By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
It's an interesting question, and Attorney General Eric Holder didn't have a clue during his Senate testimony. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina tied the AG in knots with that query, and another Holder could not answer: Has there been any other instance in which an enemy combatant was picked up in a combat zone and then tried in a civilian court?
Of course, that's exactly what the Obama administration wants to do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and several other terrorists held at Gitmo. Holder's testimony showed that the administration simply hadn't thought through the implications.
More Graham:
The big problem I have is that you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we'd have mixed theories and we couldn't turn him over -- to the CIA, the FBI or military intelligence -- for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now we're saying that he is subject to criminal court in the United States. And you're confusing the people fighting this war.
Not surprisingly, the decision is polling badly. A new CBS poll finds only 40 percent in favor, with 54 percent saying the terrorists should be tried in a military tribunal.
Delicious
Digg
marandize
Simple solution for terrorist on the battle field. Just shoot them. Isn't that what they live for.
On May 3, 2006, Bill
On May 3, 2006, Bill O'Reilly led off his Fox News show with the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried in civilian court and handed several consecutive life terms for his role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to O'Reilly: "The al Qaeda savage promptly thanked them by saying 'America, you lost. I won.' But like what most of this degenerate says, he is wrong. Moussaoui is condemned to rot in his cell until he does die and if the Federal penitentiary is run properly, Moussaoui will be denied any and all privileges." O'Reilly explained that "by not executing Moussaoui, the U.S.A. shows the world we are a nation of laws, a nation that puts power in the hands of regular folks."
Now fast-forward a few years -- the Democrats take control of the White House, and the new president announces he's bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York to face trial before a civilian court. O'Reilly, who praised the civilian trial of Moussaoui, says of the decision to Bush White House adviser Karl Rove: "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, that is a terrible decision. ... Because you know, I know, and everybody knows it's going to cost the city of New York between $75 and $100 million. These animals are going to get up there. They're going to lie. The lawyers are going to turn it into an anti-Bush, anti-CIA, anti-American extravaganza."
Just think about that one for a moment -- O'Reilly, who praised the civilian prosecution of Moussaoui in 2006, is complaining about the White House's civilian prosecution of Mohammed in 2009, to a person who was part of the White House that decided to prosecute Moussaoui in a civilian court.
O'Reilly wasn't the only person to pull the ol' Moussaoui/Mohammed switcheroo on Fox News. Former New York mayor and 9-11 enthusiast Rudy Giuliani appeared on Neil Cavuto's show last Friday to attack the Mohammed decision as a "terrible, terrible mistake," explaining that the terrorist "should be prosecuted in a military tribunal." Cavuto neglected to point out that in 2006, Giuliani said of the Moussaoui trial: "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law."
Indeed, confusion abounded among conservatives everywhere. Morning Joe namesake Joe Scarborough declared it "unprecedented" to try a terrorism suspect in the U.S. judicial system. To his credit, Scarborough later corrected this false assertion.
No one expects conservatives to support President Obama, particularly on issues of national security. But is a little consistency too much to ask? Well, maybe consistency is too much -- how about something less than outright hypocrisy?
I guess hjMizzou is stumped!
..
Why doesn't Osama Bin Ladan
Why doesn't Osama Bin Ladan go the the United Nations to represent his point of view like others, instead of hiding and sending out propaganda videos and recordings.
It is because:
Osama Bin Ladan doesn't want freedom of speech and expression-everywhere in the world.
Osama Bin Ladan doesn't want the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way- everywhere in the world.
Osama Bin Ladan's idea of economic freedom - is anti capitalism.
There is no freedom from fear no United Nations - Osama Bin Ladan is all about terrorism and stirring up fear between nations.
hjMizzou - can you respond?
hjMizzou
Submitted by twas_was on November 19, 2009 - 8:15pm.
As a liberal, please explain to me the upside of putting them on trial in civilian court. What problem do you have with military tribunals? I'm looking for honest answers here.
Would we have to Mirandize bin Laden?
No Miranda required, he would be a POW until the wars over which would be forever since a war on terror is endless, unless Congress declared it over.
At which point you try him for war crimes. Flip a coin on the kind of court.
