mind of a terrorist.
I thank G-d every day that these terrorists are trained more like Chicago street thugs rather than our military and especially our special forces.
We are at War. Here’s an article I snagged form somewhere a few years ago.
This is from PBS dating to 2002. Forget the exact date.It was October 11,2002. I checked before I sent.
Mike
Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’;
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);
Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688′;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002′.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to–
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that–
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.
I feel Shannon’s view is important enough to post it in it’s entirety.
Finding an impartial jury for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) is the least of our worries in President Obama’s decision to try him in a civil court. Our greatest concern is that it will be a shambles of a show trail that ignores all established legal precedent. The ramifications of that could be worse than terrorism itself.
What Obama the law professor fails to grasp is that none of the prerequisites exist for a fair civil trial in the case of terrorist captured overseas by intelligence agents.
For example, just for starters, what objective proof do we have that the individual who will show up in the courtroom is actually the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who planned 9/11? What do we do if he simply asserts he is not the person the government claims he is?
We seldom concern ourselves with the true identity of civil criminals because all of us in America and the rest of the developed world live in a web of interlocking forms of identification. When a civil criminal is captured overseas, we rely on the civil authorities of the country of capture to ascertain identity. Even in the case of criminals who use false identity, it’s trivial to find witnesses to physically identify the defendant as the individual using a particular identity. How can we hope to have that level of certitude in the case of someone captured overseas in a society with no formal system of identification?
Then we have the entire problem of terrorists operating under the cover of false identities like spies. It’s not uncommon for high-level members of covert organizations to have doubles who leave false trails to confuse their pursuers. What if we caught one of those guys? What if the entire identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is entirely fabricated and doesn’t actually attach to a specific individual? That would make useless all the witnesses and electronic information saying that an individual with that name did this or that.
That is just the start of the myriad testimonial and evidentiary problems with a civil trial.
KSM was water boarded. In a normal civil trial, that would make his confession entirely inadmissible. Even if the jury knows of the confession external to the trial, an honest jury member would have to disregard such information. If the confession is allowed against all precedent, the jury could honestly disregard it just as they would in any proven instance of police brutality.
The critical witnesses against KSH will all be people who serve covertly in either intelligence agencies or the special forces. Spies don’t play fair even with the people they protect. To deceive a nation’s enemies, they have to deceive a nation’s people. Can a jury actually trust witnesses who spend their lives serving in a shadowy world of deception? The Church commission report even claimed that US intelligence officers lied under oath before Congress under orders of the President in order to protect ongoing operations. Couldn’t they do so again? Couldn’t a jury reasonably conclude that intelligence officers would not tell the whole truth in a trial in order to protect agents and methods? Couldn’t a jury reasonably conclude that intelligence officers might frame an individual in order to pursue some other more significant target or to prevent another 9/11?
What about chain of evidence? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured by civil law enforcement but by the military. These people where fighting a war, not gathering evidence for a civil trial. Did they carefully log every physical piece of evidence and log every time some touched it? How will the prosecution refute a claim that evidence was tampered with?
In a civil trial, the defendant has the right to examine any and all evidence used in the trial. That includes examining the tools used to find evidence such as computer forensic software. Are we going to let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his defense team examine the internals of the software and hardware we use to track enemy communications? Are we going to expose all the techniques of the NSA for the whole world to see?
A civil defendant has the right to face all accusers. Are we going to force intelligence officers and special forces members to reveal their identities in open court? If we don’t, how do we prove that the government witnesses are real people and that they are telling the truth about real events?
These and other factors could all combine to create a plausible defense that simply says that all the evidence presented was fabricated by the government. Such fabrication does occur in much less prominent civil cases, so a jury cannot disregard the possibility it could occur in such a high profile case. How could the government objectively refute such a claim when it employed none of the safeguards used by civil law enforcement?
I personally would have real doubts of convicting KSM if I sat on his jury. I believe he is guilty and I’m not one of those people who automatically assumes that everyone in the military or intelligence is unethical. Indeed, I think he is guilty expressly because I trust the people who serve. However, in a civil trail, the burden of proof rests on the state and part of that burden is the ability of the state to objectively demonstrate that all its assertions are true. If they can’t do that, then a juror is morally and legally obligated to find the defendant not guilty.
