By Rick Krug
GCC/Staff
Nov. 18, 2009

Editor’s Note:  We at the Chronicle are always looking for people that enjoy writing and helping others. We hope that Rick Krug weekly column will help you and your family during these tough times in America.

We would like to know what you think. dan@goldcoastchronicle.com

 

When President George W. Bush told America he wanted to fight terrorists on their own home turf by sending a military presence into Afghanistan, most of us said, “go get ‘em.”

When Bush informed us that going into Iraq to chase down WMD’s and relieve Saddam Hussein his duties, again, and while stinging from the recent murder of almost 3000 innocent Americans, a collective, “OK, we’re behind you,” was shouted. In each case, the President gave clear reasons for his actions. Ultimately, agree, or disagree, we all knew why Bush 43 so acted.

So when President Obama says, “I want to bring those same terrorists from their home turf to the very place they perpetrated international terrorists acts,” the only thing that comes to mind is, “What the?”

What possible reason could exist for taking international terrorists who were apprehended on foreign soil, who, at least for one, has, with great pride, confessed and import them to stand trial under criminal laws for which none of them has ever been subject nor would ever honor?

While I am not a lawyer, I do understand enough jurisprudence to hold these insights:

1. All criminal trials are subject to certain rules of discovery – that is, for whatever reason a person is arrested, the evidence for the detainment must be made available to the defense. That evidence is then subject to examination – public examination.

2. All evidence against the accused is subject to cross examination – Thus giving the defense to chance to ask, “just how did you get this evidence?” Which means the military must make public the means by which they had reason to detain these defendants.

3. If evidence is obtained through other than constitutionally accepted methods, that evidence may not be used againt the accused.

4. The authority for seeking out and detaining any person may be questioned and, if found without authority, all evidence is thereby ignored.
Here’s the upshot: These men were captured on a battle field, not detained. The purpose for their capture was their involvement in planning and supporting terrorist attacks against the United States. While technically not an act of war, (this definition has to do with recognized governments attacking other recognized governments) the 9/11 attacks were certainly against the sovereign United States of America. In short, we tracked down and captured international war criminals, not common murders.

So, according to the rules of criminal law, all the evidence against these guys, how it was obtained, and who ordered it is all subject to scrutiny in a public court. That is to say, the United States military will be on trial as much as the terrorists, er, uh, murderers…I mean the accused.

So, maybe we are getting to the real motivation for having a criminal trial for terrorists. IF the evidence presented was not gathered under constitutional authority (just how does the US Constitution apply on a foreign battle field?) and IF the authority for the capture was not following the rules of evidence, then…

Well, then we can go back to why the accused were captured in the first place: the Iraq war! Who started the Iraq war? Why, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and – JACK POT!!!!! Finally, the Far-Left has the tool to expose the evil and corruption of the usurper to the Gore Throne! It all becomes clear!

Despite United States Attorney General Eric Holder’s assurances that “he would not bring this trial to American soil if he didn’t think he could win it..” (the names, “OJ Simpson, Menendez Brothers, and Robert Blake keep floating around my memory for some reason) Here are some VERY real possibilities to having criminal trials for these terrorists:

1. A judge could find that the rules of evidence have been violated and summarily release the accused – it’s called “a technicality.”

2. The defense could make the very real argument that there is no way to find an unbiased jury. One other question arises, just where will a “jury of their peers” be found?

3. What national security secrets pertaining to the prosecution of war could be exposed to the watching world? Here is a hint: The ACLU would like nothing more than to see all national security secrets be given an international scrutiny!

4. The cost of this trial could cost the United States tax payers millions upon millions of dollars.

On the other hand, a military tribunal would be equally fair, keep national security secrets secure and not be a public circus for our enemies training fodder. At some point, I just want President Obama to at least act like the United States has more than very far-left ideologues.

Still, I have to ask, “Mr. President, what were you thinking when you told Eric Holder to bring them back here for a criminal trial?” Maybe I should ask, “who were you thinking of? Bush? Cheney?” Clearly, it was not the American people.

Source: Rick Krug