Article

2009-11-19 Home Front: WoT

Hoyer Says Conservatives Agree With Him and Holder That Terrorists Should Be Tried in Civilian Courts

(CNSNews.com) -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there was "bipartisan support" for Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to prosecute four prominent terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in civilian court in New York City.

Hoyer pointed to "three very conservative observers"--former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist--who he said agreed with Holder's decision.

Hoyer also said that while he thought Abd al-Nashiri--who allegedly orchestrated the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 that killed 17 U.S. sailors--would get a fair trial at a military tribunal, Kalid Sheikh Mohammed would also get a fair trial in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal for his role in 9/11.

Hoyer cited a letter signed by Barr, Keene and Norquist that said civilian courts were the "proper forum" for terrorism trials.

The letter was issued by the anti-Guantanamo Bay Constitution Project. Hoyer read portions of the letter at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday and referred to the letter again when answering a question from CNSNews.com during the event.

The portion that Hoyer cited reads: "Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases. Civilian prisons are the safe, cost-effective and appropriate venue to hold persons convicted in federal courts. Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards."

"Likewise, the federal prison system has proven itself fully capable of safely holding literally hundreds of convicted terrorists with no threat or danger to the surrounding community," Hoyer read from the letter.

These arguments led Hoyer to conclude that there is now "bipartisan support" for the Obama administration's decision to try top terrorists in federal court in New York City.

"So, obviously there is, I would say, bipartisan support for the actions that the attorney general has determined are in the best interest of bringing these--what I think all of us would agree are heinous criminals who created heinous acts--to justice and that Keene and Norquist and Barr all agree with the attorney general and the president that this can be done consistent with the safety and security of the United States," said Hoyer.

Posted by Fred 2009-11-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top
File under: al-Qaeda

#1 This made me write the Presidnet and my two Senators and one Congressman (Congress.org) saying I can't see how this will ebd wee for the citizens.

No Miranda rights, no attorney present during questioning - they have to be set free. As I suppose Himmler would be, if tried in this country in 2009.

If, somehow, they do go to prison - a U.S. federal prison, do they get to spend some quality time with the general population? Has some advantages. Or solitary in Supermax? or will their attorney arrange messages to their Jihadi buddies?

Can't possibly end well. Suprise me, O. Go ahead.

Posted by Bobby 2009-11-19 07:47|| 2009-11-19 07:47|| Front Page Top

#2 Senator Graham had it right yesterday when he asked Holder "Tell me if you will Mr. Attorney General, how may other enemy combatants captured overseas on the field of battle have been brought back to the US for civil trial." The supercilious Holder looked off in the distance and pondered for a second, at which time Senator Graham retorted, "NONE Mr. Attorney General, NONE!"

This has nothing to do with "justice" but everything to do with Barry's appeasement of the far left.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-11-19 07:57|| 2009-11-19 07:57|| Front Page Top

#3 To the US military, for future reference. The next time you get a batch of such scumbags, only bring them halfway home. The ocean is a big place, and the sharks there are often underfed.

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-11-19 08:38|| 2009-11-19 08:38|| Front Page Top

#4 Don't get hung up on the ridiculous things that Hoyer is saying in defence of his actions. It's his actions that matter.

Posted by Oregon Doodle">Oregon Doodle 2009-11-19 10:31|| 2009-11-19 10:31|| Front Page Top

#5 No conservitive would ever agree with this.

Here are the early results from Andy McCarthy:

"1. The "tragic shooting" at Ft. Hood. What happened at Ft. Hood was a jihadist massacre a terrorist act, not a tragedy.

2. The civilian justice system has been handling terrorism cases successfully for years. No mention of Mamdouh Salim, the al-Qaeda founder who was never brought to trial for 1998 U.S. embassy bombings because he maimed a Bureau of Prisons guard in an escape attempt during which he attempted to kidnap is taxpayer-funded defense lawyers.

3. We can protect classified material because of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). It is not just classified information that is helpful to terrorist organizations. The list of people who might be identified as unindicted coconspirators that I had to turn over in 1995 was not classified, but it told al-Qaeda who was on the government's investigative radar screen. Moreover, CIPA does not shield all classified information from the terrorists just the classified information the judge decides is neither discoverable under the rules nor relevant to the trial. If it is discoverable and/or relevant, the defense gets it. And in civilian court, the terrorists can demand to represent themselves (as I explained in this column), so the government can't shield the classified information from them as it can in the military system (where it can require them to have military lawyers with security clearances in order to get access to the discovery).

