The circus surrounding the planned trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four 9/11 co-conspirators continues unabated, with Administration officials and members of Congress lining up to to get their acts into the three rings. Quotes flow from Washington on a daily basis like raw sewage from the burst pipe of Andy Dufresne's Shawshank Prison escape, meanwhile the rest of us inmates sleep on, oblivious to what's happening in Washington.
Having originally planned to try these five men in a Manhattan courthouse just blocks from the former World Trade Center site, the President and Justice Department have backed off while exploring options for a new trial location. Apparently, New York's Mayor Bloomberg has raised enough objection to the plan to cause second thoughts. Or perhaps not; perhaps it's just the administration looking for the best political option in the midst of growing discontent among the American people. Regardless of the motivation, the federal government is at all levels, along with their media messengers, missing the point here entirely. Before I explain what I'm talking about, let me offer you the following quotes from a Fox News story dated January 31, 2010:
"The president believes that we need to take into consideration what the local authorities are saying, but he also believes ... that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice swift and sure." - David Axelrod, White House Senior Adviser
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of." - Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary
"We need to deny these people a show trial." - Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) KY
"If there's somewhere we can try them without spending that money, why spend the money? We've got a lot of other fiscal problems." - Sen. Evan Bayh, (D) IN
"We have to make a distinction between a kid who breaks into a sandwich shop in Detroit and a Nigerian terrorist who wants to blow up an airplane flying into Detroit." - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) TN
"I don't think that we should decide -- make the very important judgment of whether it's a military commission or a federal court based on dollars and cents." - Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) MD
I could continue filling up page after page with the mind-numbing words of politicians and pundits, but in the interest of my own sanity I must stop at some point. What makes all this talk so frustratingly insane is the apparent lack of understanding among our leaders regarding the U.S. Constitution. Messrs.. Axelrod, Gibbs, McConnell, Bayh, Alexander, Van Hollen, Obama, and all the rest of you inside the Beltway...do you have even a basic understanding of the nation and Constitution you swore to defend? It appears you do not; for if you did, this national conversation wouldn't even be happening! As a responsible citizen and one of your millions of bosses, I'd like to help all of you do your jobs; please allow me to give you an introductory lesson in American governance. (To my readers, I apologize if my constant Constitutional references are beginning to annoy you.)
The U.S. Constitution is a document that was intended to codify the limitations placed on the federal government by our founding fathers. It was not intended to spell out the individual rights of citizens. Though the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, many of the writers and signers of the original 1787 document were less than enthusiastic due to concerns that putting these "rights" on paper might eventually lead to the belief they were granted to the citizenry by the authority of the U.S. government, when in fact our founding fathers believed they were granted by God. They intended the document only to be a limit on government authority. Viewed from that perspective, the Bill of Rights further clarifies government limits in the areas addressed.
With all that said, let me tie this in to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his merry band of terrorists: they are not U.S. citizens and therefore have no Constitutional protections or rights. That includes the right to trial, the right to a lawyer, etc., etc. The Constitution by it's very nature is a document that applies ONLY to the U.S. government and the citizens of this country from whom said government derives its powers. Allow me to quote for you the preamble of this great document:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Just in case you didn't notice, read the preamble again, paying special attention to the phrases "We the People of the United States" and " to ourselves and our Posterity." The founding fathers created the Constitution for the benefit of the citizens of the United Sates and their posterity, not for every human being on the face of the planet. The Constitution's powers and limits apply only to the U.S. government which by default has no authority or control over the citizens of any other nation. Therefore, as far as I can tell, unless the 9/11 terrorists can prove U.S. citizenship our federal government has no controlling civil authority over them.
