Buy My Book Here

Fox News Ticker

Please check out my new books, "Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney's Kafkaesque Divorce and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and the World's Last Custody Trial"

Monday, November 10, 2008

Barack Obama's Confused and Duplicitous Foreign Policy WILL Get People Killed

When Bill O'Reilly interviewed Barack Obama, Barack Obama made it clear that we are in fact in the middle of a war.

Today, however, his administration issued a statement that put that disposition into doubt.

President-elect Barack Obama's advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees -- the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information -- might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans are not final.

This is not merely a technical legal classification. This is a vital distinction. If Al Qaeda types are treated as criminals by our court system, then they are considered criminals. This is the way that Bill Clinton considered Al Qaeda back in the 1990's. It was in fact the FBI that investigated and went after the perpetrators of the original bombing of the World Trade Center. This all changed following 9/11.

The manner in which these folks are classified by our court system is vital to the prosecution of the entire GWOT. If the court system treats them as criminals, then an attorney could argue that they are always criminals no matter where we come into contact with them.

Let's just imagine we have a regular fugitive and they are captured abroad. Our government is not allowed to torture that individual while they are abroad. Any information gathered from said suspect must follow the normal rules of criminal procedure or not be admissable in court.

By classifying these folks as criminals once they arrive in the U.S., President Elect Obama has opened the door to have these folks classified as criminals wherever they are. This opens the door for our military having to go so far as to read suspects their rights when they are detained on the battlefield, or have any information not be admissable in court. This means lawyers would always have to be available. It means that suspects could end any interrogation by simply asking for a lawyer, no matter where they are being interrogated.

The biggest danger is that President Obama is likely to choose judges that view the status of Al Qaeda the exact same way as he does. This opens the door to having hudreds of judges dismissing evidence, dismissing cases, and letting terrorists go free, if their arrest, interrogation, and investigation didn't follow proper criminal procedure.

It is of course lunacy to list Al Qaeda as criminals. FDR didn't prosecute the NAZI's in criminal court. Even Lincoln didn't prosecute the Confederacy in criminal courts. The distinction, legally, between a suspected criminal and a suspected enemy combatant (especially an illegal one) in a war is huge. You don't need a judge's permission to spy on your enemy in a war. You need one if you are trying to listen in on a potential suspect. You don't need a judge's permission to search the person or place of an enemy in war. You certainly need one to search a potential criminal suspect.

This opens up the pandora's box so that intelligence gathering will be near impossible. In fact, some lawyer out there could even likely outlaw the term intelligence gathering, and instead force it to be called criminal investigation. If Barack Obama fills the courts with like minded judges, we will also see these same judges apply their criminal status to more and more situations. Soon, we will literally have to read suspects their rights on the battlefield. Doing this will make intelligence gathering of new attacks nearly impossible. It will create exactly the kind of holes that caused 9/11 to begin with. This policy is dangerous, and in my opinion, soon, it will cost thousands of American lives.


Anonymous said...

This is some of the worst writing I've ever seen.

mike volpe said...

Wonderful, however you've cited absolutely no examples of what makes it terrible. All you did was make an ad hominem attack and nothing else. That is the cheapest and weakest form of debate. Third graders say stuff like that. If it was really as bad as you claim, you would have been able to point to something. That you didn't, indictates not that it was bad, but that you disagree. That you disagree doesn't make it bad. Given your childish response, it's actually in most ways a compliment that you disagree.

Anonymous said...

One major goal of this is to shift control of war and national defense from the president to the courts. The Dems want to make the courts the ultimate decisionmakers in matters of national defense as a means of constraining presidents and generals from ever opting for a military response. They want future presidents to HAVE to defer to the UN in deciding on the use of force, something Bush refused to do. A good place to start is by having the domestic courts supervise the treatment of prisoners of war. Another innovation that is underway is to start threatening the president and his advisors with war crimes prosecutions for decisions made in the course of a military action.

The ultimate goal is to create so many legal barriers to the use of force as to make it essentially illegal to go to war. Then the US will have to either limit itself to non-violent measures such as UN-approved sanctions or simply acquiesce to the will of our enemies.

Editor said...

AQ is licking its chops