Of the many topics on which I disagree with the current administration, none is so mystifying as Attorney General Eric Holder's insistence that the 9/11 mastermind and several other terrorists (formerly held at Guantanamo Bay) be tried in U.S. civilian court.His justification for this seemingly toxic political maneuver is elusive. He has repeatedly asserted that he is, "quite confident that we're going to be successful in the prosecution efforts.” His Democrat backers make the same assertion. Senator Russ Feingold applauded Holder's decision, claiming, "Our system of justice is more than capable of securely, fairly, and effectively prosecuting alleged terrorists." Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy echoed this sentiment, saying, "I have always believed that the nation’s federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism and national security cases."
To those who claim that our criminal justice system is "capable" of successfully prosecuting terrorists, I would simply agree. It is capable. We could do it. We could also eliminate Iran as a nuclear threat by bombing them off the face of the earth and return to the moon and set up an cheese processing plant. But does being capable of doing something mean that we should do it? Is capability a justification?
Can does not equal should. Any grade schooler can tell you that. The fact that we are capable of forking out the hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars it would take to try these terrorists in a civilian courtroom, does not mean that we should. The fact that we can grant these terrorists the same legal rights accorded to U.S. citizens does not mean that we should. The fact that we can remove officials from office who willfully use tax payer money to defend foreign terrorists rather than defeat them, does not mean that.....well actually, that one we probably should do.
2 comments:
Doesn't one need to be tried and convicted to be a terrorist?
Or can an official simply arrest anyone they want, charge them with terrorism, hold them indefinitely, and not afford them counsel, review of evidence, or trial by jury?
Just unclear on what set of rules we're playing by here, why we're breaking down a tried and true system of judicial law.
When you say, "breaking down a tried and true system of judicial law," are you referring to civil or military courts? Because both are pretty tried and true IMO.
Conviction determines sentence, not the court system in which a person is tried. You're proposing a catch-22 here. You would have KSM convicted of terrorism before making the civil vs. military court decision.
You're also playing an incredibly expensive game of semantics. Call these defendants whatever you want, they are accused (and self-professed) enemy combatants, just like the Nazi's we tried in military courts in Nuremberg.
Sorry, but your whole second paragraph is a 'black suits and helicopters' red herring. This is not about denying anybody a trial--it's about giving them one, fairly, economically, safely and without a media circus.
Post a Comment