Terror & Due Process
Holder, a great lawyer, essentially said that the U.S. Department of Justice would not fail. He was pressed a bit by Senator Chuck Grassley, on this issue, and it was noted by Grassley, according to media accounts, that if Muhammed beats his civilian charges in federal court, he immediately becomes an "enemy combatant." This means is not free. Sorry Khalid. I guess you thought you had a chance to evade martydom. On another note, one Republican Senator asked Holder why was he wasting time prosecuting a guy who wants to plead guilty so he can be executed so he can become a martyr. This was odd (The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks that Muhammed wants to die to trigger terrorist activity). Why did the Republican Senator (I did not catch the name) want to toss out all elements of judicial due process just because a person, the accused, wants to die? We have had plenty of that in U.S. history but the person still gets tried, convicted, and executed, for the sake of the system. As Holder noted, it is not for the criminals to decide their fate; the state handles that. But I want to return back to the suggestion that even if Muhammed is acquitted, he is still not free. So, why try him anyway? You are not going to free him for any reason so you still go through with a trial? This is a facade. This is especially so in light of the 183 waterboards Muhammed received from the government. How many people believe he wasn't forced to implicate himself and others? Who was waterboarded to get information on Muhammed? Who was tortured? How is this a real trial? The problem with all of this is, because the U.S. under Bush handled the suspects wrong from the beginning, any hope for a real trial has been dashed. Due process did not exist from the beginning so it can't exist now. Can you set them free? No way. How could you politically and in good faith? Can you hold Muhammed and his crew forever and ever? That too is insane. Maybe you can release them but not really. Would the South African-Steven Biko (I hate even suggesting this but...) model work? That is, release them but in an area where there is no one and nothing for them to do but be under surveillance at all times even though they are not in prison and can eat, drink, and breathe. They can't leave and can't talk or have meetings or phone conversations with anyone that are not monitored. Of course, this is quasi-prison and is a laugh as well. It all makes you scratch your head. How is it that the U.S. was in the right because of the bombing of the country on 9/11 but due to overzealousness and bad policy, the U.S. is wrong. |
Attorney General, Eric Holder, was asked the ultimate question regarding the terror suspects, this past week. If Khalid Shiekh Muhammed, takes his case to trial, and is somehow acquitted, for whatever reason, is he free to go?