John Kerry wants to make Osama the next O.J.
Via Drudge and the Associated Press, we learn: “Kerry in favor of U.S. bin Laden trial:”
John Kerry said Friday he would put Osama bin Laden on trial in U.S. courts rather than an international tribunal to ensure the “fastest, surest route” to a murder conviction if the terrorist mastermind is captured while he is president.
“I want him tried for murder in New York City, and in Virginia and in Pennsylvania,” where planes hijacked by al-Qaida operatives crashed Sept. 11, 2001, Kerry said in his first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee.
The Saudi-bred terrorist is suspected of plotting attacks that have shed blood across the globe, not just in the United States. Kerry suggested he would place the highest priority on avenging American deaths.
So, this is how Kerry proposes to make America “stronger and more secure?” By adopting the Clinton law enforcement approach as the primary means to combat Islamic terrorism? “Fastest, surest route” to a murder conviction? What about the need to interrogate bin Laden and gather critical intelligence on al Qaeda? Where did Kerry ever get the idea that putting bin Laden through our civilian courts would be “fast?” And how clueless could he possibly be to ignore the fact that much of the evidence against bin Laden (for example, statements of interrogated al Qaeda detainees such as Ramzi bin al Shibh and Khalid Sheik Mohamed) would be inadmissable at trial?
The idea of prosecuting suspected terrorists like burglars or drug dealers seems to make sense in principle, but jury trials for War on Terror suspects are fraught with peril.
“In ordinary civilian trials, there is no significant cost to sharing everything the government knows,” notes Johns Hopkins international law professor Ruth Wedgwood. “But this does not hold against the background of Al Qaeda’s stated ambition of mounting new attacks.” Affording accused Al Qaeda operatives the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial threatens to compromise classified information necessary to prosecute future terrorist trials. Other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment�the right to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify, the right to an attorney�can interfere with interrogations of captured suspected Al Qaeda agents. Moreover, in civilian courtrooms, prosecutors are severely restrained from closing off classified information under the existing federal Classified Information Procedure Act. Anonymous testimony and intelligence based on hearsay are often inadmissible in civilian courts. And while the lives of those immediately involved in say, a mob trial, might be endangered, the entire nation may be at risk when we allow suspected members of a terrorist network to partake in the discovery process.
The prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers in our civilian court system, though successful, demonstrated the pitfalls of prosecuting the War on Terror like an episode of the TV show “Ally McBeal”�a courtroom comedy. The trials gave the bin Laden network a multi-million-dollar, tax-subsidized defense team, free translation services, personal dry-cleaning services, and access to information that was allegedly used by Islamists to evade surveillance.
All of the convicted World Trade Center bombers received life sentences. Two had faced the death penalty, but were spared by a minority-dominated jury that swallowed the race-baiting of traitorous defense witness Ramsey Clark (the former U.S. attorney general under Lyndon Johnson). Clark testified that no member of a racial minority group�African-American, Arab or otherwise�could expect a fair trial in the U.S. He also blamed the Gulf War and U.S. sanctions on Iraq for creating the psychological “suffering” that led to the embassy attacks. On another front, convicted mastermind Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman may have exploited his right to counsel in order to establish a terrorist message center from behind bars. His lawyer, Lynne Stewart, was indicted in the fall of 2003 on charges of providing material support to terrorists and went to trial in May 2004; she is accused of aiding a plot to kidnap and kill people to help win the release of Rahman and making false statements regarding her efforts to pass messages between Rahman and third parties.
The Bush administration is now suffering from the Ally McBeal-ization of terror trials as a result of its fateful decision to allow accused Al Qaeda operative Zacarias Moussaoui to be tried in an ordinary civilian court. In a bad miscalculation, the Administration opted to bring a criminal case against Moussouai rather than have him tried in a military tribunal or detained as an enemy combatant. Moussaoui, an avowed al Qeada member deemed “mentally unstable” by several experts, has had a field day making fools of the prosecution. (Indeed, confiscated Al Qaeda training manuals reveal that recruits are instructed in how to manipulate the Western legal system if they are captured.) He asserted the right to see classified documents and the right to interrogate captured Al Qaeda combatants, such as Ramzi Binalshibh, being detained abroad. Understandably, Justice Department lawyers refused to allow Moussaoui to speak to Binalshibh. The court may now hold the DOJ attorneys in contempt. If that happens, the Bush Administration has hinted it will do what it should have done from the start: Declare Moussaoui an enemy combatant and throw him into a military brig.
