Posted on 11/18/2009 5:30:28 AM PST by Kaslin
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a federal civilian court is inconsistent, indefensible and inexplicable.
It is inconsistent with Holder's own decision to try Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in a military commission. It is indefensible in light of the unmistakable intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. It is inexplicable by any prudential analysis of the national interest in dealing with an enemy like al-Qaida.
Some strange ideological impulse -- rather than common sense and respect for the rule of law -- is driving the Obama administration to give special treatment to the perpetrator of one of the greatest war crimes ever committed against the United States.
Consider the unequal treatment of Nashiri and Mohammed.
Nashiri is the al-Qaida mastermind of the Oct. 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole that killed 17 U.S. sailors. Mohammed is the al-Qaida mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack that killed 2,973 people in New York City, Shanksville, Pa., and Northern Virginia, including 55 U.S. military personnel and 70 civilians serving in the Pentagon.
Both Nashiri and Mohammed were waterboarded during interrogations by the Central Intelligence Agency.
In deciding to try Nashiri in a military commission, the Obama administration is conceding that military commissions are constitutional, legal and fully capable of providing al-Qaida terrorists with fair trials consistent with longstanding American traditions of justice.
It would have been impossible for the Obama administration to maintain otherwise. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution says: "The Congress shall have Power ... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations."
The Framers understood this language to authorize Congress to enact laws providing for military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants -- a practice they knew well from firsthand experience. George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, had been personally responsible as commander in chief of the Continental Army for overseeing and carrying out the sentences of military commissions that tried British spies during the American Revolution. In 1942, the Supreme Court took up the case of Ex Parte Quirin, which pondered whether President Franklin Roosevelt -- our most left-wing president until now -- could lawfully and constitutionally order that a group of Nazi saboteurs captured on U.S. soil be tried by military commissions.
The unanimous justices pointed to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, and noted that Congress in 1806 had passed a law that "imposed the death penalty on alien spies 'according to the law and the usage of nations, by sentence of a general court martial.'" This 1806 law, they observed, was based on a prior law enacted by the Continental Congress on Aug. 21, 1776 -- hardly a month after approval of the Declaration of Independence.
That the Constitution intended for unlawful enemy combatants to be tried by military commissions and not by civilian courts, the justices concluded, "is a construction of the Constitution which has been followed since the founding of our government."
For President Obama to take Khalid Sheik Mohammad, captured overseas and held on a military base in Cuba, and put him in a civilian court in New York City to undergo a trial using legal procedures designed for the prosecution of American civilians who have not committed war crimes, does not reinstate the traditional American understanding of justice, it radically departs from it.
Why would President Obama and his attorney general choose this course? What point are they trying to make?
In a May 21 speech at the National Archives, Obama himself said: "Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts."
Is it Obama's argument now that Khalid Sheik Mohammad did not violate the laws of war? Is it Obama's argument now that the United States does not need to protect sensitive sources and methods used in gathering intelligence on Mohammed and his al-Qaida affiliates? Is it Obama's argument now that the participants in Mohammed's trial will not need the safety and security provided by a military commission? Is it Obama's argument now that the case against Mohammed does not involve evidence gathered on battlefields that cannot be effectively presented in federal courts?
The truth is Obama has no argument at all to justify trying this unlawful enemy combatant who perpetrated war crimes against America in a civilian court designed for civilian crimes.
It is not inexplicable.
His (their) goal is to put the Bush administration on trial in-absentia!
They hope that enough information will be divulged so that an international court (ICC) will indict Bush administration officials (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc).
Mark Levin did an excellent job last night in his monologue as to asking the basic question of who is making the rules for this trial. Since about every aspect of a civilian trial is in violation of the basic tennants and rights of such a trial, the only conclusion is this is furthering the aim of creating as much anarchy in this country as possible.
Under just a few basic rules of our system, these people will undoubtedly walk on a long list of technicalities that other criminals are walking from courthouses every day. Take our friend Williams Aires for example.
If they think that showing the rest of the world how fair our system works, then the egg is already applied in that Holder already has said no matter the outcome, these pieces of human debris will never be free again. I guess Mr. Holder forgot to take off his kangaroo outfit he donned for Halloween.
If somehow they manage to go forward with this circus, hold on to you sanity because 911 will seem like a childs first birthday party compared to what will follow.
