June 19, 2019, 10:41:21 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Terrorists' Best U.S. Hope  (Read 1164 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Toler
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1255



« on: May 24, 2009, 08:09:57 PM »



The Terrorists' Best U.S. Hope

Saturday, May 23, 2009 4:49 PM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann  Article Font Size   
 



President Barack Obama is attacking a red herring when he defends his decision to send the worst terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to United States prisons by saying the likelihood of escape from secure federal facilities is very low.


Of course it is. No rope ladder or prison laundry truck is likely to do the trick.


But when it comes to federal judges, we can't be so sure.


The reason we sent the terrorists to Guantanamo in the first place, rather than bring them onto U.S. soil, was never really connected to worries that they might escape. The Bush administration feared, quite correctly, that if the inmates were in federal prisons on US territory, federal judges would take their pleas for constitutional rights more seriously.


That argument is still true, and bringing the terrorists to the United States puts us at risk that they could be freed by court order.


Some detainees will be tried in U.S. courts on U.S. soil. The first will be tried in New York.


This raises two problems: First, if he is acquitted, where will he be released? Likely, he'll just be invited to walk out the door and onto the streets of New York. Second, is there a danger of terrorist retaliation or attempts to interdict the trial with violence?


Trying a terrorist in the Big Apple serves to paint a bull's-eye on the courthouse. The recently foiled plan to attack New York City synagogues demonstrates that terrorists have the city in their sights, as they have since the 1993 World Trade Center attack. Could Obama find a worse place to conduct a trial?


The very concept of trying terrorists under U.S. law is a slippery slope. We specifically allow our military and intelligence operatives to proceed without the procedural safeguards enumerated in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. Why? Because we didn't plan for trials in civilian courts, we didn't take care to see that the evidence was obtained so as to be admissible in civilian courts.


If Obama is now to reverse field and try these terrorists, the results might be disastrous. It's unlikely that the prosecutors would be able to use all the evidence against them because it wasn't gathered with an eye to its admissibility in a criminal trial. The best evidence couldn't be used against the 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaui, so he did not get a death sentence or even life in prison.


If terrorists are acquitted or released by a federal judge's ruling, the odds are good that they will go right back to fighting against us. In our book, "Fleeced," we describe some of the most egregious examples of freed terrorists' returning to their wicked ways. And former Vice President Dick Cheney in his address Thursday said that one in seven of the detainees freed from Guantanamo has rejoined the terrorists.


Consider the case of Abdullah Mehsud, who was captured in Afghanistan and, after hiding his identity as second-in-command of a Pakistani Taliban group, was freed after two years at Gitmo. Once free, he kidnapped two Chinese engineers who were working on a hydroelectric dam and killed one of them.


Obama's plans will put his kind right in our midst, awaiting either a trial they may win or a federal court ruling that may spring them.


 
Logged
Toler
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1255



« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2009, 08:10:47 PM »

Link

http://www.newsmax.com/morris/guantanamo_bay_detainees/2009/05/23/217616.html
Logged
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7738



« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2009, 07:29:58 AM »

New Justice Could Sway Court's Views Of Presidential Power

Quote
But the effect on presidential power could be pivotal. Important rulings on executive authority - striking down military commissions and upholding habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees - have been decided by a five-vote majority, including Souter, on the nine-member court.

”Given that the decisions have generally been 5-4 in this area, this could be terribly consequential,” said David Golove, a New York University law professor. “We're losing one of the court's strongest leaders on the side of limiting executive power to reasonable bounds. If the person who replaces Souter is different than him, the balance of power may shift.”

Quote
Most of the half-dozen or so candidates Obama is weighing have little in their pasts by which to gauge whether their appointment might create a majority with greater sympathy for the White House.

But one, Judge Diane P. Wood of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Chicago, has expressed doubts about claims of sweeping executive powers in national security matters. Another, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, has a history of advocating for presidential powers in domestic matters, along with a mixed record of statements on counterterrorism issues.

Quote
His administration is appealing a ruling that some detainees in Afghanistan have habeas corpus rights. And he has announced other policies, including revised military commissions and a system of prolonged preventive detention without trial, that are likely to be challenged.

Quote
”If Obama is really serious about national security, he ought to be looking for a justice who won't try to micromanage in this area,” said Ed Whelan, a former Bush administration lawyer. “He'll also want a strong proponent of executive power to review his aggressive domestic measures.”

Quote
By contrast, one of the people near the top of Obama's short list - Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New York City - has never worked in the executive branch and sits on a court that hears few executive power cases.

Two other potential candidates, Janet Napolitano and Jennifer M. Granholm, have been governors, and Napolitano is now the homeland security secretary. Still, neither has worked extensively on legal issues about presidential power.

Hmmm...untested with regard to 'executive power cases'...

Any chance they'll think for themselves?  Follow the constitution?  Help found the dictatorship?

read more here -
http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=a965364a-7f94-493c-a9e5-69481b84e019




Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 2.14 seconds with 20 queries.