The arrest and detention of Osama Bin Laden's son-in-law, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, has reopened the question of whether top al Qaeda figures captured by the U.S. should be tried in civilian courts or in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
By law, Abu Ghaith should have been transferred to military detention under the provisions of the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which requires all members of al Qaeda or associated forces to be taken into military custody at least temporarily. But the NDAA provides a wide carve out for the commander-in-chief's discretion in war time. And the President is authorized to waive the requirement entirely if he certifies to Congress that end-running the law is in the national security interests of the United States.
Several senior administration officials tell TIME Obama exercised the waiver in Abu Ghaith's case after consulting his top aides, opting to send Ghaith to trial in the Southern District of New York rather than to Gitmo. "The President's national security team -- including the Defense Department and members of the Intelligence Community, the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Department of Justice -- unanimously agreed that prosecution of Ghaith in federal court will best protect the national security interests of the United States," one senior official said.
Congressional leadership was informed of the decision, the administration officials say. Why did the administration choose civilian courts? "The Administration is seeking to close Guantanamo, not add to its population," says one administration official. Says another, "There was no reason to try him anywhere but an Article III Court. That's the best and most efficient way to bring him to justice, and that's why there was unanimity in the government on that point."
#5
The acquittal, due to legal technicality of Suleiman Abu Ghaith is in my view quite likely. I suspect his acquittal will be followed by a long line of others currently held at GITMO, being tried in NY, acquitted, and released.
Notice how quickly the discussion on Benghazi and drone strikes has been moved to the rear of the stove? Nothing this administration does in the middle of the night is unplanned.
Let that happen once or twice in New York and the Dems will never win another election there.
New Yorkers remember 9/11, and they remember who did it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/08/2013 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"#2 Milking it in the sight of the voters. Nobody would pay attention if he'd been shipped off to Guantanamo Bay."
I say not, believing that the whole pass on G-Mo was to not draw attention to the fact that Commander Zero has yet to deliver on his campaign promise to close it.....
#11
While you werent looking, Obama kills military commissions In the blink of an eye, the second Obama term has turned the clock back to the pre-9/11 days, when al Qaeda was a law-enforcement problem, not a national security challenge.
Remember the great ruckus over the administrations attempt to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed & Co. a civilian trial in lower Manhattan? In what would, in effect, reward their savagery in killing nearly 3000 Americans a few blocks from the federal courthouse, the administration proposed to endow them with all the constitutional rights and peacetime civilian due process protections of American citizens, despite the fact that the American peoples representatives in Congress having authorized wartime combat operations against our jihadist enemies had fashioned a military commission system for the trial of alien enemy combatants. The administration gambit was unsuccessful because the public, even in blue, blue New York City, rose up in protest, spurring congressional outrage and, eventually, legislation barring the executive branch from using public funds to transfer terrorists from Gitmo to the U.S. for civilian prosecution. The message could not have been clearer: for enemy combatants, it is military commissions or no trials at all, not civilian due process.
#12
Long-term interrogation can be icky and revealing. You might unearth information regarding networks, personnel, and future intent, Abbattabd, Benghazi, etc. Better to go with a more limited scope and a speedy trial.
New Yorkers remember 9/11, and they remember who did it.
Really? They don't act like it.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
03/08/2013 12:42 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Al Qaeda is "Anti-American". The Obama Regime and the millions that support the regime domestically is Anti-American. In different ways, for different reason, but firds of similar feathers, need each other. After all, no anti-"American" has been able to defeat "American" for 300 years.
#15
Ghaith has already been interrogated briefly by Jordan's intel and probably by Turkey in February. The only important info he has concerns the cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iran. This info can perhaps given to the UN Security Council to rachet up sanctions and maybe even justify and pre-emptive strike.
I say, put him on The View and let him sing (actually being on The View might be a worse punishment than anything GITMO can dish out).
Posted by: lord garth ||
03/08/2013 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#16
In New York I hope he does not smoke, drink 32 oz sodas or put on weight; it will make Bloomberg look foolish.
Who is this ghaith's lawyer? And who is paying for it?
[Dawn] AS Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... slid into unrest again on Wednesday, the reaction of the government and Supreme Court to the city's law and order situation provided some idea of why they are failing to get a grip on the problem. Yesterday's heavy firing in multiple localities struck fear into the hearts of Karachiites already shaken by Sunday's massive bombing. It was a living example of the complexity of crime and violence in the city, one vulnerable to both terrorism and political, ethnic and sectarian agendas. In contrast to this are the uninspiring efforts of the Supreme Court and the interior minister to address the state's failure to protect life and property.
The new bench established by the apex court in response to the Sunday bombing seems to be taking the same unsuccessful route as the bench that was created in 2011 to look into law and order in the city. It has ordered, for example, the suspension of several coppers, and the provincial government followed suit by removing from their posts two senior officers. But what significant and lasting change has ever been achieved in Karachi by firing and transferring law-enforcement officials? The older bench's orders have also included such impractical measures as deweaponisation and delimitation. Nor has the interior minister sounded any more effective, busy as he has been avoiding the terrorism problem by shifting responsibility to the provincial governments. Just because law and order is a provincial subject doesn't mean the interior ministry can sit back after passing on intelligence. And while the Punjab government is widely believed to be soft on militancy, the interior minister's focus on that piece of the problem feels opportunistic and political. Despite all their public statements, then, neither the court nor the government are focusing on the bold and promising solutions that are needed. For example, there is an obvious need for a central, well-equipped, well-trained counterterrorism authority that reports directly to the prime minister and coordinates across provinces and agencies. Instead of moving forward with new ideas, both the administration and the judiciary that is trying to hold it accountable are reheating the same tired tactics.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/08/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
Chicken, roost. Popcorn futures == up! India is once again thrilled to be rid of the sub-human savages who inhabit the north-western territories they once claimed.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The arrest and detention of Osama Bin Laden's son-in-law, Suleiman Abu Ghaith, has reopened the question of whether top al Qaeda figures captured by the U.S. should be tried in civilian courts or in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay.
