Holder Decision Catches Parties In Jam
It's a boon for opposition researchers as AG Eric Holder's decision to bring terrorism suspects to trial in NYC has both parties backpeddling on previous statements.
A Dem source passes along statements from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) praising earlier terrorist trials in the U.S. Both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sessions and Graham spent 11/18 blasting Holder at a Capitol Hill hearing.
Graham, a member of the House in '02, "was pleased with the apparent decision to seek the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui," a press release from his office said at the time.
Meanwhile, Sessions told Gannett he backed trying Moussaoui in federal court in Northern Virginia. "'(The White House) probably thought it might be good to try this one in public," he said.
But Dems aren't immune from taking both positions either. In December '01, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said terrorists don't deserve to be tried in federal court, according to a transcript unearthed by The Washington Times.
"Those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don't deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive," Schumer said in an '01 hearing, adding that "it is ludicrous to suggest [Osama bin Laden] should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan."
Now, Schumer supports the admin's decision to bring terrorists to NY, but he has said it is likely to cost $75M to try the 5 suspects. Schumer won a promise from Holder at the 11/18 hearing that the federal government would pick up the tab.
It is perhaps the admin's riskiest political decision yet, but it doesn't look good for either side that, just a few years ago, their feelings on the matter were reversed.
I know this is hard to comprehend, but here goes...
Moussaoui was arrested in Minnesota, not on a battlefield or in an Al Queda hideout somewhere, so he wasn't brought into the U.S. He was already here.
Not to mention there was no Military Commission set up yet to try him.
The trial itself turned out to be a worst-case illustration of what all the Republicans and the few sensible Democrats fear now. At least until Moussaoui pled guilty.
We dodged a bullet on that one.
You'll need to look somewhere else for evidence of Republican flip-flopping.
This one came up dry.
In the meantime, ask yourself what happens if KSM is acquitted and his lawyers file habeas. What if the case works its way up the appeals process and SCOTUS orders his release? Will the president--whoever it is at that time--will the president defy the Court or release him?
Is this a possibility serious people really want to face?
A STRICTLY POLITICAL MOVE, BUT A VERY RISKY ONE.
Events wherein people using powerful weapons, funded with hundreds of millions of dollars, launch attacks against a country, its people, its embassies and other outposts, are not just “criminal acts,” they are Wars.
http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/11/show-trial-goes-to-new-york.html
We have been spoon-fed a bunch of lies and fear for a very long time by the powers that be who want to distort and confuse and keep us on the Yellow Brick Road!
It is a sad fact that the Afghanistan War too is a false war. These terrorists do not stay in one place or in one country, they are all over. And we are not at war with any one country, this is a fallacy. WE are in a "struggle" with an ideology, yes or evil, yes, but we are not at war with any country. WE have terrorists in our own country who are not Muslims, does this make us at war with the United States?
Oh, if we only had a Brain....., Heart.... & Courage!