“Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda.”
Now, while one might agree with that statement, at its most base and foul, it is certainly open to interpretation. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, as they say. You could say that slandering US Marines as murderers is certainly helping Al Qaeda. But is rejoicing that the scumbag who said it is dead? No. Closing Guantanamo Bay without thinking about it could be said to be helping Al Qaeda. But is treating captured terrorists like the “scumbags” they are? No. Giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists Miranda rights and wrapping them in Constitutional protections that could get them, then announcing on national t.v. that the result of a “fair trial” is a foregone conclusion could be said to be helping Al Qaeda. But is insisting that they be tried in military courts that years of preparation had established? No.
Basically, this administration has taken to calling dissent sedition. They talk in those incessant talking points about “common ground” and “coming together” that independents and even people who choose not to pay too much attention to politics now realize mean “agree with us and shut up.” John Brennan — Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism – in a USA Today Op-Ed, says Obama “needs no lectures”.
So when people talk about the “disaster” in handling the Christmas bomber, the Obama Administration talking points come out. Here come the cliches about Richard Reid, the shoebomber, being read his rights after being taken off the plane. OK. Let’s settle that bs right now. That was right after 911 and BEFORE military tribunals were established. So don’t compare apples to oranges. The military tribunals are in place and now they don’t want to use them.
Then Brennan goes on and actually undercuts the whole argument for civilian court trials in the first place.
He calls it “naive to think that transferring Abdulmutallab to military custody would have caused an outpouring of information. There is little difference between military and civilian custody, other than an interrogator with a uniform. The suspect gets access to a lawyer, and interrogation rules are nearly identical.”
Get that? They are nearly identical. So why would a city or state want to spend millions of dollars on trials and security when you can just give them to the military (who we already pay and who have guns) to do it for you?
“We have the right to debate and disagree, with any administration!!!” Hillary Clinton
So there certainly is alarmism going on. And it IS helping Al Qaeda. But it is the alarmism of the Obama Administration, desparate to deflect further criticism and stop its sagging approval numbers. When you have an administration that insists on treating Islamist terrorism as a law-enforcement issue, that’s an issue.
Sentiment is widespread that it is quite insane to spend $200 million a year to give the killer of 3,000 innocents the largest propaganda platform on earth, while at the same time granting civilian rights of cross-examination and discovery that risk betraying U.S. intelligence sources and methods.
THAT is helping Al Qaeda.
yawn…
I’m not gonna take the bait [*we had to hear the same BS for eight years, no, don’t go there Vern*]
“So why would a city or state want to spend millions of dollars on trials and security when you can just give them to the military (who we already pay and who have guns) to do it for you?”
Maybe, because CIVILIAN TRIALS HAVE A BETTER CONVICTION RATE, just sayin’;
Conservatives Ignore GWB Record on Terrorist Trials
By Jason Sigger Monday Jan 11, 2010 2:00pm
It’s been a popular refrain by conservatives that the Detroit Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, ought to be turned over to the military so that he can be “squeezed” for information. Yes, that’s because it’s worked so well in the past… but more to the point, how’s the former administration’s track record on civil and military trials of terrorist suspects? From the UK’s Guardian:
The Bush administration — in which Liz Cheney’s papa held a fairly high position, you might recall — prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.
With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn’t exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced — not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! — to five and half years.
Then, the tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he served six months after conviction. Today he’s back in — guess where? — Yemen.
Now far be it for us to accuse the Republicans, Faux News, and many conservatives of deliberate hypocrisy. But it’s hard to look at the numbers and then suggest that the right-wing hysteria is anything but deliberate political gamesmanship without any regard to due process or actually addressing the threat of terrorism.
And call me a corny sentimental patriotic idealist, but I like the idea of the whole world getting to see how fair and effective our vaunted American justice system is. WHILE we kick terrorist butt.
Darn Vern! I spent all that time baiting that hook!
And anyone who wants to get the gist of military tribunals, why they work, how they worked since wwII, how their success rate adds to their credibility, etc…
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=506
Having the shoe on the other foot now is a bitch, ain’t it?
Yea, I did not like it when Bush would say similar things either, but freedom of speech remember applies to everyone