.
A reader writes…
“If our goal is to gain respect from the Muslim world, then a public execution would be the next step in their culture. They’ll interpret a “fair trial” of a confessed murderer as a sign of moral weakness.”
He could not be more wrong. First of all, our reader, like so many, confuses Muslims as a whole with Islamic terrorists. The two are distinct. No one cares what the terrorists think. They’ll never be appeased so we should not be concerned with it. But sending out a clear message to the Muslim world that the US will not play by terrorist rules and instead abide by the rule of law is crucial.
Let me ask this. What is it that people fear from the terrorists that would have them bend the way this country renders justice? Remember the days and weeks after 9/11 when the country spoke in unison and expressed a conviction that terrorists were not going to dictate who Americans were nor how they’d act in the face of terrorism? No one was going to force Americans through fear or any other means to change the essence of who they were. Remember Bush with the bullhorn on the pile of rubble at the WTC site? The message was, “No one is going to push us around!”
That was good stuff. And now repubs speak with a fear and cowardice that would have the terrorists saying, “Mission accomplished. They’re terrified of us. They won’t even allow us on their soil to try us by their very laws. Wonderful.”
What happened to that attitude of strength Republicans once had? Why has it been replaced with fear and cowering?
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
.
 |
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Janine Wallace, Frances Davey. Frances Davey said: RT: @mariopiperni The 9/11 trials: fear over reason and strength. http://twurl.nl/1t7zay – When we abandon the rule of law, terrorists win. [...]
Mario, with all due respect and sincerity, I would suggest you do some research on Islam and the Quran.
I’m not an expert. I have done some research, admittedly not entirely thorough. But as best I can determine, the goal of Islam is to establish one world religion. Anyone that does not convert is an infidel. There are only two objectives for Infidels, death or subjugation.
Islam is neither a religion of peace or tolerance.
I totally agree. When Zacarias Moussaoui was convicted IN FEDERAL COURT, Mayor Giuliani said that that he was “in awe of our system” because of its ability to bring justice to such a character while giving him a fair trial. Now he criticizes the decision to try terrorist suspects in Federal Court. What changes? Obama is a D, Bush was an R, and the Republicans can’t possibly agree with anything Obama says.
This confrontation and infighting for the sake of partisanship is exactly the problem. What if the Republicans have legitimate concerns about something? We can’t trust them, because 90% of what they say is politically motivated. I don’t remember the Democrats criticizing EVERY decision that was made under Bush, and for good reason. It also gave them more credibility when they did stand up to W.
We cannot be afraid of our own Constitution, and we cannot accept a trial system where we can say, “We have evidence, but we can’t show you it, therefore: GUILTY! Any last words?” The world won;t stand for it, America shouldn’t either, and the decision to use civilian courts (which have already convicted over 140 terrorists, compared to the THREE that military courts have convicted) is absolutely the right one.
But we cannot take criminals from all over the world and afford them the protections, rights and privileges of the US Judicial System.
By what you guys are saying, the Nuremberg Trials were illegitimate and a mistake.
Not true. Nuremberg Trials followed international law. The difference is that these men are accused of plotting an/or carying out terrorist attacks inside and against the US, then they were captured by the US and imprisoned on US soil. The options were a military trial or a civilian trial. The best option, the one we used for Timothy McVeigh,Zacarias Moussaoui, and Richard Reid, is the civilian court.
Regarding Moussaoui, could 9/11 have been averted if we had used some “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” on him? Or just used prudent Judicial sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui
On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation[15]. Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing’s 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[15]
Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[16] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui’s personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion “Spike” Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.
FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:
If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui’s belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.
James, well enough put. I disagree.
I don’t disagree with using the civilian court system. I just think, since the guy admitted to it, we shouldn’t waste the time or money.
As for the Muslim world, here’s what the Imam that the Fort Hood shooter confided in has to say about his actions:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575242,00.html?test=latestnews
“The imam told Shaea that the Fort Hood attack was acceptable under Islam. ‘America was the one who first brought the battle to Muslim countries,’ al-Awlaki said.
Al-Awlaki also denounced Muslims who condemned the attack. ‘They say American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan should be killed,’ the imam argued, ’so how can they say the American soldier should not be killed at the moment they are going to Iraq and Afghanistan?’”
I don’t have a solution to this problem. However, I live by the rule that “you get what you put your attention on”. As much as repubs seem to be attacking this idea as bad, dems are using repub attacks to disparage repubs. It’s just another political football. Once again, we’re getting kicked back and forth by people who just want to control the game.
Tommy Pane, fortunately it is not up to Democrats or Republicans how these people are tried – it is up to the rule of law. Those who are on the side of the rule of law would be on the side of the rule of law regardless of their party affiliation. One cannot be for the Constitution and against the rule of law. When one party or another has faded away, when one administration comes and goes, the Constitution and the law it provides must remain a constant. It must not be interpreted as “for some and not for others”.
And some conservatives are against the fear mongering in this regard
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/conservatives-say-gitmo-detainees-would-be-fine-in-il-prison-warn-gop-of-scaremongering.php
Frances and the rest, I do not think the US Constitution or the US Rule of Law applies to non US Citizen War Criminals.
Simple.
I don’t “fear” them being tried anywhere. I just don’t think it is the proper way to handle it. I think it is strictly a political move by Dems and Liberals to put the previous Administration on trial. I think they are perfectly willing to run the risk that one or more of these people get off on some technicality if the net result is the previous Administration is embarrassed or in some way discredited or indicted.
Do you honestly not think Lawyers for these whack jobs are NOT going to attempt to subpoena Bush and Cheney? Of COURSE you understand that. That is precisely what you want.
” As he likely decides to send more troops to Afghanistan and eyes abandoning the “public option” to secure Senate passage of his health-care plan, Obama has to rebuild his credibility on the left. A public circus that focuses on waterboarding and interrogations could be just what he wants and needs.” ~Dick Morris
omg. A quote from Dick Morris to make a point against Obama is equivalent to quoting bin Laden to make a point against infidels. How ridiculous and unconvincing.
TN sounds paranoid to me.
Blanca, “Media Matters”, “Huffington Post”.
Does “who he is” make the statement untrue?
[...] -mario piperni November 16, 2009 [...]