In answering Senator Hatch's questions, Holder emphasized that the coconspirator list in my case was not a classified document (as I explain above). That, however, doesn't help the attorney general's argument. To the contrary, it demonstrates that there is a great deal of non-classified information that comes out in a civilian trial, and that gets made available in civilian discovery, that is not classified. This information is still incredibly helpful to the people trying to kill us.

Moreover, the Left always complains that too much information in government is classified. Implicitly, Holder is now suggesting that we classify far more information than we otherwise would to bring it under the protection of CIPA. In addition, CIPA requires that all classified information issues be litigated (including any appeals) prior to trial. If we classify everything, that's going to require a mammoth pretrial trial and appeal before the actual trial happens. And, even if you did that, CIPA cannot control what goes on in the courtroom once witnesses start answering questions and blurting out information and once defense lawyers start asking questions about classified information in order to provoke the prosecutors into objecting (defense lawyers often don't care about the answers to these questions; they ask for the purpose of inducing the prosecutor to object and make the government look like it is hiding important information from the jury).

4. Classified information procedures in the Military Commissions Act, which would apply at military commissions, are "based on" the CIPA that applies in civilian trials. They may be "based on" the CIPA rules, but they are not the same as the CIPA rules. The MCA provisions (Sec. 949(j)(c)) expressly provide for (1) deletions of classified material from discovery documents made available to the accused; (2) the withholding of methods and sources of intelligence collection from the accused; and (3) the deletion of classified information from exculpatory evidence. It is true that, whether you're in civilian or military court, the executive branch gets the opportunity to propose a substitution (e.g., an unclassified summary of the information) rather than surrender the classified information. But in civilian court under CIPA, the presumption is that if classified information is relevant under the rules of evidence, the accused gets access to it. In military court under the MCA, the presumption is that classified information gets withheld, especially if it involves methods and sources of intelligence.

5. A civilian trial is no more a platform for KSM than a military commission would have been. That's ridiculous. KSM was ready to plead guilty and be executed eleven months ago. Whatever soapbox he was going to have, he'd largely already had, and while we'd have had to let him speak before sentence was imposed, that would have been the end of it. Now, he's going to get a full-blown trial after combing through the discovery for a couple of years and after putting the Bush administration under the spotlight.

Holder derided Senator Kyl for pointing this out, saying Kyl had no way of knowing what KSM's position is today. That's a specious point. We do know what his position was eleven months ago when the Obama administration could have accepted his plea and pushed for his execution. Moreover, why would that still be KSM's position today, when he now knows Holder is ready to give him the stage in New York that he's been seeking since the day he was captured?

6. In a civilian trial, America will see KSM for the coward that he is Holder: "I am not scared of KSM." Submitting a war criminal to a military commission is not an exercise in fear; it is an exercise in justice. We already know all about what kind of animal KSM is, thanks to the exrtraordinary information that has come out in the military proceedings and the CIA interrogations. You could fill a book a book with it, which the 9/11 Commission did. We don't need to bear the risks of a civilian trial either to learn more about KSM or so Mr. Holder can show how brave he is.

7. Holder expects to detain the terrorists in federal prisons under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) to ensure that they do not pose a risk to Americans. In addition to not mentioning Salim (see no. 2, above), the attorney general skipped over the inconvenient fact that his Justice Department just caved in on the SAMs in the case of terrorist Richard Reid.

8. For eight years justice has been delayed no longer, "It is past time to finally act." Holder, of course, does not mention the role of his firm and others in delaying and derailing the military commissions during their representation of America's enemies. Senator Kyl just confronted him with my contentions on that score (from this column). The attorney-general responded that I am a polemecist who says inflammatory things for talk shows, whereas he is concerned with facts. (I guess he means pertinent facts, like how he is not "scared of KSM.") I'm delighted to let people judge that one for themselves."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTE3ZGUzYzc5NzI2OWYxMWFlMjVhNDk3M2Q0YTlmMzk=

Posted by newc">newc 2009-11-19 10:45|| 2009-11-19 10:45|| Front Page Top

19:51 trailing wife
18:31 Difar Dave
18:16 Besoeker
17:17 Gustav
17:04 Bobby
17:01 Bobby
16:57 Glolutch Tingle1702
15:37 Procopius2k
15:29 NoMoreBS
15:21 NoMoreBS
15:04 NN2N1
15:03 NN2N1
14:55 NN2N1
14:09 Grom the Affective
14:04 Super Hose
14:02 Super Hose
13:37 Procopius2k
13:35 Grom the Affective
13:34 Procopius2k
13:27 Grom the Affective
13:21 NN2N1
13:18 Grom the Affective
12:50 Remoteman
12:45 Secret Master