In short, John Kerry’s bold new counterterrorism proposal is to turn Osama into the next O.J.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta)
- mypetjawa v. 2.0 (beta)
- Right Moment
- New England Republican
- Dummocrats.com
- Watcher of Weasels
- The Axis of Weasels
- Who Can Really Say?
- Who Tends the Fires
- Watcher of Weasels
- Intermittent Stream
- The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Ally McBeal approach, John Kerry
Mudville Gazette
» When the wind won't blowRedstate
» The Great Global Warming FraudMudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part Two)Mudville Gazette
» Bad Weather (Part I)Legal Insurrection
» Hacked E-mails or Else!
this post is ridiculous. of course kerry wants osama tried in the U.S. as opposed to in an international tribunal. bin laden committed atrocious crimes on u.s. soil, and he should be tried here instead of being put through an international court that could take years to even get him into a courtroom. do you honestly think ANY american jury would find him not guilty?
The only thing Osama should get is a .308 round to the head…
If he is captured alive, after he is throughly interigated,he should be tried by a military court, once found guility, hanged.
I’ll dissent from the tonw of the first three comments. This post raises a very important question that has only been resolved by the Left, not the Center or the Right.
IMHO, The Left is effectively saying that convicting, imprisoning, and punishing terrorists is not as important as safeguarding Citizens’ liberties from a potentially overbearing Government. This is an internally-consistent position that follows an honored tradition in American political thought. Per Michelle’s post, it’s also aligned with the interests of terrorists like Moussaoui. But that doesn’t mean it’s all wrong.
For the rest of us, the idea of giving terrorists such a free pass is a non-starter. The civil court system exists to protect our liberties, not to serve as a handy tool for outsiders to use to destroy our society.
The question breaks into two:
–What do we “owe” terrorists, suspected terrorists, and accomplices? For instance, we may take the moral stand that “no human being deserves to be tortured.” Or we might suppose that treating enemy prisoners according to rules will provide them with incentives to act that way towards us–the reasoning behind some of the Geneva Conventions.
–In a war that is going to last decades, how do we prevent the government from turning into a National Security State that, bit by bit, in the name of fighting Terror, infringes more and more on citizens’ rights? What’s to stop Bush or Kerry administration agents from detaining the author of some offensive Internet post (you or me) and holding us incommunicado for years? Jose Padilla is a US citizen, detained on American soil…
Sorry, I don’t see the answer, but I’ll give Kerry some credit for worrying about the question. It’s not gonna go away.
Jill misses an important point. Osama is an enemy engaged in acts of war against the United States. His only trial should be before a United States military tribunal. Once any useful information has been obtained from him, he should be tried, and if found guilty, executed in short order. The same goes for any other non-citizen captured participating in acts of war against the US – either here or overseas.
Once again, the whole thrust of the leftist legal establishment would appear to be the abolition of any distinction between US citizens and foreign combatants. A trial in US federal courts for OBL would be a complete circus, for all of the reasons described in Michelle’s entry above. I note with dismay that not a single AQ terrorist captured and held at Guantanemo has been brought to trial before a military tribunal. Bush is dropping the ball – badly – on this issue, and Kerry is a complete joke.
Carolus has it right above. The key problem with the criminal trial is that it affords the protections of liberty to one publicly dedicated to its eradication. Osama very specifically and publicly declared war on the US, many times. It was a big joke until he got his act together. By all laws and customs of war he is entitled to no quarter. It could come to pass that he would find himself in US custody but as a prisoner of war only.
Unless terrorsts are caught, convicted, and punished there will be no liberties to worry about. The disagreement lies in which court to prosecute these folks. It’s a serious mistake to use civilian courts where rules of evidence are fraught with danger for military secrets. And, I agree that civilian courts must protect our liberties – key word is our. Foreign enemies should not have our constitutional protections nor should they be permitted to use our civilian courts. There IS a possibility that a jury could do an OJ; it takes only one to hang a jury, too. This is a very contentious and complicated issue with honest concerns on both sides. Mr. Kerry can be faulted for treating this as a law enforcement matter and Mr. Bush should be faulted for badly mishandling it.
Excellent, and exactly what I was thinking!!
(apologies for double TB)
I thought that people are innocent until proven guilty in America? We all know that Osama is a scapegoat, the Mossaad was behind 9/11 as well as the Iraq and upcoming Iran war. Vive La Resistance!!!
Here’s mine: http://libertycorner.blogspot.com/2004/07/heres-why-im-afraid-of-kerry.html
I am sick and tired of your lame a$$ comments you slimey french worm!!!
So Mossad was behind 9/11 wher are Facts? I realize that you solcialist French don’t believe in facts but if you insist on posting here just once come armed with facts.