But....the U.S. military can deal with them.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his co-conspirators, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and all the rest of these Muslim fanatics have in one way or another participated in or planned violent attacks against the U.S. At any other time in our pre-WWII history we would have considered their actions to be acts of war rather than mere crimes. Indeed, if one understands the design of the Constitution he also understands that it is impossible for these men to be criminals in an American court because U.S. law doesn't apply to them. Anyone who comes to this country with the intention of disrupting the justice, domestic tranquility, or common defence of the Constitution's preamble is an enemy of this nation and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
The only real solution to this problem which is both effective and Constitutionally sound, is to send these men to Gitmo and allow the U.S. military to do with them as they please. This is a military issue, not a civil one. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it matters not what they might think of us. Our nation does not exist for the purpose of pleasing everyone else. We did not become the great nation we once were by playing paddy-cake with the British, bowing to the French, or appeasing cold-war Russia. We became great by honoring the God-given principles of justice for our citizens and destruction of those foreign powers or individuals who would attempt to attack us.
Maintaining freedom and liberty requires due diligence. But it also requires doing things that we as a society sometimes find distasteful or even reprehensible, including military action. I do not subscribe to the 60s mantra of "better Red than dead"; I do not subscribe to the notion that executing our enemies means we have sunk to their level; I do not subscribe to the liberal notion that if we just play nice the fanatics of the wolrd will suddenly become peace-loving hippies with tie-dyed shirts and flowers in their hair.
Certainly, throughout our history the federal government has at times meddled in foreign affairs where it had no business being, but we have never attacked another nation without provocation. When we have been forced to go to war we have re-built those whom we have destroyed and though not perfectly, we have endeavored to help those we defeated return to a life of normalcy after the warring has ceased. These things cannot be said about most other nations of the world.
Because of our long-standing traditions of freedom and liberty, we by nature desire our enemies to enjoy the same. That makes us different. Though things are changing as the federal government expands, historically we have not attempted to control every aspect of citizen's lives as Muslim governments do; we have not followed a plan of imperialism and world domination as so many others have done; we have not attempted to deny any other nation its own freedom unless it has threatened ours.
We are different because our values are different. Those values need to be protected from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Those domestic can be dealt with in a civil court according to the laws of the land which apply to all American citizens and legal residents. Those foreign must be dealt with by the military as enemies of the state. To do otherwise endangers the very liberty we hold so dear.
Sources:
FOXNews.com - With New York All But Ruled Out, Lawmakers Look for Cheap, Safe Spot for 9/11 Trials - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/new-york-ruled-lawmakers-look-cheap-safe-spot-trials/
Text of the U.S. Constitution
Having originally planned to try these five men in a Manhattan courthouse just blocks from the former World Trade Center site, the President and Justice Department have backed off while exploring options for a new trial location. Apparently, New York's Mayor Bloomberg has raised enough objection to the plan to cause second thoughts. Or perhaps not; perhaps it's just the administration looking for the best political option in the midst of growing discontent among the American people. Regardless of the motivation, the federal government is at all levels, along with their media messengers, missing the point here entirely. Before I explain what I'm talking about, let me offer you the following quotes from a Fox News story dated January 31, 2010:
"The president believes that we need to take into consideration what the local authorities are saying, but he also believes ... that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice swift and sure." - David Axelrod, White House Senior Adviser
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of." - Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary
"We need to deny these people a show trial." - Sen. Mitch McConnell (R) KY
"If there's somewhere we can try them without spending that money, why spend the money? We've got a lot of other fiscal problems." - Sen. Evan Bayh, (D) IN
"We have to make a distinction between a kid who breaks into a sandwich shop in Detroit and a Nigerian terrorist who wants to blow up an airplane flying into Detroit." - Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) TN
"I don't think that we should decide -- make the very important judgment of whether it's a military commission or a federal court based on dollars and cents." - Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D) MD
I could continue filling up page after page with the mind-numbing words of politicians and pundits, but in the interest of my own sanity I must stop at some point. What makes all this talk so frustratingly insane is the apparent lack of understanding among our leaders regarding the U.S. Constitution. Messrs.. Axelrod, Gibbs, McConnell, Bayh, Alexander, Van Hollen, Obama, and all the rest of you inside the Beltway...do you have even a basic understanding of the nation and Constitution you swore to defend? It appears you do not; for if you did, this national conversation wouldn't even be happening! As a responsible citizen and one of your millions of bosses, I'd like to help all of you do your jobs; please allow me to give you an introductory lesson in American governance. (To my readers, I apologize if my constant Constitutional references are beginning to annoy you.)