Wrong
At which point you try him for war crimes. Flip a coin on the kind of court.
Terrorist are not considered POW's. KSM and his buddies are not fighting on behalf of a nation state. POW status is reserved for soldiers belonging to a nation state. Terrorists are deemed the most reprehensible of all combatants. By targeting civilains on purpose the geneva convention is particularly harsh on the methods we can use against these types of individuals.
Congress declares wars on nation states, not ideologies. Even if congress would declare the war over our enemies would ignore the act and continue to fight until they are completely destroyed.
On a side note the only reason you would consider mirandizing enemy combatants is if you were intent on trying them in civilain courts. The question is why would we want to do that and does this act put our military and security personnel in more danger.
Soldiers do not need to
Soldiers do not need to mirandize combatants taken on a battlefield. Nor do the likes of KSM deserve constitutional gurantees for their actions as a terrorists. KSM and his breathern are in the business of destroying our constitution, they dont want the freedoms and liberties that we bestow upon our citizens. But, they will use our constitution, freedoms and liberties to further their cause and weaken us as a nation.
Military tribunals are appropriate for the capture of any and all enemy combatants. For enemy combatants that are terrorists all that is required by the geneva convention is proof of membership and a speedy execution. We should make it simple to convict the likes of KSM and not provide them a court room to mock our constitution and country to recruit the next wave of terrorist.
ONe More Point to Mizzou '62
If the War on Terror is indeed "endless" who the hell's fault is that? Ours?
Hey they picked this fight, let them live with the rules. I do not feel a damn bit sorry for anyone of the evil sobs let them rot in hell, or a 6x8 cell at Gitmo, either way no BFD!
I am Starting to Prefer LSM
Lame Stream Media
less then 12 months of this insanity, less then 36 months of Jimmy II
Interesting predicament the Big O has put himself in......
If we "try" these guys under civilian law it will be the first time in history as Senator Ghaham as pointed out.
My old man when marching across France with Patton never Mirandized the German POW's they took, my Uncle serving with Mark Clark did not mirandize the Chi Coms, or the N. Koreans in '51; and finally I can assure you we did not seek lawyers for the VC & NVA regulars we got near Dak To in '67 and '68.......
But now according to Mizzou '62, and the current AG, we must give these guys the same rights as American Citizens and those residing legally in our country.
Strange days. If we convict them, does that mean that Miranda no longer applies to any other person arrested? If they are found "not guilty" what's the next move O?
Mr. Obama you started this ball rolling purely to embarass this country and the former President for political points. If you think this will go unnoticed I suggest you start making your moving plans for 2013 ASAP because it won't.
Start the process to take these guys back to military tribunals while you have the chance.
don't use SCM
please, I write software and that refers to Software Configuration Management. I would have to see it everyday, can't you use SIL, Self Important Liars. Because pretty much every person who labels themselves as a "journalist" shows the definition of hubris.
That's the problem with a War On Terrorism.
Where is the battle field? Everywhere!
So on the battle field no Miranda required. They are POW's until the end of the war. When ever that is, so Congress has to declare an end to this War On Terror. Wars on terror are by their very nature, endless.
hjMizzou
As a liberal, please explain to me the upside of putting them on trial in civilian court. What problem do you have with military tribunals? I'm looking for honest answers here.
I am really curious all you "voicers"
I saw Grahams smackdown and laughable humiliation of Holder on FOX......can anyone advise whether it was shown on any of the following networks: CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN???
Why am I suspicious that it did not run on those networks.....
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I checked websites of CNN, MSNBC & CBSNews
I did a search of "graham holder".
No hits.
State Controlled Media or "SCM" for short, all while Obama administration tries to make FoxNews out as a tabloid.
Lindsey Graham needs to do more.
He needs to drag out of Holder the real reason they have decided to try KSM in Federal Court.
.
Most sane people know why. IT'S TO PUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE CIA ON TRIAL!!!!
.
That way, Obama can satisfy his fringe left and his leftist buddies in Europe all while not having to go directly after the prior administration, which he knows the majority of the American people do not want.
an affair to remember...
watch the exchange here…not just dramatic but so amazing that our number one prosecutor is so…what’s the word?...confused.