By FITSNews || Three months after the administration of Barack Obama curtly informed the Big Apple that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other “suspects” were to be tried in federal court in Lower Manhattan, the White House has abruptly pulled the plug on the idea.
One reason for its decision?
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said his city couldn’t handle the estimated $200 million in annual security costs associated with such a high-profile trial.
Obama’s flip-flop brought a mix of emotions in New York City, as many relished the thought of Mohammed – the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks – being tried just blocks from where the World Trade Towers once stood.
Of course as riveting as all this back and forth is, we’d like to make a few points that should (and in a sane world would) be fairly self-evident …
First, if these enemy combatants deserve any access to justice at all (and we don’t think that they do), then it should be dispensed by a military tribunal. They are not American citizens (like Tim McVeigh), and as such, they have no right whatsoever to the constitutional privileges of our judicial system.
Second, if President George W. Bush wasted tens of millions building a facility in Guantanamo Bay for the purpose of trying these combatants (which he did), then why are we not trying these rag heads there? Seriously … the government can’t do anything without wasting money.
Third, we’re coming up on the ninth anniversary of this attack – and for some reason Mohammed is still breathing our air. Is it too much to ask our government to get on with this? Seriously …
Fourth, and finally, our founding editor would like to remind everyone that in his benevolent dictatorship, foreign terrorists would be strapped to cruise missiles and shot back from whence they came, Strangelove-style.
Cause that’s just how we roll …
By Liberty For Me January 30, 2010 at 8:45 pm
OK…Let me get this straight.If a foreigner comes to this country and commits murder he should not be tried in a criminal court,but in a military tribunal…Then you are going to say no…Then you are going to say because of the number of people killed this is special..or the way they were killed..or because you feel it was politically motivated.
To me this sounds like views based on emotion and not law…Where is the law for your opinion?…or are we just making things up as we go?
You cant blame the government for picking and choosing which laws to enforce when you are guilty of the same thinking.
Our laws on this are pretty black and white.The only reason this is an issue is it gives politicians reason to say they are more patriotic than the next guy……What would be patriotic would be to get these men to trial .Then spend real time freeing us from all the laws hampering our freedoms and stop grandstanding on bullshit.
By James the Foot Soldier January 30, 2010 at 9:44 pm
President Jimmy Obama is in full retreat on EVERY issue after that Waterloo ass-whoppin’.
By countryboy January 30, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Agree with FITS. If the terrorists aren’t US citizens they should not have the protection of US civil law. Try them at Guantanamo. Screw these Libertarian/ACLU/bleeding heart positions on giving them constitutional protection. And since the bleeding hearts have apparently put a stop to interrogation techniques at secret locations that do get results, just shoot the goat humping ragheads and stop taking prisoners. And before some asshole says that would mean our soldiers might be shot and not taken prisoner, some research is suggested on what Soviet soldiers taken prisoner in Afghanistan underwent, before they died a horrible death. Those soviet soldiers would have gladly taken a bullet.
By sid January 31, 2010 at 12:52 am
To what laws are you referring, LFM, when you say they are “pretty black and white”? Courts have consistently held that the rights recognized in the Constitution apply to U.S. citizens, not everyone in the world. Sometimes courts say they apply to non-citizens on our soil, but not very often. Whether that is right or wrong is certainly an argument, but I’d say our laws are pretty grey when it comes to how we are supposed to treat foreign terrorists on our soil. Unless you can point me to the laws you had in mind that make this issue so clear to you.
By Ynotfirst January 31, 2010 at 6:51 am
aren’t you proposing an extrajudicial system for some people or some crimes?
When this shiek tried to blow up the World Trade Towers, nobody even understood terrorism.
He’s not Osama, ( who many reports, even http://www.veteranstoday.com, list as dead by the way).(( You Tube Bhutto’s statement on Osama’s murder on You Tube))
I know I know the tv networks keep showing Osama Bin Laden’s picture when they speak of the shiek… but listen up people, if someone brought down a high rise in Columbia or Greenville and we the people got the chance to “” fry em”", don’t you think it would be as harsh if not a more harsh sentence???
I truly don’t get the logic.
By countryboy January 31, 2010 at 8:10 am
Ynotfirst- I can’t speak for others but the reason I am opposed to foreign terrorists being tried in US civilian courts is whore defense lawyers and bleeding heart liberal judges.
By Liberty For Me January 31, 2010 at 8:11 am
SID…last time I looked the court and the president were American citizens..It does not matter if the person committing the crime is not a citizen.This is a red herring.
The president has no powers to ask for a military tribunal because we have not declared a war….Again I am willing to retract anything I say and apologize if you can show me when we declared war…what country we declared war with and by what means do we achieve victory
We are Americans..unless you want to let the U.N. run our country we do things by our laws…
Seems to me we have a lot of people claiming to be patriotic,while at the same time wanting to destroy our country and turn it over to random governing.
