The world is upside-down 
November 23, 2009 by Matthew Jarzen
A detriment to national security, Obama administration treats terrorism cases like normal criminal offenses
A couple weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and four other co-conspirators will be tried in a federal civilian criminal court in New York City — six blocks from Ground Zero.
Needless to say, this decision has caused quite a stir among Americans and some are questioning whether President Barack Obama was part of the decision-making process. According to Holder, the president was “informed” of the attorney general’s decision to have the terrorists tried in a civilian criminal court.
When asked if he consulted with anybody regarding the decision, Holder said he “talked with his wife and brother.” With a case this big, and its impact so far-reaching, the attorney general consults only his wife and brother?
Holder’s claim that he did not seek the president’s counsel is probably only to give Obama plausible deniability — just in case things go wrong. Holder would bare the brunt of criticism.
Holder also claimed that justice would be provided to those who have suffered — that it took too long to prosecute the people responsible for 9/11 and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in October of 2000.
The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole took place during the Clinton administration and Holder was then deputy attorney general under Clinton. When the U.S.S. Cole incident happened, Holder refused to prosecute.
So that brings me to the case itself: Khalid Sheik Mohammad is being brought to a federal civilian criminal court to be tried for his involvement in 9/11. This means that Mohammad had to have been read his Miranda Rights — which grants him the rights and protections given to American citizens.
Since this is a civilian criminal court and Mohammad has the same rights and protections as any other American, his case could even be thrown out. Imagine if this was just an ordinary robbery case. The suspect flees the country and is captured by a foreign police force but then is turned over to Americans. He is never read his Miranda Rights.
The robber is held in jail for six and a half years. He never goes before a judge for arraignment because he was never actually charged for the robbery. Also assume that he is water-boarded numerous times for information about the robbery case.
The robber spills the beans on all of it and gives a nice confession to top it all off. But his confession is given under duress. Say that the robbery case is finally brought to court.
How many of you reading this believe that this case would make it all the way to trial and the robber would be convicted of the robbery?
Of course, Mohammad’s real case and his involvement in 9/11 is far more complex than a robbery case, but the basic idea is that the principles of our justice system still apply.
This means that, just as in regular court, the defendant has the right to represent himself. If you’re familiar with criminal justice proceedings, you know that the prosecution would have to share all the evidence against the defendant with him.
This means that he has access to all CIA intelligence against him. The names of CIA agents and operatives who obtained that information would have to be shared with Mohammad as well.
This situation is ludicrous at the very least — dangerous at worst. How can the government claim that it is OK to share such sensitive evidence in open civilian court?
Earlier this year, Obama ordered the Justice Department to start issuing Miranda Rights to captured terrorists.
Actions like these are dangerous because they show we are no longer fighting a war. If we go down this road, we’ll have to start calling in crime scene investigators to a battlefield in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, trying enemy combatants in civilian criminal court has no legal precedence. For example, during World War II the U.S. captured many German soldiers. The military asked the Supreme Court if these captives should be brought to trial. The Supreme Court said that in a time of war, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over captured enemy combatants.
By doing just the opposite, the Obama administration is weakening our national security and castrating our intelligence services.
Obama and Holder have already said that these guys are going to be found guilty and put to death.
But wait, if they’re essentially already convicted, how could they get a fair trial? The Muslim world might look at this as a show trial.
But this seems more like a trial for the failures of the Bush administration rather than a trial for the terrorists.
For years the Democrats have been biting at the bit to bring criminal charges against the Bush administration. Earlier this year, Obama and the Democratic Congress announced they would hold open investigations of the Bush administration in regard to its handling of the war in Iraq, the opening of Guantanamo Bay, water-boarding, etc.
If this circus case goes to court, Mohammad will not be the one standing trial. It’ll be George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
It seems that the Obama administration has lost sight of who our real enemies are.
I have to say this is one of the most stupid things I have ever seen anyone ever do. Not only didn’t KSM get read his Miranda rights and he was water boarded (illegal to do to American citizens under the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause in the 8th amendment) but he also did not get a speedy trial (guaranteed by the 6th amendment). He also is not able to face his accusers (guaranteed by the 6th amendment).