The U.S. Constitution is a document that was intended to codify the limitations placed on the federal government by our founding fathers. It was not intended to spell out the individual rights of citizens. Though the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791, many of the writers and signers of the original 1787 document were less than enthusiastic due to concerns that putting these "rights" on paper might eventually lead to the belief they were granted to the citizenry by the authority of the U.S. government, when in fact our founding fathers believed they were granted by God. They intended the document only to be a limit on government authority. Viewed from that perspective, the Bill of Rights further clarifies government limits in the areas addressed.
With all that said, let me tie this in to Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his merry band of terrorists: they are not U.S. citizens and therefore have no Constitutional protections or rights. That includes the right to trial, the right to a lawyer, etc., etc. The Constitution by it's very nature is a document that applies ONLY to the U.S. government and the citizens of this country from whom said government derives its powers. Allow me to quote for you the preamble of this great document:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Just in case you didn't notice, read the preamble again, paying special attention to the phrases "We the People of the United States" and " to ourselves and our Posterity." The founding fathers created the Constitution for the benefit of the citizens of the United Sates and their posterity, not for every human being on the face of the planet. The Constitution's powers and limits apply only to the U.S. government which by default has no authority or control over the citizens of any other nation. Therefore, as far as I can tell, unless the 9/11 terrorists can prove U.S. citizenship our federal government has no controlling civil authority over them.
But....the U.S. military can deal with them.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, his co-conspirators, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, and all the rest of these Muslim fanatics have in one way or another participated in or planned violent attacks against the U.S. At any other time in our pre-WWII history we would have considered their actions to be acts of war rather than mere crimes. Indeed, if one understands the design of the Constitution he also understands that it is impossible for these men to be criminals in an American court because U.S. law doesn't apply to them. Anyone who comes to this country with the intention of disrupting the justice, domestic tranquility, or common defence of the Constitution's preamble is an enemy of this nation and needs to be dealt with accordingly.
The only real solution to this problem which is both effective and Constitutionally sound, is to send these men to Gitmo and allow the U.S. military to do with them as they please. This is a military issue, not a civil one. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, it matters not what they might think of us. Our nation does not exist for the purpose of pleasing everyone else. We did not become the great nation we once were by playing paddy-cake with the British, bowing to the French, or appeasing cold-war Russia. We became great by honoring the God-given principles of justice for our citizens and destruction of those foreign powers or individuals who would attempt to attack us.
Maintaining freedom and liberty requires due diligence. But it also requires doing things that we as a society sometimes find distasteful or even reprehensible, including military action. I do not subscribe to the 60s mantra of "better Red than dead"; I do not subscribe to the notion that executing our enemies means we have sunk to their level; I do not subscribe to the liberal notion that if we just play nice the fanatics of the wolrd will suddenly become peace-loving hippies with tie-dyed shirts and flowers in their hair.
Certainly, throughout our history the federal government has at times meddled in foreign affairs where it had no business being, but we have never attacked another nation without provocation. When we have been forced to go to war we have re-built those whom we have destroyed and though not perfectly, we have endeavored to help those we defeated return to a life of normalcy after the warring has ceased. These things cannot be said about most other nations of the world.
Because of our long-standing traditions of freedom and liberty, we by nature desire our enemies to enjoy the same. That makes us different. Though things are changing as the federal government expands, historically we have not attempted to control every aspect of citizen's lives as Muslim governments do; we have not followed a plan of imperialism and world domination as so many others have done; we have not attempted to deny any other nation its own freedom unless it has threatened ours.
We are different because our values are different. Those values need to be protected from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Those domestic can be dealt with in a civil court according to the laws of the land which apply to all American citizens and legal residents. Those foreign must be dealt with by the military as enemies of the state. To do otherwise endangers the very liberty we hold so dear.
Sources:
FOXNews.com - With New York All But Ruled Out, Lawmakers Look for Cheap, Safe Spot for 9/11 Trials - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/new-york-ruled-lawmakers-look-cheap-safe-spot-trials/
Text of the U.S. Constitution
0 comments:
Post a Comment