Misleading claims for lawfare

Richard Clarke:

...

Before George W. Bush, there was no real question about what the United States should do with people who broke American anti-terror laws. It did not matter whether they were arrested in the United States or overseas. In the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, for example, one suspect, Muhammad Salameh, was caught in New Jersey. Another, Ramzi Yousef, was caught in Pakistan. Upon arrest, both were given their Miranda rights, arraigned before a US magistrate, given a free lawyer appointed by the court, tried and convicted before a jury, and sentenced to the "Supermax" prison in Florence, Colo.

Nor did it matter whether terror suspects broke American law in the United States or abroad. The laws that make terrorist violence directed at Americans a crime also provide "extraterritorial jurisdiction," meaning the United States can try someone for such acts even if the crimes did not occur domestically. Mohammed Sadeek Odeh, who bombed the US embassy in Kenya, was arrested in Pakistan, returned to the United States, placed into the US justice system, afforded all the rights as an accused criminal, convicted, and is also now in Supermax.

Even in cases where the terrorist act was planned but not perpetrated, criminals were arrested and processed in federal courts. The so-called "Blind Sheik," Omar Abdul Rahman, was accused of plotting to bomb the United Nations, tunnels from Manhattan to New Jersey, and other iconic facilities. He too was convicted and placed in that same Colorado prison.

...


These claims are very misleading. Several of the perps were never caught. One of the reasons is that during the discovery process the defendants were given access to the information the US had about these people and they disappeared. In the trial of a few of the suspects in the African embassy bombings, we had to reveal that we were intercepting bin Laden's satellite phone conversations which tied him to the the bombings. He then quite using the satellite phone which could have tipped us off to the 9-11 attacks.

The special tribunals which Clarke claims are not needed actually have a procedure to protect the sources and methods of intelligence information used against the enemy. That would not be available in the kind of trial Clarke and the Democrats are touting.

Andrew McCarthy who actually tried the blind sheik strongly disagrees with Clarke's position and I suspect that Fitzgerald does too.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more