This is a small list of constitutionally guaranteed protections that are granted to US citizens and others in our civil courts. If KSM is tried in our civil courts he must be granted these rights. So the Obama administration will have to either undermine our civil rights by finding some argument not to grant them (which would set precedent for not granting those same rights to us) or give KSM his freedom.
Breaking any one of these constitutional protections is enough to throw out the case. If KSM were tried in a military tribunal, there are different rights that are granted to enemy combatants (many of which are not granted to terrorists as they 1) do not fight for a country, 2) they do not wear a military uniform and thus are excluded from many of the treaties that we have signed).
Another important point is that Obama and Holder have guaranteed to find him guilty. That would make this trial little more than a show trial as we (and the rest of the world) all know how it is going to end.
I am appalled that Obama would risk our civil liberties to score a couple cheap shots against his political opponents. I, for one, am sure that Obama was influential in this choice, because if he was not ok with it, he would tell Holder not to do it and if Holder continued then Obama would fire him. As Obama is not doing any of that, he is in on this attack or our civil liberties.
The last and worst part about this decision is that it puts our soldiers’ lives at stake as they will now have to conduct thorough investigations on the battle field to obtain the necessary evidence to convict these terrorists in civilian court. Many of our soldiers could die trying to follow those orders and many terrorists could go free in they are held to the higher standard of evidence that is afforded in our civil courts. Military courts have different standards to reflect the realities of warfare while our civil courts do not.
One day, when transporting to the courthouse, they should “accidently” forget his bullet proof vest…
Yea anyway, trying him in a civilian court is ludicrous, and I don’t mean the rapper..
Just another goof up by the Obama admin to throw at him 2012.
Matthew, great article.
Obama and Holder think they can knit pick which rights to give KSM and his co-conspirators. David had it dead on, if Obama and Holder do get to knit pick what rights to grant the terrorists, then they will be indeed setting legal precedence and bad precedence at that.
If this is allowed to go through it will be the ultimate destruction of our own civil liberties. If that’s not enough, the terrorists have already pleaded not-guilty which means they will use our civilian court as a stage to voice their anti-American rhetoric.
Lastly, Matthew hit the nail on the head. The primary motive behind bringing these terrorists to civilian court is not to try them as criminals, but to put the Bush Administration on trial. They’re waiting for something to come out in court so Holder can bring charges against those in the former Bush Administration.
Thank you for exposing this.
Obama wants these terrorists on trial so they can use the court to bash America. Essentially, they’d be doing what Obama openly cannot say. He sympathizes with them, just as Jeremiah Wright sympathizes with them, just like Bill Ayers sympathizes with them.
I think we’re seeing a pattern here.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html
The above article is disturbing–though this sort of thing shouldn’t shock me in the Obama administration.
I saw that same article, Matthew and I was shocked. How does it make sense that we have to treat terrorists like kings while they spit on our soliders and throw feces on them? What about when they try to escape, how does Obama think we can stop them, ask them politely to go back into thier cell?
I think Obama and Holder have given terrorists the best weapon against our troops that we have ever fought against… civil courts. From now on, our soliders are going to have to act very conservatively and be very careful about how they talk to people or they could end up in a lawsuit after they captured the guy. And by forcing our soldiers into battle with both hands tied behind thier back, many more will probably die needlessly. It’s sad that Obama cares so little for our troops. I would think that even the worst American would support our troops but Obama who is supposed to be thier leader seems to view them as the enemy and the terrorists as friends. I guess our military knows how Israel is feeling.
David, I completely agree.
I have spoken with some people about this and I wanted to make a point. Yes, in the past we have tried terrorists in our civil courts buts none them were captured in a war zone. None of them were held and treated according to rights afforded to enemy combatants.
This trial is the first time we have tried a person captured in a war zone and given them access to civil courts. This is a fundamental difference because the other terrorists tried in our civil courts were given their constitutional rights unlike KSM. So either KSM will go free or our civil liberties will be eroded so that they can convict him even though they did not give him many of the constitutional rights that he would be due in our civil court system.