Theories are nice and every can say anything they choose but unless you can PROVE your theories they are worthless. I could say the French are behind 9/11 but that would be absurd since it takes guts to act and since World War 2 the French version of guts has been to surrender as fast as possible…come to think of it except for the few brave resistance fighters the French surrender quick in World War 2.
So once and for all STFU!
But back to the topic at hand. OBL is not entitled to the protections of the constitution which only covers US citizens. If he was a military figure I would say the War Crimes Tribunal. But since he is not a soldier then he has the right to a military tribunal and no Geneva convention protections. So if he is captured take him before a US military Tribunal then if convicted it is hanging or the firing squad.
Michelle,
I will no longer be posting here if this one person who just came to the ball game in the last day is allowed to keep posting with no conscience and lots of cuss words.
Are you talking about me Baklava?
No.
He hasn’t posted on this thread yet.
How it should be done:
“Look, it’s Osama! He’s got his hands up and is waving a white flag!”
BANG!
Of course, shoot him in the chest or in the groin to make sure his face is intace enough for the TV cameras.
That John Kerry would support trying bin Laden in a civilian trial is truly shocking. Kerry really has learned nothing from 9/11. And if he wins in November, then too many Americans have forgot the lessons of that day, and we will all be in big trouble.
James Kothoff,
It helps to ignore the trolls. Ms. Malkin will blacklist them if she wants to. Responses, sadly, just seem to inspire them to foul the nest further. Nuff said.
Earlier I posted a link. But why should you have to follow a link? Here’s what I think:
Osama bin Laden isn’t a criminal — he’s our enemy. He isn’t “suspected of plotting attacks that have shed blood” — he’s known to have plotted those attacks. Kerry’s limp-wristed handling of bin Laden would only make bin Laden’s partisans guffaw. It would confirm their conception of America as irresolute and spineless. It would make us more, not less, vulnerable to terrorism.
We must not let that happen. If bin Laden is taken alive he should be marched to a place where CNN has cameras, then wrapped in plastique, doused with jet fuel, and torched.
AMac,
I know and normally I don’t let them piss me off but for some reason this guy/girl/it is getting on my last nerve.
But you are right and I will quit feeding the trolls unless I have troll poison
I think John Edwards will represent him for half the cost. Hope is on the way.
Laurel,
You’re right. That’s why Kerry wants to give bin Laden a trial. Yours is the best post yet.
John Edwards could take time off from his job as VP to institute a class action lawsuit against the gov’t for Osama and all other Muslim terrorists.
This is simple. Kerry’s statement proves his incompetence beyond any shread of a doubt. One word explains why this strategy would destroy us. DISCLOSURE. Kerry is in effect saying we should turn over classified documents to Bin Ladin’s lawyers, and maybe still not even have enough evidence to convict him by criminal court standards. If I was Osama, I would turn my self in on inauguration day if Kerry gets elected. That is if he is even alive, which I have my doubts about. We haven’t seen his face in years, and he loved to get his face on TV.
My vote is to put him up to a military tribunal. Makes the most sense, as his act constitutes an illegal attack on civilians w/o a declaration of war. The qeustion, though, is whether an NGO can be said to be capable of waging “war” in the traditional sense.
–|PW|–
Carolus — not “any non-citizen” engaged in an act of war against the United States. If any nation-state is engaged in a de facto or de jure war against the U.S., then that state’s soldiers, as long as they comport themselves in accordance with the laws of war, may not be placed on trial.
–|PW|–
Erik – you said, “That John Kerry would support trying bin Laden in a civilian trial is truly shocking.”
Shocking? Really? That Kerry would think the way you battle terrorism is by serving it indictments comes to no surprise to me whatsoever. I’m just glad that Kerry’s got the guts to say these kinds of things publicly as it will mean a Bush victory in November.
We should take the priviledge to run for
President away from any lawyer. Kerry/
Edwards remind me of why the CDC started substituting
lawyers for lab rats in experiments.
(1) There’s too many of them.
(2) The nurses don’t grow attached to them.
(3) There are some things rats won’t do.
Pennywit,
I should have specified it as non-citizens participating in acts of war who aren’t regular soldiers of an opposing army (e.g. in uniform or otherwise deliberately distinguishing themselves from civilians, who attack only military targets). POWs of foreign armies fall under the Geneva conventions, of course. Transnational terrorists like OBL do not.
Nope. I don’t want my tax dollars to go towards paying for the millions of dollars of legal costs that would be involved in prosecuting Osama in the US judicial system. Heck, seeing what’s happened in the past, he’d probably get off on a technicality! Not to mention all the terrorism it would initiate as his little army of psychos grab anyone they can and start chopping their heads off if the US don’t free Osama. It’s just asking for trouble.