We wouldn’t expect a jury in an ordinary trial to convict just on the basis of a cop on the stand saying, “He did it. I have secret evidence and witnesses that prove it. Just trust me on that.” We would expect a jury to find the defendant not guilty even if they had information independent of the trial of the defendant’s guilt. Why should we assume a lower standard in this case?
KSM will no doubt be convicted but it won’t be in a fair trial by any standard definitions of the term. He will be convicted purely on the government’s say so. The trial will offer dozens or hundreds of grounds for appeal. KSM will be alive owing to appeals 20 years down the road regardless of what sentence the court hands down.
However, the real danger of this trial isn’t that KSM will go free. The real danger is that Obama’s obsession with treating terrorism as a civil crime will lead to the destruction of our entire civil criminal justice system.
I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.
The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.
After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.
The Constitution recognizes only two types of trials, the civil and the military. The Fifth Amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Until the Obama administration overturned two centuries of precedence, America had two systems of justice, the civil and the military. The military system played a very small and focused role. It served rough justice in the chaos of war and in places like the open sea in which no nation’s law governed.
For over two hundred years, those captured by the military outside the civil boundaries or caught carrying out military action on US soil, were tried by military tribunals. Up until the 1950s the military used drum head trials to convict and execute those found fighting in violation of custom and international law. Pirates were often hung at sea within hours of their capture. In WWII, anyone fighting disguised as a civilian faced summary execution with the approval of just three officers.
For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.
Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.
They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one’s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods.
Even if the courts throw out his conviction, the government will never allow him to go free, so we will toss out protection against double jeopardy if they try to convict with a military tribunal, and toss out the right of no imprisonment without trial if they don’t.
Our system of justice relies on precedent and equality of procedure. The same rules apply to every civil trail. We can’t say that it’s okay to deny the right against self-incrimination in one person’s trial while saying it’s okay in another. If the courts overturn the rights of one individual accused, it must overturn the rights of all of them.
Nothing good will come of this trial.
If it is conducted outside the bounds of normal civil law, it will be nothing but a corrupt show trial whose outcome was preordained by politicians. Instead of showing the world that America is a land of laws in which even our enemies receive fair treatment, it will show the world the opposite.
If it is conducted within the bounds of normal civil law, then it will force the courts to choose between letting a mass murdering terrorist walk free and setting dangerous legal precedents that will undermine the basic civil rights of all Americans.
Obama has unleashed something in America far, far more dangerous than any excesses Bush might have committed. He has taken all the horrible compromises we must make in war and driven them into the heart of the civil legal system. If the courts do not set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free, the cancer of martial law will metastasize into the entire justice system.
We may eventually wish we had never caught the bastard at all.
I think Fearless Reader wants to look like the Great Emancipator of the world. If the B@stard walks, o looks like a hero to the illiterate Marxist sycophants of the world. Who but Jesus would consider forgiving this despicable monster? He may be planning for this travesty of justice, what could you expect from a lawyer who was too insecure and incompetent to try to pass the bar and became a Community Organizer?
Once the man child has crapped in his nest so bad, preening on the world stage will be his next objective. He can find a new group of Lemmings to follow him to a Marxist Dystopia.
@Patvann: & @Skookum:
Thanks for sharing Pat, after reading through, I read through all the comments, interesting back and forth. Shannon does a nice job of keeping an eye on her topic and comes back to add to or correct opinions.
BTW, Skookum, check the comment made by Jack Davis, it begins:
the rest:
Thanks Missy, read everything twice. It looks bleak to say the least.
There is one positive aspect, I will never misuse the past tense verb “hanged” again.
I thought I would be called o the carpet for commenting that the trial may take years, the Chicago Boyz seem to be in agreement that it will take years and years.
How long will it take to dismantle the damage of Obamanation, five years, ten years, or twenty years?
The post heading is a simple question of “Is America at war, or not ?”
With the express intent of answering that very question, I pose another question:
Just when, exactly, was a Declaration of War passed by Congress ?
see United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11
Without such a Declaration of War, can America say that a state of war exists ?
