He described the move, as “a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that calls on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before Sept. 11 that acts like the first World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our embassies in Africa and other such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”
He went on to tactfully and factually decry many of the Obama Administration's decisions which have "seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”
Bam Pow.....that would hurt, however I'm not sure the Obama Administration is able to understand the meaning of that statement, after all, Muskasey has this pesky habit of speaking in complete sentences vs. easily quotable sound bites.
The American Spectator gives a complete, must read over-view of Muskasey's complete speech HERE
It really is amazing comparing Muskasey to current Attorney General Eric Holder, not only in rhetoric, but in foresight, depth of understanding and overall breadth of knowledge and consequences of actions. Amazing and frightening.
What about the constitution, where under the 6th amendment an individual has the right to have a trial in the place where the crime committed. Deviating from this means we are not adhering to the rule of law and if we can't uphold our own laws what good are they?
ReplyDeleteA criminal regardless of the crime has the right to face their accusers, to see the evidence gathered against them. To have a fair trial.
If you say that we shouldn't trust the civil courts to handle a case like this, that just speaks to me that you have no faith in our judicial system, a system mind you that has prosecuted terrorists before. Take RIchard Reed, he tried to take down a plane with his shoes but we prosecuted him in a civilian court without incident. The list can go on, the original bombers of the WTC in the 90's Tim McVay, etc. No one complained back then that a civilian trial would be wrong. What's different about these than other terrorism suspects that have been prosecuted?
I think you do bring up a good point and there seems to be no strong dividing line as to what belongs where. The problem seems to be more about classification and precedent. I think this is an interesting clip from Napolitano:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBrfql3pnU&feature=player_embedded#
That link didn't come through well, lets see if it works if I tinyurl it
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/ykadup9
At this point though, I think alot of the dissent comes from a few cores...a) it is setting back the trial, we are basically having to start over on alot of faces and b) the public exposure of both intelligence information and basic terrorist propaganda.
ReplyDeleteThere are also alot of emotions involved, which makes everything a bit blurry.
But aren't these all the same issues that we had when we took Zacarias Moussaoui to trial. He was tried and convicted in a federal court of law and there wasn't this out rage from the conservatives at the time. Yes, a few people said something but nothing like we have in the media today. I find it hypocritical to say that when we did it for the last guy it was ok but now it's not. I can't understand that rational
ReplyDeleteI think the trial of Z. Moussaoui is a good example of why it is dangerous to try this sort of thing in an open civil court. Z. Moussaoui, and the his lawyers were able to string along the trial for four years. It served to create a forum for him to air his anti-American propaganda, and gave al Qaeda critical information on who the Government saw as threats to national security
ReplyDelete