|
|
||
Attorney General Holder's decision to try terrorists in civilian court is a mistake Date published: 11/18/2009
IN WHAT'S quickly become an Obama administration tradition, Friday brought yet another stunning announcement: Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that the government would try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and three other 9/11 terrorists in civilian court in New York. The decision was born of misjudgment--and cunning. Mohammed is the self-admitted mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. He was captured in Pakistan in 2003 and is being held at Guantanamo Bay. Now, thanks to Mr. Holder, he'll be armored by the same constitutional rights that Americans have. He'll face a civilian judge in a civilian court under civilian rules of law--rules that in general give the defense the upper hand and undoubtedly will force the prosecution to reveal intelligence secrets. What happened on Sept. 11, 2001? Most Americans would say the terror attacks were acts of war--albeit an unconventional war waged on the basis of ideology by non-uniformed combatants targeting civilian targets. The Bush administration, in a move approved by a bipartisan Congress, established military commissions to try captured "enemy combatants." There's precedent for this: During World War II, eight Germans entered the United States intent on causing fear and mass confusion. They were caught and tried in a military tribunal, and six of the eight were put to death. The Obama administration, by classifying Mohammed and his cohorts as criminals rather than enemy combatants, is refusing to recognize the coordinated, ideologically driven war declared on the United States by Islamists. Failure to "know your enemy" is the surest way to defeat. The 1993 trial of the "blind Sheikh," Omar Abdel-Rahman, in the first bombing of the World Trade Center gave Osama bin Laden an outline of what the U.S. knew about al-Qaida at the time, prompting him to leave Sudan for Afghanistan. Abdel-Rahman was a resident of the U.S. and al-Qaida was not yet a household name, so trying him in civilian court made sense. But al-Qaida's intent has become more clear and more deadly, and responding to its attacks as unconventional warfare is clearly appropriate and wise.
listen to right wing talk radio, then repeat their unsubstantiated nonsense. The terrorists should be treated as the criminals that they are, then punished accordingly.
A civil trial treats the accused as common thugs and does not give them any special status in the world. Making them warriors elevates their status and induces more to follow them. The editor really needs to look at how Britain finally solved its problems with the IRA violence. They went to civil trials. Changed the tenor of the conflict. If the Brits can do it, even while additional bombings were going on, why can't we?
At the same time, Eric Holder announced that five other alleged terrorists would be tried by military tribunals, including those who masterminded the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. But what I find amazing is the editorial's complete lack of faith in the Federal judiciary, the same judiciary that has convicted and put away numerous threats to national security, including the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, the shoebomber, and even one conspirator in the 9/11 plot.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