Kerry’s just looking for votes and a US trial was probably the more popular option when people were surveyed, so he’s supporting it. If a new survey came out tomorrow showing most Americans don’t want a US trial for Osama, you can bet Kerry would change his view accordingly. What a tosser.
It’s the Left restoring the natural order of the Lawyer in our society. All things must come through them.
After 9/11there was a brief shift in perception when the Twin Towers came crashing down. That we needed Police and Construction workers,Firemen and Soliders. That they we have a say in things and a purpose.
.
The Legal Class layed low while the heavy lifting was done by others.
Now order has been restored,the same caste mentality surfaces again
.Kerry is trained to think as a lawyer and as a result tackles each promblem as a legal question. Johhny Edwards is in bussiness as much as the local McDonald Franchise
.It just Lawyers like him use the Law as their product , rather than a cheeseburger.Hey they both have marketing and research classes. Pointing too profit centers along with industry trade shows.
I felt the same thing was true in the Tech Boom. Just when it seemed the Internet would transform the old caste order and the Nerd would become the driving force . The Justice Dept and all the young Lawyers went after MircoSoft and polticalized another Industry.
Sure we need lawyers but do we so many?
Any legal professional who has labored in the criminal justice system (as have I for a quarter century), knows in a heartbeat what a supremely stupid idea this is. The aura of unreality in Kerry’s attempts to deal with what the nation really faces is in my view comparable with Neville Chamberlain in 1939. Wake up!
How long did it take the Feds to try McVeigh? About 2 years, with another 2 years in the trial phase I think. Then there are those endless appeals. Don’t forget a President Kerry says he supports a moratorium on the Federal death penalty. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004987.html Which means there would soon be a national moratorium on the indivudal state death penaltys, because of the liberal social engineering judges and Supreme Court Justices he’d appoint. Stroke of the Pen, Law of the Land.
A moratorium on the Federal death penalty means that under a Kerry administration Osama won’t be getting the justice he deserves, but would be sitting in comfort in the Super Max prison at taxpayers expense and footing the bills for his kidney transplant.
This is much like his vote on the $87 billion that would have provided body armor for our troops. “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” Kerry says. Straddling the fence once again to gain a few votes.
RUSH has a great clip on Hanoi John’s flip flop on the DP http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020404/content/truth_detector_3.guest.html
I am opposed to the death penalty for one reason. I’m convinced that it is murder to kill someone who is not a threat. Most criminals, once incarcerated are no longer threats.
The issue here, though, is that some people, remain threats, incarcerated or not. In those cases death is justified. Terrorists and some Organized Crime figures fit this mold.
In the case of terrorists, I’m willing to allow soldiers to execute them upon positive identification of them as known terrorists.
Just a thought, and a reminder. Recall the just completed OK City trial. Also recall that the guilty party in that trial was previously convicted in Federal Court to life in prison. The State trail was an attempt to satify the locals seeking a death sentence.
Now consider OBL in a Federal civil trial and the resulting conviction. That would spawn many appeals and years of litigation.
But given the nature of the 9/11 crime is there any doubt that when the shysters become involved each state where a victim resided (betting thats 30-40 at least)will also file a case against OBL.
Whats the solution? It is called “shot during an escape attempt” in the Iranian desert. Which BTW I believe he is, not the Pak/Afghan border.
The Dems are lost in the pretend world of Jimmy Carter. It is so much easier, and safer, to hate the pretend bad guys of the U.S. and Israel than the real bad guys in the world. To pretend that the U.S. is bad, Republicans are bad, Bush is bad is to keep the world inside a nice safe little box where nothing changes.
Terrorists? Only bad because the pretend bad guys made them bad. Solution? Attack the pretend bad guys, the U.S. and Israel, and you solve all the world’s problems.
The nice thing about attacking the pretend bad guys is that nothing very bad is going to happen to you. Activists against the U.S. and Israel are given total freedom to say and do pretty much whatever they want. If there are any criticisms of their views they just scream “McCarthyism” and redouble their vitriol.
This election is about whether or not the U.S. decides to live in the pretend world of Jimmy Carter and John Kerry or the actual world of real terrorists and Bush.
Its the Bush law enforcemen approach. Worked against Noriega.
This election is about whether or not the U.S. decides to live in the pretend world of Jimmy Carter and John Kerry or the actual world of real terrorists and Bush.
The actual world is that way because Bush and buddies are the terrorists, and Kerry is his buddy, blood brothers whose alligence to the skull and bones is much greater than their alligence to america.