Obama prosecutes terrorist suspect, GOP complains

[babylonsister]

Posted with permission.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/08/17239928-obama-prosecutes-terrorist-suspect-gop-complains?lite

Obama prosecutes terrorist suspect, GOP complains
By Steve Benen
-
Fri Mar 8, 2013 4:25 PM EST


Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law and an al Qaeda spokesperson, appeared in a New York courtroom this morning, and pleaded not guilty to plotting to kill Americans. It was his first court appearance after having been captured on Feb. 28 and flown to New York last week.

Of course, there apparently has to be a political angle to the proceedings, and as Adam Serwer noted, several congressional Republicans are "furious" at the Obama administration for a "prosecuting an alleged terrorist." And why might that be? Because the GOP officials disapprove of the use of the federal court system.

Several Senate Republicans are slamming the administration's to move its latest terror suspect through the federal court system, bypassing the military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. [...]

"Military detention for enemy combatants has been the rule, not the exception. By processing terrorists like {Ghaith} through civilian courts, the administration risks missing important opportunities to gather intelligence to prevent future attacks and save lives," according to a joint statement by Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Lindsey Graham (R.S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Do we really have to explain this to Congress again?

Look, we have a very capable system of federal courts, which have tried and convicted plenty of terrorists. We have also have a terrific system of federal penitentiaries, which have a record of never, ever allowing a convicted terrorist to escape.

On the other hand, we also have a system of military commissions, which tend to be an ineffective setting for trying suspected terrorists. It's why every modern presidential administration has relied on civilian courts for these kinds of trials. It's why the Pentagon, Justice Department, and intelligence agencies are unanimous in their support for trying accused terrorists in civilian courts. It's why folks like David Petraeus and Colin Powell -- retired generals McCain, Graham, and Ayotte tend to take seriously -- agree with the Obama administration and endorse Article III trials.

So why must Republicans rely on stale, misleading talking points?

[Angry Dragon]

1. terrorist or enemy combatant??

one can not be both
a terrorist commits a crime and should be tried in a civilian court
an enemy combatant could be tired in a military court if they committed a war crime
otherwise they should be in a POW camp

[geek tragedy]

2. Sure you can be both. You can be both a criminal and a member

of a loosely affiliated paramiliatary group.

One can certainly be a terrorist and an "unlawful combatant" or to use less notorious language, a "combatant without privileges or status."

[Angry Dragon]

4. what is a "combatant without privileges or status."??

[geek tragedy]

5. a person who engages in armed hostilities without following the Geneva conventions.

For instance, the Al Qaeda fighters (those from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bosnia etc) in Afghanistan or Pakistan are combatants but are not entitled to POW status if captured, and can be tried and punished as criminals for the sole act of participating in the fighting.

[Angry Dragon]

6. Who says they can not be POWs??

[geek tragedy]

7. They don't fit the Geneva Conventions' definition

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

[Angry Dragon]

8. So the US can not really declare war on terrorists ............

[geek tragedy]

9. In a formal sense, no they can't declare war on them.

But they can be in a state of armed hostilities with them.

Technically, the US wasn't at war with the Viet Cong, for example.

[John2]

12. Didn't the U.S. Congress and

President of the United States officially declare War on Terrorists when they attacked Iraq and Afghanistan? And didn't the Bush Administration violate the Geneva Conventions themselves with torture?

Al Qaieda were formerly members of the Muhajadeen funded by the U.S. to fight the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Taliban was also formed by the Intelligence agency of the Pakistani Military. So both had their roots spring from organized militaries. They just strayed and now they can't be controled. Both had their roots as freedom fighters against foreign intervention. Both want Sharia Law. Their enemy seems to be the United States and her Western Allies now instead of the former Soviet Union. And they are not really direct signators to the Geneva Conventions. They follow different rules of warfare, which seems to be based on some religious Jihad.

[geek tragedy]

13. Congress authorized military action against them.

AQ has no status under international law. None.

Bush violated many laws, including the GCs.

[santamargarita]

3. Who gives a fuck about what a bunch of right-wing assholes think.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

10. Shows you how f*cked up the Republicans are

They are incredibly stupid

[Cha]

11. Because the gop is stale and misleading.

[JoePhilly]

14. SO the GOP doesn't think American courts are "exceptional".

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. Thanks to the GOP and a bunch of NIMBY Dems (including a lot of NY Democrats in particular)

Military commissions and probable indefinite detentions are expected to be the norm now when it comes to capturing terrorists. *ugh*

I hope Dems have President Obama's back on this unlike in 2009 when they helped sink his efforts to close Gitmo, which was perhaps the most "bipartisan" thing that Congress has been able to do since President Obama has been in office.