Free speech panel at Restoration: McCarthy, Emerson, Spencer
Andrew McCarthy, with whom I had the pleasure and honor of participating in a panel discussion on free speech along with Steve Emerson yesterday at Restoration Weekend, explains why moving the trial of the 9/11 masterminds to New York is so wrongheaded. "How Obama is courting danger: Civilian trials set back the war on terror," by Andrew C. McCarthy in the New York Daily News, November 22:
The prosecution team I led in 1995 convicted the notorious Blind Sheikh and 11 others for conspiring to wage a terrorist war that included the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and attempting (unsuccessfully) to attack New York City landmarks.Consequently, some observers seem puzzled that I'm a vocal critic of civilian trials for our terrorist enemies. But they are confusing litigation success with national-security success. So is the Obama administration in deciding to transfer Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 plotters to federal court in Manhattan.
We certainly can convict terrorists in civilian court. We've done it too many times for that to be a serious issue. It's also indisputable that the U.S attorney's office in Manhattan, where I was privileged to work for 18 years, is without peer in the expertise needed for such complex prosecutions. I have every confidence the Justice Department could convict KSM & Co.
The problem on this ride is not the destination; it's the journey.
We are in a hot war, overwhelmingly authorized by Congress, against vicious enemies still plotting attacks that could dwarf the carnage of 9/11. To deal with war crimes, Congress in 2006 endorsed military commission trials, which have a rich pedigree in our history, are fully consistent with our Constitution, and better enable us to withhold intelligence methods and sources.
Indeed, the Obama administration concedes that military commissions are sound: Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that the bombers of the warship Cole will face one.
From a legal standpoint, it makes no sense to try the Al Qaeda quintet in civilian court. Eleven months ago, these men were prepared to plead guilty in their military commission and proceed to execution. Yet the Obama administration pulled the plug on that commission. This was a transparent sop to the left, which wants to judicialize war-fighting and is repulsed by the intelligence-centric, prevention-first counterterrorism strategy that has protected us for eight years from a reprise of the 9/11 atrocities.
Now, our enemies will be given a full-blown civilian trial with all the rights of the American citizens they are sworn to kill. They will get a year or more to sift through our national defense secrets. They will have wide latitude to turn the case into a trial of the Bush administration - publicizing information about anti-terrorism tactics that leftist lawyers will exploit in their quest for war crimes prosecutions in foreign courts against current and former U.S. officials.
In the military system, we could have denied them access to classified information, forcing them to accept military lawyers with security clearances who could see such intelligence but not share it with our enemies. In civilian court, the Supreme Court has held an accused has an absolute right to conduct his own defense. If KSM asserts that right - as he tried to do in the military commission - he will have a strong argument that we must surrender relevant, top-secret information directly to him. And we know that indicted terrorists share what they learn with their confederates on the outside....
They will have wide latitude to turn the case into a trial of the Bush administration -
That's my take on it...Even if Holder didn't want Bush/Cheney/CIA on trial, it will happen anyway...
Obama and Holder have a appeasing islam agenda if people can't see that they are willfully blind.
Eric holder claimed the 9/11 terrorist could of been tried in civilian courts or military tribunals. Yet he choose civilian criminal courts for them. Based on what? Beside
the lame excuse about them not being the ones who will pick the legal system. He differentiated the jihadist terrorist who plotted the USS Cole from the jihadist terrorist who plotted 9/11 by claming the former had happend in international waters. Ok, I concede that point to the small minded Eric Holder.
But, let's recall history shall we inorder to make my vaild point...
To make a logical agianst obama and company I present the case of our late president Abraham lincoln. Was there not a conspiracy military-like plot made to assassinate him? Infact, Was not this conspiracy military-like plot carried out against him? Yes it was. Now, how can Obama and his convoluted thinkers explain to me how Johns wilkes booth and other American citizens involved in this conspiracy military-like plot against lincoln were hanged via military tribunals instead of via a civilian criminal court?
Insult our intelligence, lie to us, tell us this isn't about appeasing islam. Then, We will in a apathetic manner extend our middle fingers at you and in proper grammar yet with abrasive language suggest you take a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, only Congress is authorized: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."
If the administration without congressional authorization issues these rights how aren't they unconstitutional?
And we know that indicted terrorists share what they learn with their confederates on the outside.
That's fine. Once they have proof of leaked information being passed on, track it and bring to trial anyone responsible for passing on the information.
Fair?
When political arguments trump the national interests, you wonder about the loyalty of the advocates.
Whose side is Obama on?
Khushi, I think it's safe to say he's not on our side.