Dear Friends,
In this article by Pat Buchanan, he attempts to deal with the upcoming debacle about to befall this country relating to the trial of the prisoners at Gitmo. His question, “Are we at war?” is an important aspect of this issue. If we are not at war, then our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan look very strange.
Many will claim, with some justification, that this is an illegal war because Congress has not declared war, which is a constitutional requirement, you know. But I digress. Our politicians don’t seem to be paying much attention to the Constitution any more. At any rate, we are invading countries, killing people, blowing up things and taking prisoners, regardless of whether it is legal, moral or otherwise.
If the prisoners at Gitmo, and who knows where else, are in fact prisoners of war, then they have no constitutional rights. They need to be dealt with as combatants, swiftly and fairly.
Interrogation is certainly an important aspect of taking prisoners but to keep them in prison for eight to ten years without trial before a military tribunal seems unjust. They need to be tried and if found guilty, punished appropriately. To grant them rights of citizens in a civil or criminal court is without logic and will result in the disclosure of information, and documents that will endanger our intelligence and security organizations and as Buchanan so aptly says, may end up letting many of them go free because of the bizarre nature of our justice system.
Our president and the liberal dominated congress seems to be bent on appeasing our enemies and blaming past regimes (Bush1, Bush2 and Reagan) for all of our problems, both home and abroad. Unfortunately, there is plenty of blame to go around.
The “blowback” which is occurring because of past foreign policy decisions is causing much of our present troubles. I would cite our support of the Shah of Iran and our complicity in the overthrow of his predecessor, Mossadegh, as one glaring example. Obama is continuing this habit of interfering with other nations, either militarily or through sanctions or bribes, etc.
Obama campaigned on the promise to cease the action in Iraq. So how is that working out for the folks that voted for him. Not only are we still there but he has committed a continuing presence there for an indefinite period of time. Our “fearless leader” has stated that we must continue the bloodletting in Afghanistan but he can’t make up his mind whether to send more troops in, bring some of them home, or let the situation remain the same. This man is unqualified to do what he has been elected to do, and that is lead. He gives speeches, condemns critics and apologizes for America. He has learned this process well. He is trying to nationalize great segments of the economy; healthcare, auto manufacturing, finance, and the insurance sector to name just a few. In the process he is incurring deficits and increasing the national debt that ensuing generations will be burdened with.
Folks, we are in dangerous waters. I don’t propose to how we can correct this situation but we must not quit trying … Maurice
Here is Pat Buchanan’s article:
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?
Were not KSM’s Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but told that his family would be killed and he would be waterboarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?
There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.
If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be needed to protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a mighty blow struck against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest, the trial should be held on Governors Island, would that not make the United States look like a nation under siege?
What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.