Monday, February 15, 2010

SHOULD PRINCIPLE OR POLITICS DETERMINE VENUE FOR JIHADISTS?

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration prefers a civilian trial for the alleged 9/11 mastermind, but says that in the face of public and political opposition it must be open to a military tribunal.
In an interview published Monday in The New York Times, Attorney General Eric Holder said, "I have to be more forceful in advocating for why I believe these are trials that should be held on the civilian side."
However, Holder did not rule out a military trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, saying, "You have to be flexible."

And there we have it!

My question to the United States Attorney General is:
WHY exactly would it be better to try these folks in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal?
I do not buy that the United States government has as much damning evidence against these terrorists as Orange County had against OJ Simpson and therefore a conviction is guaranteed no matter what the venue.
I do not buy that spending $200,000,000.00 per year for logistical support and security in NYC brings "closure" for New Yorkers.
I do not buy that giving enemy combatants a civilian trial with all the rights and privileges appurtenant thereof, shows how great and strong American justice is.
Of note, the greatest source of power for a terrorist is not the actual act of terror itself; but rather the exorbitant publicity that follows....a NYC TRIAL would be the mother load of publicity for these bastards.

When a group of individuals declare a Jihad against the sovereignty of  the United States of America those individuals are enemy combatants and are not entitled to the privileges of a speedy trial, Miranda, civilian discovery etc.
How  the U.S. conducts covert operations to gather Intel should not be on public display for all the world to evaluate.
The media's publication of US Military battle plans and strategy before engagement should be enough to satisfy their thirst.

So unless you believe that Eric Holder is really that ignorant of the law and its consequences you must ask:
What is the Obama Administration's real agenda?

5 comments:

The Fishing Musician said...

It appears we are trying to civilianize enemy combatants of the state, who are terrorists and who should be tried in military courts. They are not civilians and should not be afforded the rights of such.

Another fail for Obama. I gave him a fair chance, until he decided to slander all police in America last summer.

And Palin, although admittedly not the leader this country needs, would be a worse president than Smilin' Barry how...?

Anonymous said...

Come on bro', Eric Holder and Barrack Obama know exactly what they're doing and so do you.

jigmeister said...

Those that subscribe that everyone in the world who commits crimes against the people of the United States shares the same constitutional rights as American citizens has always bothered me. They share the same God given human rights as we do, and certainly those rights guaranteed by treaties and conventions lawfully entered into by our government, but not constitutional rights.
The Preamble states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The right of the people….in the 4th Amendment, and No person….in the 5th Amendment cannot be read without reference to the Preamble’s “we the people of the United States”.
That doesn’t mean that foreign visitors to this country who commit crimes contained in our penal codes shouldn’t be handled in civilian courts. They should by custom and frankly convenience. Nor does it mean that “terrorists” should be “tortured”. We need to establish standards acceptable to our convention commitments and exclude bad evidence and punish those that violate those standards.
But in short, domestic tranquility for the benefit of the American People is the guarantee and goal of the U.S. Constitution; and foreign terrorists are not covered. They don’t get a choice of venue or jurisdiction…just fair trials.

Aggie Pct Chair said...

Democrats do not like the police- why?? Who else don't like police? Criminals.

There is an inherent bias against law enforcement within the Democratic party.

New York is the wrong place. Those guys are terrorists and should be treated as such. I don't have my way, but if I did... I have an arsenal at home that could do what should have been done a long time ago.

AND THERE we have it!

By the way, there is plenty of oil RIGHT here. We should cut those bastards off.

Anonymous said...

Q: "What is the Obama Administration's real agenda?"

A: To turn the White House into the Mosque House.