PDA

View Full Version : Trying KSM in Civilian Court: Inconsistent, Indefensible, Inexplicable



patriot45
11-18-2009, 11:48 AM
Got it all here! (http://townhall.com/columnists/TerryJeffrey/2009/11/18/trying_ksm_in_civilian_court_inconsistent,_indefen sible,_inexplicable?page=full&comments=true) Not one sane or logical or even legal reason for this!




Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a federal civilian court is inconsistent, indefensible and inexplicable.

It is inconsistent with Holder's own decision to try Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in a military commission. It is indefensible in light of the unmistakable intentions of the Framers of the Constitution. It is inexplicable by any prudential analysis of the national interest in dealing with an enemy like al-Qaida.

Some strange ideological impulse -- rather than common sense and respect for the rule of law -- is driving the Obama administration to give special treatment to the perpetrator of one of the greatest war crimes ever committed against the United States.

snip.... on to the best part!


Why would President Obama and his attorney general choose this course? What point are they trying to make?

In a May 21 speech at the National Archives, Obama himself said: "Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts."

Is it Obama's argument now that Khalid Sheik Mohammad did not violate the laws of war? Is it Obama's argument now that the United States does not need to protect sensitive sources and methods used in gathering intelligence on Mohammed and his al-Qaida affiliates? Is it Obama's argument now that the participants in Mohammed's trial will not need the safety and security provided by a military commission? Is it Obama's argument now that the case against Mohammed does not involve evidence gathered on battlefields that cannot be effectively presented in federal courts?

The truth is Obama has no argument at all to justify trying this unlawful enemy combatant who perpetrated war crimes against America in a civilian court designed for civilian crimes

Speedy
11-18-2009, 11:54 AM
Damn it! They HAVE to put Bush on trial somehow!

AmPat
11-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Somebody needs to send this to Jay Howard. He apparently doesn't get it either.:cool:

patriot45
11-18-2009, 12:45 PM
Somebody needs to send this to Jay Howard. He apparently doesn't get it either.:cool:

He's our new puddin stirrer! :D

GrumpyOldLady
11-18-2009, 12:47 PM
This is a mess. It never should have gone down like this.