"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law."
Those were the words of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Boumediene v. Bush decision in June of 2008, in which the Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had habeas corpus rights, and words which were confirmed again yesterday when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to New York City to stand trial for the September 11 terror attacks.
The reaction to AG Holder's announcement from what Newshoggers aptly called "the wingnut pantswetters" was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. House Republican Leader John Boehner said:
John Cornyn called the decision "unconscionable." Joe Lieberman said it was "inconceivable" because they are "not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts." Sorry Joe, but the Supreme Court says otherwise, and fortunately you don't have the power to filibuster their decisions.
Former AG Michael Mukasey called Holder's decision "unwise" and that it was a "return..to the mindset that prevailed before 9/11." I guess that would be the mindset that the United States of America didn't do things like detain people indefinitely without charges or trials, and didn't torture suspects in order to obtain confessions. The mindset expressed by Justice Kennedy.
A common thread that seems to run through the complaints of the "pantswetters" is this notion expressed by Boehner that KSM and the others will be found not guilty on a "legal technicality," what Hot Air referred to as a "nitpicky" technicality. I was listening to local talk-radio blowhard Chris Baker yesterday and he said the same thing--some "liberal judge" would let KSM walk because his confession came after he was waterboarded. Pardon me, but I don't think that the principle of the inadmissibility in court of evidence obtained through illegal means is a "nitpicky technicality." I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that's kind of a big deal in our system of justice.
The best summary I've read comes from M. LeBlanc at ATTACKERMAN:
Amen.
Those were the words of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Boumediene v. Bush decision in June of 2008, in which the Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had habeas corpus rights, and words which were confirmed again yesterday when Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others to New York City to stand trial for the September 11 terror attacks.
"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York -- to New York," Holder repeated for emphasis, "to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood."
The reaction to AG Holder's announcement from what Newshoggers aptly called "the wingnut pantswetters" was as predictable as the sun rising in the east. House Republican Leader John Boehner said:
"The Obama Administration's irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found 'not guilty' due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."
John Cornyn called the decision "unconscionable." Joe Lieberman said it was "inconceivable" because they are "not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts." Sorry Joe, but the Supreme Court says otherwise, and fortunately you don't have the power to filibuster their decisions.
Former AG Michael Mukasey called Holder's decision "unwise" and that it was a "return..to the mindset that prevailed before 9/11." I guess that would be the mindset that the United States of America didn't do things like detain people indefinitely without charges or trials, and didn't torture suspects in order to obtain confessions. The mindset expressed by Justice Kennedy.
A common thread that seems to run through the complaints of the "pantswetters" is this notion expressed by Boehner that KSM and the others will be found not guilty on a "legal technicality," what Hot Air referred to as a "nitpicky" technicality. I was listening to local talk-radio blowhard Chris Baker yesterday and he said the same thing--some "liberal judge" would let KSM walk because his confession came after he was waterboarded. Pardon me, but I don't think that the principle of the inadmissibility in court of evidence obtained through illegal means is a "nitpicky technicality." I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that's kind of a big deal in our system of justice.
The best summary I've read comes from M. LeBlanc at ATTACKERMAN:
"This is what we need--what we've always needed, to start the process of healing from what happened eight years ago. Not further blood spilled on the ground, not dark prisons in undisclosed locations, not secret trials existing under a fake framework which is against everything we've strived for over the last two hundred years. We need a trial. And I think this one's gonna be good."
Amen.
Scott and Miemaw pretty much said what I was going to say.
A wise man once said that difficult situations don't build character, they reveal it. Now after everything else, we see what is in their hearts. Freedom, jurisprudence, and the whole social contract is meaningless in good times. It is precisely in the worst of times, when our basest human instinct asks us to destroy that we most need it. It is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Without it we are nothing more than a group of civilized savages. When you show such a willingness to discard that which is our very own identity it leads me to believe you have no business being anywhere near leadership.
Oh hell.
If the Republicans had a "better" plan on how to do this --
So, Why didn't they?
It's hard to take them seriously on much of anything any more.
They had six years they controlled it all -- House, Senate, and the White House.
All they did was trash the Constitution, and screw up the country.
Now, that somebody has to clean the whole mess, -- like the children they are --- they whine.
Vindex nailed it with his last paragraph.
"As for these cowards that planned 9/11, I don't want them to be confused with warriors or soldiers. They are murderers plain and simple. Let the world see their cowardice."
We will get through this as a nation!
des i watched this on cable news with a mixture of annoyance and wtf? just like healthcare, an even divide of "the worst that could happen" and "the very thing we need". jeff toobin was a good source of why we should try this in new york, fox news needed a diaper change for every show on every hour. fox focused on "911 families who said it was insulting, in particular the wife of the plane flyer" who will never be satisfied, even if she was able to re-enact a kill bill movie and chop heads off herself. sadly the woman needs some more counseling. msnbc and cnn were more philosophical, giving much more credit to our criminal justice system and not going the fox route of essentially saying obama the secret muslim wanted to personally grant them a pardon and a white house visit. 911 goes down in history as the worst thing to happen to 3000 people in our financial district, a mass killing in a single outrageous incident that WE allowed. but being a philosophy person myself, i ponder the fate of the 40,000 or so who die because america refuses to address our corrupt health insurance racket. and hope i do not become a statistic. great post, where are all the daily hurricane readers?
It amazes me that people like Boehner will wave the Constitution one minute (even while quoting the Declaration of Independence) and shout how they stand behind it, then show how little trust they have for it the next.
When America has stood tallest and strongest have been at those exact times when it has stood behind its principles even in the most difficult of times. Our strength is in those principles. What better shows that we are nation of strength and principles than to have this trail in open court.
As for these cowards that planned 9/11, I don't want them to be confused with warriors or soldiers. They are murderers plain and simple. Let the world see their cowardice.
Once again, John Cornyn demonstrates he is a right wing ideologue and a fool. He is a former state AG and former state Supreme Court judge. You'd think he'd have more respect our legal system.
But Texas elected this jerk to a second term. So we deserve to hear whatever nonsense comes out of his mouth.