Nathan R. Jessup

Apples and Oranges

In Uncategorized on November 19, 2009 at 2:00 am

During today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Attorney General, Eric Holder found his back against the wall.  Senator Lindsay Graham (R) pressed Holder to provide a reasonable explanation for the 9/11 trials to be held in NY. Moreover, he rightfully questioned whether or not the terrorists should be granted the same rights as American citizens.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., raised concerns that the attorney general was imperiling national security by determining that war-time combatants, potentially even Usama bin Laden, might be sent into the criminal system.

Will someone please explain to Eric Holder and the current Administration that the real issue here is, do the terrorists have the same ‘rights’ as the men and women that fight to defend our Country? No. Forget the fact that these war criminals have asked to be killed and have claimed full responsibility for the tragedy, and focus on the fact that these men are terrorists.  I wonder why the Administration doesn’t want a military tribunal to handle the perpetrators? Well, the ‘stage’ of course…

Meanwhile, President Obama said in one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia that those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

With Guantanamo Bay’s (supposed) closing behind schedule, the Administration wishes to show the world how ‘humane’ the US can be. Rather, the US is showing the world how ‘stupid’ it plans on being. Suppose for a moment, an armed thief breaks into your home at night, kills your family,  and you offer to heat up some leftovers and ‘talk’ about why he did what he did. Huh? As soon as word got out how he was treated, your house would be the target of every known criminal in a fifty mile radius. These men should not have the same rights as our citizens. Period.

  1. More concerning to me was Holder’s assertion that the terrorists would not go free, even if found not guilty.


  2. Steve,

    Are you suggesting that KSM and the others should EVER go free? You don’t actually mean that right?

    Here’s the problem: these men cannot be tried in civilian court. They are not civilians and should not be afforded the protections of civilian law. While I do think that every person on the planet deserves certain ‘human rights'(whether or not they violate that very law themselves), only ‘citizens’/civilians should be granted the protections that our American Justice system provides.

    These men are war criminals that are responsible for the death of thousands Americans. They need to be tried by a military tribunal. Do you see the overwhelming inconsistencies? These men were treated like war criminals when captured (no Miranda rights, water-boarding (which gained information that stopped many attacks) etc.)–In a civilian court, they would most likely be acquitted simply for the fact that they were not read their Miranda rights (which they never should have been read in the first place). You see? Attorney General Holder AND Obama are in essence insuring a guilty verdict and the death penalty in a civilian trial? How? Do they plan to change the law for these men? Allow evidence that was obtained from water-boarding and forgo their Miranda rights being read?

    Lastly, you are thinking of them as civilians in this trial (which they are not). When a civilian is found innocent in a ‘civilian’ court, they are freed. Not so with a war criminal (e.g. Guantanamo Bay). The trial is simply to determine if these men should be put to death, not whether or not they should be able to walk out of the courtroom and head straight back to their respective terrorist camps…

  3. Negative. These men should never go free. My (poorly stated) argument is against civilian trials. My point regarding Holder’s comment is that he either doesn’t understand the ramifications of holding civilian trials or he intends to subvert the Constitutional ideals he claims to hold so dear that he is willing to risk US security for them. The guy is either a dolt or nefarious.

    IOW, I am in full agreement with you.

  4. Gotchya. Clearly, I misunderstood your position. I wish I could believe he was merely a dolt but I fear him to be more of the nefarious variety. There is an agenda here and I am quite sure it will be fully revealed soon…

    Keep up the good fight! I look forward to your future perspectives…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: