Possibly one of the biggest blunders by the Obama Administration:
WASHINGTON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday.
But the administration will prosecute another set of high-profile detainees now being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen, and four other detainees — before a military commission.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.
Here is why this is a big blunder; I’ll let William Teach‘s words say it for me, This is what he wrote in the comments section of Allan Colmes Blog:
You’re forgetting one thing, Alan: KSM is NOT an American citizen, and not entitled to the protections of our Constitution unless we afford them to him.
The problem with “Affording” them to these guys is this, as Ed Morrissey writes:
That brings up a key question. What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities? What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or “evidentiary issues”? Will Obama let them walk away? If that happens, look for a massive amount of anger to overwhelm the naive Commander in Chief. And if Obama isn’t prepared to let them walk after a potential acquittal, then it makes a mockery of the criminal trial, and of the justice system itself.
These terrorists belong at a military tribunal, not the justice system employed for Americans to judge other Americans for civil criminal conduct. Instead of giving these men the oblivion they deserve, we’re incentivizing further attacks on the US by giving them the biggest possible PR platform. We may as well put them on TV and call it Dancing With the Terrorists, or So You Want To Be A Jihadist Martyr.
I have worse scenario than that; what if we happen to get a judge that is a Muslim? What happens if during that trial he begins to feel a twinge of sympathy for these terrorists and begins to nitpick at the evidence and ends up tossing the case out of court? I know it sounds far fetched; but it could happen.
Either way, is this massive blunder by the President and I look for Fox News to go on the attack over this. These guy should be tried in International Court. Just like the Nazi’s were. But because our President is a liberal; this will not be done. He is of the belief system that the terrorists were nothing more than common petty criminals and should be treated as such. This is the same mistake that President Bill Clinton made and it is why September 11’th happened in the first place. As long as the United States continues to make the same mistakes,when it comes to handling of terrorists, we will continue to see terrorists attacks on our soil. It is a fact of reality.
Update: Hell, Democrat Jim Webb even thinks that this is a bad idea! (H/T Ed at HotAir)
I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.
The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.
I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.
Update: It seems that my gay stalker Ed Brayton does not like what I wrote. Big surprise there, seeing he is a leftist libertarian/classic liberal; or as I like to call them small Government liberals. I guess he and his sheep that follow after him, did not bother to follow the links and see, that yes, in fact, I did refer to the International criminal court. Anyhow, my stalker says that Conservatives do not support that idea. To that I reply; Who says that I follow the Republican/Conservative talking points? I believe that these terrorists ought to be tried in international criminal court or at least in a Military trial and NOT in a civilian court on American soil. As Obama said HE felt they should be, back in 2006. But now has flip flopped on, now the he has been elected.
Two other militants escaped, one of them badly wounded, after the attack in Kulgam district, south of Srinagar.
The militants had made their hideout in a cave which was actually the bear’s den, said police officer Farooq Ahmed.
for treatment.