And just who would Congress declare war on Jeff? Are you implying we should sit back and take the hits, because there is no specific country culpable?
If bullets are flying, and my son is the target of those bullets, and they are the target of my son’s 155 and 208mm cannons, then yes, and state of war exists.
Congress approved the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, regardless of the spin you are about to throw out.
When the Marines invaded the shores of Tripoli, to kill Moslem pirates, was war formally declared?
Jeff Stone, from where I’m at it is a War. From where Congress sits it is an inconvenience.
From where You sit it is a question posed by someone that is comfortable and kept safe by those that are fighting an Un-Declared War.
Good to hear from you again, Colonel.
“America” is NOT at war.
“America” is at the mall.
The American MILITARY is at war.
Not knowing anything about the law, can someone let me know the answer to this:
If KSM walks due to a technicality in a Federal trial, can the military then try him? Is that considered double jeopardy? Does Holder or his boss have any idea what a catastrophe they are creating?
Madalyn
Much silliness from the conservative side on this. Let’s start with the point about KSM being “caught on a battlefield,” as Lindsaye Graham said today. In fact, he wasn’t on a “battlefield.” He was in an apartment in Pakistan. As were his nephew Ramzi Yousef (original WTC bomber) and Mir Amal Kasi, the CIA shooter, when they were caught. Jose Padilla was at O’Hare Airport and Iyman Faris was in his appartment. John Walker Lindh was pretty much on a battlefield, sincce he was in a prison in Afghanistan when he was captured by the US. Zaccarias Moussoui was at a flight training school when he was arrested by the FBI, if I recall correctly.
What happened to Faris, Padilla, Ramzi Yusef, Moussoui and Walker Lindh? All were tried in federal court and were convicted or pled guilty. Mir Amal Kasi was tried in state court in Virginia and executed.
Was George W. Bush setting any precedent by trying al Queda members Faris and Padilla and Moussoui in federal court? Not really, since Clinton had tried other Islamist terrorists in federal court.
Before anyone claims Obama is doing anything remarkable, please explain how trying KSM in Manhattan is substantively different than trying Moussoui and Faris in Virginia, Padilla in Miami, Yousef in Manhattan, and Kasi in state court in Virginia.
Even better — why was there no outcry from conservatives when Bush prosecuted al Queda members in federal court, but now all of a sudden the sky is falling because Obama is doing the same thing?
There is such Chicken Little sentiment among conservatives. Do they just not have any guts, or are they doing this for show, for the ever shrinking base (down to 20% of the voting public, and counting).
“For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York?”
KSM is being tried in the SDNY for the same reason his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, was tried in the same court. And the same reason Iyman Faris and Zacc Moussoui and John Walker Lindh were tried in Virginia, and Jose Padilla in Miami.
If Obama trying KSM in Manhattan means we are “not at war” in conservative eyes, then we were not “at war” when Bush tried Faris, Moussoui, Walker Lindh, and Padilla.
@ Madalyn —
If your were KSM, would you want to “walk” and be freed in New York City? I think not . . . .
Which of these things is not like the others?
Iyman Faris – Naturalized US citizen. Arrested on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.
Jose Padilla – Natural born US citizen. Arrested on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.
Ramzi Yousef – Captured in Pakistan and tried in the US by Clinton’s Justice Dept. Clinton set the precedent because he considered the first WTC attack a “law enforcement” matter. We all know the fruit that approach yielded.
Zacc Moussoui – Arrested on US soil for crimes committed on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.
John Walker Lindh – Natural born US citizen. Captured on the battlefield. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.
Mir Amal Kasi – Arrested in Pakistan for crimes committed on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied. The murders he committed, while heinous, were not considered to be terrorism.
“Which of these things is not like the others?
“Iyman Faris – Naturalized US citizen. Arrested on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.”
Er, no. He was designated an enemy combatant and could have been held as such, just like the German sabouteurs . . . one of whom was, if I recall correctly, a US citizen of German heritage.
“Jose Padilla – Natural born US citizen. Arrested on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.”
Could have been tried by a military commission, too. But he wasn’t.
