Disclaimer: Although I am dying to go to law school, and study all the legal in's and out's of our judicial system, I am definitely not there yet. As I was reading articles, case studies, encyclopedia entries, I realized I jumped in the deep end of a wave pool wearing arm floaties! Especially when you throw on top of civilian court cases, military tribunals, the Geneva Convention, acts of war, enemy combatants, etc! I was drowning in too much information. However, I needed a forum to verbalize my outrage, so I can get the inner dialogue out of my head!
What in the world was Eric Holder thinking?!? When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed mass murdered 2974 innocent victims, including 55 military personnel at the Pentagon, he commited an act of war and should be tried in a military tribunal. Khalid was not a citizen of the United States, nor were his associates. They are unlawful enemy combatants, because they are apart of a non-state terrorist organization. Because of this, they are not subject to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Will their Constitutional rights be envoked ex post facto? Will evidence be thrown out because they were not mirandized, or because they were not granted the right to a speedy trial? Will there be a mistrial because they can not find an impartial jury of their peers? Will their confessions be thrown out because of the interrogation tactics used, or because they didn't have their lawyers present?
I believe that this is an attempt by this administration, to put former President Bush's policies regarding the War on Terror on trial, instead of seeking justice for the thousands of victims of this horrorific crime! When Khalid asked to receive the death penalty, why didn't we grant him his wish, and swiftly send him to our Perfect Judge, instead of his anticipated 74 virgins? This is an outrageous decision where I do not see any positive outcome for those of us who are citizens of this great country, and uphold the Constitution Khalid and his terrorist allies spit on.
1 comment:
Baby was crying, and I wanted to add something I forgot! Why is it that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and his four cohorts will be tried in a military tribunal for bombing the USS Cole in 2000? The argument I have read from AG Holder is "the nature of the offense, the location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated." Is a naval ship considered a military location, and the PENTAGON is NOT!?!? Is the 17 service members aboard the Cole military personnel, and the 55 who died in the Pentagon attack not?!? I do NOT see the difference. And the 2000 attack of the Cole was before the "War on Terror" resolution was written. I don't see his legal reasoning. All I see is political.
Post a Comment