U.S.: The Case For Military Tribunals (Interview with Frank Gaffney)

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty ^ | July 1, 2006 | Heather Maher and Frank Gaffney

[sergey1973]

WASHINGTON, July 1, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- The Supreme Court has temporarily halted U.S. President George W. Bush's plans to convene special military courts to try the Guantanamo Bay detainees. RFE/RL Washington correspondent Heather Maher talked to a U.S. defense expert who believes this ruling was wrong, and that the special courts are essential to winning the war on terror.

Frank Gaffney heads the Washington-based Center for Security Policy and was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration. He says a new kind of "totalitarian ideology" -- what he calls "Islamofacism" -- is "bent on our destruction" and must be fought accordingly.

RFE/RL: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court ruling against the special military commissions?

Frank Gaffney: I personally think that the Supreme Court erred very significantly in its decision. That, most importantly, the ruling, as it stands now, would seem to confer on terrorists rights to which they're clearly not entitled: Rights to court proceedings and legal recourse that are not part of the Geneva Convention, as it is observed by the United States. And secondly, [rights] that I think are completely inappropriate, given the character of terrorists and their activities.

[sergey1973]

I am not a Lawyer or specialist in legal or Constitutional matters and intricacies, but IMHO, the Islamic Terrorists who seek to destroy the United States and the Western Civilization should not be entitled to the United States legal Constitutional Protections. Other rules need to apply to those who seek to destroy the United States and its Constitution.

Your comments, especially by those who are familiar more with legal and Constitutional matters are deeply appreciated.

[sergey1973]

BUMP

[ClaireSolt]

I think all of those entrenched powers in Washington are asserting their powers vis a vis the other branches. Whether it is Diane Feinstein or justice Stevens. Where is chairman Mao when we need him to send those pompous boobs out to harvest grapes in the hot sun? I hear the growers need help.