If I were Al Quaeda, I would take great comfort in this. Why, a bunch of cave dwelling terrorists have managed to make the President of the USA to quake in fear, to change his laws - to give our fallen brethren special consideration.
Now, if I were Al Quaeda, I would re-double my plans to attack NYC - in ‘revenge’ for holding our brethren. I would use this as an example of America’s cowardice to recruit new members. I would say that “Allah causes our enemies to be comfounded” and I wouldn’t be too far off the mark.
Personally, I see this as Obama’s attempt to give the terrorists a ‘Presidential Pardon’; for by moving the venue to civil arena grants them rights they are not entiteled to.
For example, if I were a lawyer I would say that my client was tortured (Obama said waterboarding was torture) - thus any confession is inadmissable due to duress.
My client was denied a speedy trial, and was forced to testify against himself (5th Ammendment)
Evidence against him was gathered in violation of his 4th Ammendment rights (no search warrants were issued before gathering the evidence).
I would demand that all undercover agents that had any contribution to his case be brought into the court (thus exposing their names to public scruitiny), all officers who questioned him, people who waterboarded him, all of his jailors, anyone who compared his statements with other intelligence sources - thereby exposing all of our spies, how we gather evidence, the chain of command - all in the name of operation under the 4th, 5th and 6th Ammendments.
Finally, I would push for dismissal of all charges,due to violation of his 6th, 7th and 8th Ammendments. No speedy trial, no right of counsel during questioning, waterboarding (torture by admission of President Obama) is both cruel and unusual punishment.
Obama gave him a pardon, it’s just that simple.
Who can explain the position taken by Keene, Norquist and Barr on the Gitmo trials in NYC and detainees housed in Federal prisons? They have taken diametric opposite positions to other conservatives...this dramatically shows the difference between conservatives and libertarians...
Defense attorney: “Mr. Mohamed were you read your Miranda rights?”
KSM: “No”
Defense attorney: “Your Honor I move for a dismissal of all charges on the grounds that the defendants rights were violated.”
Defense attorney: “Mr. Mohamed did you provide a confession as a result of torture (waterboarding)? And BTW how many times were you subjected to this torture?”
KSM: “I lost count after 20 and yes”
Defense attorney: “Your Honor I move for a dismissal of all charges on the grounds that the defendants rights were violated.”
Defense attorney: “Mr. Mohamed have you been transported from another country and imprisoned against your will? Have you had a preliminary hearing? A bail hearing? Did you have an extradition hearing in the country in which you were captured or abducted? Would you like to press charges for false imprisonment, kidnapping, cruel and unusual punishment, torture?”
KSM: “Yes, yes ,yes...”
Rule #1 when trying to figure out what liberals will do / are doing:
Do not attempt to apply consistency of rules. They place ZERO value on consistency of rules.
Look to their goals. The first of which is the destruction of our traditional (ie, Judeo-Christian) heritage.
“comfounded?” now that is really messed up...
For one thing, Norquist is a Muslim and very involved with Islamic advocacy organizations at least indirectly connected to Islamic terrorism.
We should have called them criminals and, if necessary, sent troops to seize them abroad, threatening war on any country that tried to protect them. We didn't, and now we're trying to have it both ways, but if the courts work the way they should the cases will be tossed out. And if the courts work the way we want, it'll damage the rule of law for all of us.
Your reasoning doesn’t seem to work. Although i am no expert. By declaring a ‘war on terror’, it only means that the Geneva Conventions apply and the Geneva Conventions say that to be treated as a POW, or a captured enemy solider,
you have to be in uniform, be within a chain of command, have your rank displayed on your uniform, be acting under orders from a superior officer, etc. etc.
None of that app
klies to terrorists. it did apply to soldiers of Saddam’s army.
Sorry. should be ‘none of that applies’
Not true. Obama bin Laden wants to advance the cause of jihad, not cringe in front of it.
I don't accept the bromide that Gitmo promotes jihad. It genders respect and shows resolve. If it makes allies pontificate a moral superiority, they would have taken on the responsibility of assuming the burden of justice, but, moral outrage requires no physical courage.
DumBO wants to garner political points with years of showcasing how bad Bush was. I wish I could say ObOzO's audience is becoming aware of how evil the ZerO is.
In his case, it's a bit more than being a libertarian.
Thanks for that information; I was not aware of that fact. Guess that explains Norquist and Barr is a Libertarian which I generally agree with but cannot understand a lot of their positions, such as drug legalization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.