Are We At War Or Not?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sinatra, Nov 17, 2009.

  1. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    Pat Buchanan gives us a brilliant dissertation on the contradictory nature of the Holder KSM civilian trial decision.

    Excerpts...

    ___


    Are We at War -- or Not?

    By Pat Buchanan

    For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

    Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies -- that he may not be guilty.

    And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

    ...When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

    Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

    We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

    ...When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?

    Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?

    How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?

    Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?

    ...There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.

    What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?

    In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

    The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.


    RealClearPolitics - Are We at War -- or Not?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    Another editorial compliments Buchanan's assessment of the very real and inherent dangers of the Holder decision...
    ___

    Obama's error by trial: Civilian justice for 9/11 plotters is profound, dangerous mistake

    The foolhardiness of President Obama's decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 and four cohorts in civilian court grows ever clearer as the outlines of the proceedings take shape.

    It is offensive that Obama gave his blessings to designating Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his Al Qaeda crew as common criminals rather than as enemy combatants, perpetrators of the worst attack on American soil from abroad.

    But that offense, high as it is, pales in comparison with the serious practical and legal consequences of hauling these avowed enemies of the nation into Manhattan Federal Court with all the rights and protections under the Constitution.

    Such as Mohammed's right to rummage through the government's intelligence and investigative files for information that is purportedly useful to his defense - but will be more helpful to Al Qaeda operatives in the field.

    (Oh, so that's what the CIA has been up to!)

    Such as Mohammed's right to mount a defense that attempts to put the U.S. on trial for supposed human rights violations in the detention and interrogation of prisoners.

    Such as Mohammed's right to act as his own lawyer even as he perverts protections he has been granted by making a circus of the trial.

    ...Mohammed is not just a terror suspect. He's not the guy who wanted to bomb the Herald Square subway station, or the guy who schemed to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. He is an unrepentant war criminal who is determined to harm the U.S. by any means possible.

    A civilian trial needlessly - and thus foolhardily - enhances his ability to accomplish his goals. Critically, for example, a military commission would have the power to limit Mohammed's personal access - as opposed to his lawyer's access - to intelligence and investigative files.

    This is no small matter. Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, has said sensitive material went within days from the defendants to Bin Laden.

    We take a backseat to no one in craving vengeance for the mass murder of 9/11. And we would join the many New Yorkers who would take pleasure in participating in exacting justice. But we would do so knowing that Obama, in pursuit of misguided ideology and the fanciful notion that the world will think more highly of America, has taken a profoundly wrong step that will undermine the war on terror and increase the threat to New York.




    Obama's error by trial: Civilian justice for 9/11 plotters is profound, dangerous mistake
     
  3. tigerbob
    Offline

    tigerbob Increasingly jaded.

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,225
    Thanks Received:
    971
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +972
    I think terrorists should, as a point of principle, be tried in criminal court.

    That said, this decision is ridiculous. Under the particular circumstances we see with KSH, any attempt at a criminal trial is flawed from the outset. If this guy were a common criminal and had been treated the way KSH has been treated, his lawyer would have the case dismissed in a heartbeat.

    The only way for a trial to proceed in criminal court would be if certain aspects of normal criminal justice are to be conveniently ignored (namely the defendant's rights). If this happens it's little more than a show trial, so what's the point?

    Stupid decision. Should have stayed in military jurisdiction.
     
  4. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    Well, I don't think anyone in the White house has made that determination yet. Are we at war? Hmmm???? I think Mr Obama will have to get back to you on that one. He'll have a half dozen briefings followed by a date night or two. Then he'll have to think about it for a few months before he has another series of briefings, and this time he might have General McChrystal attend one of them. Then after thinking about those briefings, he'll let us know when he might have a decision.

    Facts are that the US Congress passed the Military Commissions act of 2006 for a reason, And that was to satisfy the Supreme court so we could go ahead and prosecute these animals in a Military tribunal. Mr Obama figures he could gain some points by stopping that. Someone needs to tell him its not a fucking game.
     
  5. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    KSM was brought into US soil and into federal court jurisdiction.

    The US UNCONSTITUTIONALLY invaded Iraq and AfPaq. Congress has never declared war on those countries. There was never a reason to do so. Those folks are the victims of a criminal Prez and his foreign policy.

    Of couse KSM and his comrades are not going to get a trial - the administration is going through the motions in order to create the illusion that they were executed after due process of law was extended to them.

    The case is going to be assigned to a federal judge who more than likely will be a zionist - a member of the good ol' boy network who understands how the game is played. He will be allowed to chastised the CIA, the military but at the end KSM and his compatriots must be pronounced guilty as charged and sentenced to death.

    .and so it goes.

    .
     
  6. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,156
    Thanks Received:
    10,167
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,729
    what's done is done.. stupidly done but done nonetheless!
     
  7. SFC Ollie
    Offline

    SFC Ollie Still Marching

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    28,742
    Thanks Received:
    4,418
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Extreme East Ohio
    Ratings:
    +4,458
    Take your anti-American Bullshit and Cram it up your ass sideways.

    There is nothing Unconstitutional about capturing KSM.

    There is nothing Unconstitutional about attacking Al Quaeda in Afghanistan.

    And there is nothing Unconstitutional about the invasion of Iraq.

    And you can't prove anything Criminal about any recent presidents.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. NYcarbineer
    Offline

    NYcarbineer Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    96,128
    Thanks Received:
    11,269
    Trophy Points:
    2,060
    Location:
    Finger Lakes, NY
    Ratings:
    +30,262
    Was the 1993 WTC bombing an act of war?
     
  9. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    And therein lies one of the greatest pitfalls of this attempt to coordinate a civilian trial.

    These terrorists were handled militarily - unlike previous cases where civilian law enforcement was directly involved. Due to this simple fact alone, the legalities of what is now being attempted is going to prove incredibly difficult - and potentially disastrous for the United States in so far as being able to pronounce them guilty as charged.

    Then add in the quite serious possibility of comproming national intelligence information, as occurred with the '93 bombing trials, and we have even further reason to be avoiding this potential train wreck.

    A incredibly inept and naive choice by the Obama administration...
     
  10. Sinatra
    Offline

    Sinatra Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Messages:
    8,013
    Thanks Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    ,,,
     

Share This Page