ACLU Wants Terrorists to Beat the Rap

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 15 November, 2009 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

Some of he facts for this article, and some of the legal conclusions, come from an article on 13 November, 2009, on Frontpage,com by David Horowitz, entitled “The Worst Decision by a US President in History.” The title alone makes clear that Mr. Horowitz sharply opposes President Obama’s decision to have alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his confederates tried in federal court in New York City rather than before a military tribunal.

The ACLU, and its ally, the pro-Castro, Center for Constitutional Rights, have praised Obama’s decision as “presenting American justice to the world.” Since the ACLU is sponsoring the lawyers who are seeking to get the Gitmo prisoners off without a guilty finding by any means possible, this praise may be considered hypocritical.

Mr/ Horowitz’ article has a plethora of hyperlinks to additional information, but since some readers might consider him a biased source, we will take this one small step at a time. Any lawyer who is a member of the bar, and has an admissions certificate on which the ink is dry, would know or be able to look up with a few computer clicks, the following points:

First: the constitutional guarantee of “a speedy trial” applies in ordinary criminal court; it does not apply in a military tribunal, Under existing Supreme Court cases, a delay of five years from the arrest of the defendant to the bringing of charges, is clearly excessive. There is already another trial in which the terrorist/defendant has filed a motion to dismiss all charges on this ground, as soon as he got into a standard criminal court.

If the minor defendant beats the rap on this technicality in the other case, it would probably mean that all charges would be dismissed against Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his cohorts on the same technicality.

Second: In criminal court, but not in a tribunal, the defense can force the government either to reveal the methods of intelligence gathering, or drop the charges. There are already several instances of people charged with espionage, caught red-handed with secret documents, who walked out of court free as a bird, because the government wanted to protect its intelligence efforts in time of war. The same may happen, here.

Third: All the defendants have confessed. But the jury will never hear those confessions, because of how those confessions were obtained. In a military tribunal, those confessions would be admissible.

Worse than that, in the military tribunal at Gitmo, all the defendants announced their intention to plead guilty, in return for the opportunity to make statements about justified jihad in court. Obama stopped that process in its tracks by presidential order.

Fourth: Criminal defendants are entitled to a “jury of their peers.” Anyone want to bet that ACLU-supported lawyers won’t claim that such a jury must include some Muslims on the jury? And if so, what are the odds that at least one juror will hold out for “not guilty,” or at least for “no death penalty” if there is a conviction? Neither of those would apply in a tribunal, where the judge and the jury is a panel of nine US military officers.

Fifth: There is a unanimous Supreme Court decision, Ex Parte Quiirin, from 1942 which held that it was constitutional to try Nazi bombers who entered the US from submarines, before a military tribunal, not a criminal court trial under the constraints of the Bill of Rights. This is a short decision, written in plain English, that even laymen can read and understand. And it has been affirmed in recent years as good law, by the current Supreme Court.

Somewhere in the bowels of the “Justice” Department there is a memo written by career lawyers, reciting all of these points. But the business of Attorney General Holder is to do what the boss commands, no matter of whether that outcome is moral, legal, or constitutional. This is a continuation of Holder’s willingness to serve the boss, displayed for all to see in the Marc Rich pardon whitewash.

All that this decision by Obama demonstrates is that the US can show itself as both cowardly and stupid to its enemies. And that display WILL cause additional deaths of American soldiers, and civilians. The only way this dead wrong and deadly decision by Obama can be stopped is if Congress votes to defund it. Otherwise, this will occur and there is a significant chance that the defendants who have already confessed in detail, will walk free out of a courtroom just blocks from the scene of the mass murder.

Source on the Net:

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/13/the-worst-decision-by-a-us-president-in-history-by-david-horowitz/

- 30 - Author’s Note: The author began his career as a trial lawyer in 1970. He practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. He has written extensively on constitutional law. This analysis is based on that experience. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He is one of the counsel to the American Civil Rights Union. www.theacru.org - 30 -

[okie01]

This NoBama decision has me scratching my head. How could he not see how bad this makes him look??

Which raises the question: Why did he do it?

Obviously, he expects to gain some political advantage from it. But what?

Does he hope to use the trial as a means of attacking Bush and, by extension, Bush's America? Possibly. But I don't quite see how that's gonna work...

It plays to his base. But it infuriates everybody else. What is there to gain...???

[Don W]

I’ll repost an earlier thought I had...

Two Ground Zeroes
Monday, November 16, 2009 8:28:36 PM · 15 of 25
Don W to rellimpank
Could the governor not mobilize the various national guard units to prevent these terrorists from entering the state?

The governor *IS* the commander of the state national guardsmen, correct?

The state patrol could man roadblocks and the port police do their thing.

The Air National guard could do theirs, if necessary...

Boy, would that ever be a slap to 0bama’s (ptui) face!

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies