"Mein Fuehrer. I think we should hold the trials in Scheissdorf, but we should wait until after the next election."
Remember that guy Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the big terrorist trial that was going to be held in New York, and then wasn't and then....?
"Uhhhhh....yeaaaah."
Well, our illustrious attorney general and his band of incompetent assistants (aided by the boys and girls in the White House) still can't decide when and where to try the case.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/31/stalls-sept-trial-gitmo/
So now, according to this latest report, we won't know anything until after the November elections because you know those elections are....
Hey! I got one for the DOJ suggestion box. Military tribunal at Guantanamo. Start tomorrow. If you need to do research, check out the case of the German saboteurs who landed in the US in World War II. This whole thing can be over in 30 days.
"Guilty!"
Piece of cake.
The German saboteur case is a good precedent. When people conduct a military or paramilitary attack on the U.S., particularly when those people are not U.S. citizens, a military tribunal is not a violation of the Bill of Rights.
ReplyDeleteThere is a legitimate concern behind all this fumbling. It was most graphically displayed when George Bush's administration declared Jose Padilla an "enemy combatant" and declared, on no particular authority, that it could hold him without trial, without access to attorneys, without review of any kind, indefinitely.
I have no doubt that Khalid is guilty. I have no doubt he should he held in very secure custody indefinitely. But when a person is accused, there must always be access to the means to make a showing of innocence. Remember the lawyer from Oregon who was erroneously accused of being the master mind of the Madrid train bombing? He was awfully nice about it. "I'm from the midwest, an apology goes a long way." He also had access to an attorney.