“Ramzi Yousef – Captured in Pakistan and tried in the US by Clinton’s Justice Dept. Clinton set the precedent because he considered the first WTC attack a “law enforcement” matter. We all know the fruit that approach yielded.”
Yes, we do: Yousef in jail for the rest of his life and no attacks on US soil fo eight years. But the point being — Clinton, like Bush, tried Islamist terrorists in US federal courts.
“Zacc Moussoui – Arrested on US soil for crimes committed on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.”
Why do you think he was “guaranteed Constitutional protections”? He was not a citizen and he could have been held as an enemy combatant, just as Padilla was. In fact, since he was part of the 9/11 plot, there was NO REASON for him to be tried in federal court.
“John Walker Lindh – Natural born US citizen. Captured on the battlefield. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied.”
I’ll let that one pass. But my point is simple — he was a terrorist and was tried in federal court.
“Mir Amal Kasi – Arrested in Pakistan for crimes committed on US soil. Guaranteed constitutional protections. Hands tied. The murders he committed, while heinous, were not considered to be terrorism.”
Weren’t considered terrorism by whom? You don’t think buying a gun, staking out a federal building and machine gunning CIA agents is terrorism? OK . . . .
My point is simple — KSM was captured in Pakistan for terrorism crimes committed in the US. His murders occurred in Manhattan and a Manhattan jury should judge him.
KSM is not the first terrorist tried in federal court and those prosecutions went pretty friggin well. Your “distinctions” above shed no light on why conservatives gave Bush a pass (never said a word) when he tried al Queda and Taliban members in federal court, but are now crying like babies that you are SO AFRAID of al Queda coming to New York.
I simply do not recall, when Bush was trying Walker Lindh and Padilla and Moussoui and Faris in federal court, any criticism from conservatives about the cost, the media spotlight, the military option, etc. And since Padilla was tried AFTER the Military Commission Act of 2006 was passed, the same argument about “use military commissions” COULD HAVE BEEN made then, too. But conservatives said nothing.
If you have a good faith explanation for the different reactions by conservatives to Islamist terrorists being tried by Bush in federal courts when compared to other Islamists terrorists being tried by Obama in federal courts, I have yet to hear it. The only difference that I can tell? The party of the president trying the terrorists.
Er, no. He was supposedly threatened with that by the FBI but he agreed to assist in the investigation of others and he was never placed under that status.
For the record, all eight of the saboteurs were German born. Two became naturalized citizens. One of those two was given clemency by Truman on condition of deportation in 1948.
You appear to have been asleep the last 64 years, so maybe I should fill you in. Modern day Leftists in America have come to represent nothing more than spineless masses of jelly.
As a whole, they don’t have the cajones, the guts, or the courage to do what needs to be done in the face of a brutal enemy.
They don’t have the wherewithal to take a stand and simply say “Shoot them in the head.”
It appears that their mindset is to do whatever they can to insure that the alligator eats them last.
FDR understood what the stakes were. Hence the saboteur case.
How, precisely, were Kasi’s crimes any different than say Bundy, or Kaczynski, or Gacy, or any of the thousands of other murders which are committed on the streets of America?
That’s right…they weren’t any different. Heinous? Yes. Terrorism? No.
Refer to post #17 for all the things you are looking for.
Remember also that the Leftists in this country had their pretty pink panties in a twist, endlessly whining and crying like six year old girls over how Padilla, Moussoui, et al were treated.
They created tales of woe and scaremongering about how Bush was going to round up people and jail them endlessly and without cause or charge.
Padilla’s fate was ultimately decided the way that it was due to relentless pressure from those opposed to the very tribunals that you seem willing to champion only when convenient.
It should also be pointed out that Obie is not eliminating the tribunal process completely. He’s simply selectively singling out those who he wishes to give show trials to.
He and Holder have both made it clear that even if KSM is acquitted in court, which is a very distinct possibility, he will not be released.
That’s the technique of petty tyrants and tin pot dictators. It’s shameful to think that a US president would take such a position.
Yes Aye, I noticed how the left ignores the how their bretheren in the ACLU and other far left groups fooght against trying them with tribunals. Then they turn around and attack Bush for not doing so. Sleazy hypocrites.