NCAAbbs

Decision to Try KSM in Civilian Court is 'Asinine' and Has Terrorists ‘Laughing At Us,' Says Republican Member of Judiciary Committee
Thursday, November 19, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) told CNSNews.com that the Obama administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in civilian court is an “asinine approach” for which terrorists “the world over” are “laughing” at the United States.

The Obama administration recently announced that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, unlike Mohammad, would be tried in a military tribunal for his role in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, in which 17 American soldiers died.

CNSNews.com asked Franks, “If the U.S.S. Cole alleged attacker, Nashiri, is able to get a fair trial in a military commission, why do you think the Obama administration would not, or has not, done the same thing with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?”

“Well, I think they made a terrible mistake in not doing exactly that,” said Franks. “I think that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad should be tried in a military tribunal.

“I think it’s a terrible mistake to bring him into New York and to try him in this country as we would a common criminal, in the same architecture as our federal court system under the Constitution, because all of a sudden that completely changes the whole make-up of the focus,” Franks added.

Franks, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, said this decision could create incentives for terrorism on U.S. soil.

“I think that it’ll--could ‘incent’ terrorism here,” he said, “and to try to bring all of the constitutional rights that we give to citizens to terrorists on the battlefield could mean that someday or own soldiers might be in a position of having to go up and say here are your Miranda rights before we engage in the battle.

“It’s just an asinine approach, and I really believe terrorists the world over are laughing at us and glad that we are doing exactly this, because they know that our court system, you know, has some loopholes that they can try to jump through, and I’m just very, very concerned,” said Franks.

“It may be that Kalid Sheik Mohammed can get a fair trial, but the Americans in this country are not going to get a very fair trial if he comes here,” he added.

In response to the same question, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that it would be possible for Mohammad to get a fair trial in a military tribunal like Nashiri, but he agrees with three conservatives who in a letter expressed their support for the decision to try Mohammad in civilian court.

“I think that probably would be possible,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com on Tuesday. “Again, let me reference – with which I happen to agree – Barr, Norquist, and Keene, very conservative observers who believe in this case, Holder has made the right decision.”

Bob Barr is a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, and David Keene is chairman of the American Conservative Union.

“I don’t disagree with his [Holder’s] decision in the other [Nashiri] case,” said Hoyer. “I think the military commission, particularly as it has been changed and revised by the Obama administration, can in fact in that case act appropriately.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/57381

Can't wait for that innocent verdict for KSM--in fact, BO has already set up grounds for a mistrial by implying KSM will be found guilty, and then trying to bactrack to cover for that statement..

Wouldn't it be a hoot if KSM then sued the US government for wrongful imprisonment, won, and then funneled that $$$ back to Al-Quaedia?

I would laugh until I cried..and then laugh some more...and then go out and vote my straight conservative ticket in November 2010...

In fact, I think I'll do all those things anyway..

Mr. Franks is wired in to the terrorist camps. Good. That can only help.

Let's take a foreign terrorist kingpin, captured in a foreign land, BY THE MILITARY AND CIA, interrogated and held without miranda rights because he was an enemy combatant, and give him constitutional rights by trying him in the USA...one of the dumbest, poorly thought out decisions in recent memory. This guy just got a pulpit to reach out to jihadis all over the world, his ACLU attorneys are going to have a field day exposing our tactics, this is madness. The distinction Holder has drawn is a dangerous one as well. Attack US citizens and you get a US trial with attorneys, due process and all the const. rights that go along with it. Attack soldiers on the battle field or US targets abroad and you get military tribunals and prisons and no chance to be the public martyr of the west. Gee, I wonder which target the terrorists will go for under that formula?
And while were at it, lets mix all the jihadist foot soldiers we picked up off the battle field over there and brought to gitmo in with the domestic inmates in prisons in Illinois and elsewhere. Give it a few years and allow it to ferment and see how many of these american prisoners come out of jail as radicalized muslims. Its already happening in jails and now your going to add foreign terrorists to the ranks and it will happen even more. We've gone back to a early 90s mindset. [/i]

In this exchange anyway, Sen. Lindsay Graham makes AG Holder look silly:


Shouldn't Holder be prepared enough to know the first question about precedent?

Holder certainly looked like an idiot in that exchange.