People who are so afraid of terrorists will give up our laws and our rights…let any government power kick down OUR doors for no reason or warrant and arrest US holding US without charge indefinitely…Is that what you people are in favor of.?..That is what you are supporting…..Now tell me how we are different from the USSR or China??…
By Liberty For Me January 31, 2010 at 8:18 am
Countryboy…Yes it is a Libertarian idea to abide by the Constitution.I would hope it would be the idea of every person who claims to care about this country.Once you throw out our laws and become a lynch mob we are no better than any third world nation.
We have just had a president who pissed on the Constitution and now we have another….Anyone who supports those actions has no right to bitch about anything else they do or to bring up how unconstitutional the congress is….You are either in favor of our governing laws or you are against them.You cant pick and choose
By Rufus Pinochle January 31, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Liberty, I sympathize with your regard for the Constitution and your desire that it be revered. I share that view. Unfortunately, the process of circumventing the Framers’ intentions began about 5 minutes after the ink was dry. You should check out “A Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” if you haven’t already. There is a long list of Presidents — from Washington to Lincoln and beyond — who did pick and choose, and the SCOTUS has either supported them gladly (Washington) or been intimidated (Lincoln).
By Bobby January 31, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“They are not American citizens (like Tim McVeigh), and as such, they have no right whatsoever to the constitutional privileges of our judicial system…”
Take a Constitutional Law class.
By Liberty For Me January 31, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Bobby…..That has nothing to do with it.Try understanding something before you comment.If you have any kind of law education we are all in trouble.
By Liberty For Me January 31, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Rufus….I am sorry,but I have to agree.That does not mean you give up the fight to keep us on course.As long as there is a Republic this will be an ongoing fight
By sid February 1, 2010 at 12:24 am
I guess I was confused as to what you were saying, LFM. It appeared to me you were trying to make the argument that, if a non-citizen commits a crime on American soil, he should be afforded the same rights as a citizen. What I’m saying is that courts have often held that non-citizens do not have the same rights as citizens. So while you may argue for rights extended to all who are on our soil, there are plenty of court rulings that will disagree with you. I’m not arguing whether you are right in your belief, just that courts have disagreed, and that’s where the rubber meets the road.
By OhNoNotAgain February 1, 2010 at 12:45 am
ABove was written —
“Courts have consistently held that the rights recognized in the Constitution apply to U.S. citizens, not everyone in the world.”
I don’t think a case has ever come before a court that rights apply to anyone anywhere.
But the courts have ruled in the past four years on detainees held in U.S. Custody who are not citizens. They have access to our courts.
They have ruled on those held at Gitmo. They have access to our courts.
Habeas corpus is a guaranteed, constitutional right, and it applies whereever the United States can reach its arm. THAT’s what the courts have ruled.
You believe those people SHOULDN’T have access to our courts? Fine. That’s your opinion. That’s something you can work on. Change the law.
But your factual assertion is just plain wrong.
By Liberty For Me February 1, 2010 at 11:39 am
OK…Here is the point.If someone commits a crime then you need to try them.We have not declared war so we are not at war so there is no power of military tribunal…So what are the options you are giving??You either try them or set them free…or are you saying we can hold people without charge,indefinitly for any reason if they are not a citizen??Does that sound lke a country based on Liberty??? Where would you get this from?
I guess if you consider the unconstitutional “patriot” act,American citizens can have this fate…
But I was talking constituionally,that was my whole point.
I know there are lots of posters here who are ready to throw our whole country and laws away,but I am not.
By dirtbogger February 1, 2010 at 11:39 am
People should try to understand why we were actually liked in the middle east pre WW2. Unless we are willing do a 180 on our forgin policy other countries will continue to despise us more and more. The elete of society have been through out history for conquest and dragged the comman people into fighting their wars for them, sort of like cock fighting.
By sid February 2, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Technically, ONNA, I’m right and you’re wrong. What I said was that non-citizens do not enjoy the same protection of rights as do citizens. That is factually correct. Can legal or illegal aliens vote? Not legally. Can they purchase firearms? Not in most cases.
However, I’ll concede that in this particular application, I was wrong. I guess I never looked that deeply into what rights are recognized for non-citizens who are facing criminal charges. Looks like they get the same recognition of rights as citizens.
And, for the record, I wasn’t advocating they should or should not get the recognition. I was merely pointing out that I thought (incorrectly) that they did not automatically get the same protections as citizens.
In the case of terrorists, or whatever you want to call them, I don’t have a problem with the government testing the waters of the judicial process to see how they may best handle them. I’m almost an absolutist when it comes to defending the protections enshrined in the Constitution, but not quite.