No less an authority on terrorism trials than Judge Michael Mukasey has spoken out strongly against trying the 9/11 plotters in federal court. Judge Mukasey, who was Mr. Holder’s predecessor as attorney general, presided over the 1995 trial of Sheik Omar. He has written that terrorism trials become targets for terrorists and are thus big drains on judicial resources. Courts and jails need extra protection, as do jurors, lawyers and judges. On the other hand, Judge Mukasey wrote, the government has already spent millions on a safe venue for military commission trials with full rights for defendants. But it is at Guantanamo, which the Obama administration shuns.
Judge Mukasey also has pointed out that expedience led prosecutors to charge Saleh Hahlah al-Marri, who confessed to plotting a second wave of al-Qaida attacks on the U.S., with a lesser crime. He could become free to rejoin the war against us in six years.
Sen. James Webb, D-Va., who leads a Senate review of the nation’s criminal justice system, supported Sen. [Lindsey] Graham’s Nov. 5 motion to block civilian trials for the Guantanamo detainees. It failed in the Senate by a 54-45 vote…
Several comments on this:
(1) In a substantial interview on last night’s Lehrer News Hour, Eric Holder made clear he did not speak to the President about this decision. I simply do not understand why he did not given its importance and its huge national security implications.
(2) This is not merely a crime–it is a special kind of crime of the most heinous sort, namely a terrorist act. That’s why we have a different word for it than crime, just as we use the word assassination instead of murder along a similar line of reasoning. Part of understanding this as a terrorist act means understanding that terrorism uses propaganda as one of its weapons–which this trial will now give another opportunity for. That is bad for the country and sets a terrible precedent for potential future terrorist incidents.
(3) Does anyone really believe that in New York it will be possible to get an impartial jury? I do not see how it is possible.
This administration has decided to treat a war as criminal activity. These people are not criminals, they are enemy combatants who are war criminals and should be treated as such. This is beyond dumb. It is a level of stupidity that is getting people killed.
And they wonder why troop morale is falling in Afghanistan …
I’ve seen war, and believe me, it isn’t pretty. These are war criminals, and they deserve to be punished for their crimes. The problem is, though, how to deal with religious fanatics whose only desire is to kill as many “unbelievers” as possible, and to receive their rewards in Paradise. As far as these animals are concerned, “there are no innocents among the unbelievers……they are all guilty of an offense against Allah.”
I highly recommend Charles Krauthammer’s comments on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK4-NJG68pM
Unfortunately, I can’t find a transcript, so the above is a link to a video.
The video does not work.
If you want to see Obama bow to the Emperor of Japan maybe this will explain things. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-emperor-akihito-japan.html
sorry – it works for me.
I am reminded of the words of Thomas More in “A Man For All Seasons”: “I would give the devil himself the protection of the law, if only to protect myself.” Shall we institute a system of summary executions for all those we decide are “Japanese”, “animals”, “war criminals”? I think it is appropriate to debate this openly and rationally. Unfortunately, as has happened all too often in the past 20 years, the debate has drowned in hysteria. In a society where our liberties are daily stripped from us to serve corporate and governmental purposes, we are beginning to look more and more like what we purport to hate.
Powerline has an excellent question here:
And their post here as well:
Dan, they should have all the rights of enemy combatants operating outside of the rules of war and as war criminals. What Obama and Holder have done here is stupid beyond belief.
# 9, Dan Crawford, thank you for mentioning Robert Bolt’s Thomas More – that is one of my favorite quotes and a guiding principle in my life. Frankly, I find myself quoting from Bolt’s play on a near monthly basis – perhaps no work (other than Scripture) has as an important a place in my life. Having said that, I assume you believe that KSM would not receive “the protection of the law†but for Holder’s decision. Specifically, you write “[s]hall we institute a system of summary executions…†(you may be aware this is what Churchill wanted for the Nazi war criminals)?
In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (“KSM”) would be subject to the due process of law if he were tried. He was charged with war crimes and murder on February 11, 2008 by a U.S. military commission acting pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The trial began on June 5, 2008, with the arraignment of KSM and other four co-defendants. News reports indicated that on December 8, 2008, KSM and his four co-defendants told the judge that they wished to confess and plead guilty to all charges. Immediately following the inauguration, the Obama DOJ and DOD put the military commission on suspension, which it has been on since. [By way of reference, the U of Pitt law school website is a helpful repository of news articles – here is the link to the KSM topic:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/jurist_search.php?q=Khalid+Sheikh+Mohammed
By way of contrast, I would refer you to Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) – this was the case decided by the Supreme Court with respect to eight Nazi saboteurs (two of whom were actually U.S. Citizens) who landed in the United States (wearing portions of Nazi uniforms) on June 17, 1942. Two of the members turned themselves in to the FBI and, over a period of about two weeks, the remainder were arrested. They never committed acts of violence – no one died – and did not remain in uniform. Nevertheless, they were all tried in secret by a military commission set up by FDR and were all sentenced to death (I am oversimplifying a lot of details for brevity). The attorneys for the group attempted to have them tried in civilian court in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that was held at the end of July 1942. The Supreme Court rejected the petition on July 31, 1942, and upheld the conviction of all eight. FDR commuted the death sentences of the two who turned themselves in, reducing them to life sentences. The remaining 6 were executed on August 8, 1942, less than 2 months after they landed.
Personally, I believe that our government should distinguish between lawful combatants (those in uniform who follow the international laws of war), criminals, and unlawful combatants – terrorists – who do not follow any of the conventions of the laws of war. U.S. citizens who commit crimes should receive the highest degree of constitutional protections – both procedural and substantive – afforded by law. Lawful combatants should receive the protections and due process of law pursuant to the Geneva Conventions and other customary and statutory law. Terrorists – those who are not lawful combatants should receive the absolute least protection of law because they defy law and seek to destroy it. Accordingly, there should be a minimum process of law to determine whether those charge with being unlawful combatants are in fact unlawful combatants. As far as I am concerned, the procedures currently employed by the Military Commission are abundantly fair and provide far beyond the minimum standards required.
Thank you to #12 for giving such a clear discussion of the distinctions among criminals, combatants, and unlawful combatants. The fine points are not always clear in reporting, and it is easy to forget exactly what makes a terrorist a terrorist. One could hope that the attorney general is among the lurkers on this blog.
Eric Holder may be as clever as he thinks he is but he seems to be underestimating the cleverness of Muslim terrorists. I can’t help but fear that he and the President are setting up another situation where our country will be outsmarted by Muslim Terrorists again.
When Eric Holder says that he didn’t consult the president on this decision, I say he is either a liar, or so grossly incompetent that he should be fired immediately.
As far as Islamic terrorists are concerned, they regard themselves as “soldiers of Allah,” since according to them, “there are no innocents among the unbelievers,” and all Muslims are obliged to kill them “in the name of Allah.” Therefore, as “soldiers” in or out of uniform, they should be tried by a military court. Holder and Obama are wrong, and their decision will come back to haunt them……and us.
And really, they should be adjudged guilty of a “crime against humanity” itself.
Our military service members don’t have access to Civilian Courts. Why should suspected terrorists have access to American Courts when they aren’t even American citizens. To give an enemy combatant, non-citizen the same rights as an American citizen is beyond wrong and it trivializes our citizenship and demeans our uniformed Service members. Department of Justice?