Tweet
10 questions for Obama on terrorism
by Tim Brugger
If terrorists are entitled to U.S. Constitutional rights, are U.S. soldiers going to be turned into police officers, subject to reading terrorists their Miranda rights and providing them with attorneys overseas if requested? We cannot treat fighting terrorism as a "law enforcement" matter. Barack Obama's motto should be, "Extremism we can believe in."
Some time has now passed for the public to ****** the Supreme Court’s Guantanamo Bay ruling, as well as the candidate’s statements on the ruling. Obama praised it and pointed to the prosecutions of the original World Trade
Center bombers in regular federal district court as a model for the government to follow now. McCain criticized it.
McCain must now press Obama for specifics on these special new rights that he wants to confer on terrorists by pressing him to answer the following
ten questions on specific rights that are granted to criminals in the
U.S. and may now be bestowed on terrorists courtesy of the Supreme
Court.
Since you praised the Supreme Court's ruling that the right to the writ of habeas corpus applies to suspected foreign terrorists captured on enemy soil who never even set foot on
American soil, do you believe that all of the rights the U.S.
Constitution affords to criminal defendants apply to Osama bin Laden
and all other terrorists, as you implied in your interview with Jake Tapper, and your surrogates have also implied?
(Certainly the clear implication of his praise of the first World Trade
Center bombing trials is that he does believe all these rights apply.)
Does the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent apply to enemy combatants,
including bin Laden, and must U.S.soldiers quickly Mirandize enemy
combatants once they are seized? If they don't, will the courts throw
out statements made by terrorists, and will this put our troops in the
position of risking their safety to Mirandize terrorists, lest
confessions be thrown out and terrorists freed?
Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel apply to enemy combatants, and
must U.S.soldiers or other representatives of the U.S.government cease
questioning if an enemy combatant requests a lawyer?
If the Sixth Amendment does apply and counsel must be provided to enemy
combatants at taxpayer expense, who will we get to go overseas and
represent these terrorists, knowing the perils involved?
Does the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures apply to enemy combatants?
If the Fourth Amendment does apply to enemy combatants, will our soldiers
be forced to secure a search warrant from a neutral and detached
magistrate before raiding known residences or dwelling places of enemy
combatants?
Most importantly, will evidence that is seized or statements that are taken
in violation of the rights that are afforded criminal defendants in the
U.S.be suppressed, as they generally are in the U.S.? Similarly,
if Osama bin Laden were captured, but all evidence against him had been
seized illegally, should all that evidence be thrown out and bin Laden
released?
If Obama is elected president, will members of the U.S.military who are
sent to combat zones be given some type of police academy-like training
to guide them so that terrorists are not freed because evidence that
was not gathered in accordance with complicated procedures that apply
to police activity in the U.S.is thrown out?
The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as allowing the use of deadly force only when confronted with deadly force. If American forces have the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, should they be permitted to, or should they be forced to wait until he
presents an immediate threat of danger, even if it means losing the
chance to kill him? If our soldiers do kill Osama absent a threat of
deadly force, will they be put on trial in the U.S.?
What will be the implications in terms of loss of lives of U.S. soldiers if,
in addition to the perils of the war zone, they are now confronted with
the task of gathering and preserving evidence in a war zone in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution lest cases that now must be
proven in federal court be compromised?
This demonstrates exactly why we cannot treat fighting terrorism as a “law enforcement matter.” For one thing, it quickly dissolves into farce, except that there is nothing funny about the logical implications of affording terrorists
rights that our founders never intended to and requiring our government
to proceed against them according to the same rules that govern normal
criminal cases in the U.S.
This is one thing where George Bush hit the nail right on the head—in dealing with terrorism, it is simply not sufficient to serve our enemies with legal papers. Unfortunately, it may take another terrorist attack for Obama and his liberal comrades to understand this.
McCain needs to point out the obvious at every turn, even though American
memories of the horror of 9/11 have faded significantly—Obama is
running on a platform of giving special new rights to terrorists.
by Tim Brugger
If terrorists are entitled to U.S. Constitutional rights, are U.S. soldiers going to be turned into police officers, subject to reading terrorists their Miranda rights and providing them with attorneys overseas if requested? We cannot treat fighting terrorism as a "law enforcement" matter. Barack Obama's motto should be, "Extremism we can believe in."
Some time has now passed for the public to ****** the Supreme Court’s Guantanamo Bay ruling, as well as the candidate’s statements on the ruling. Obama praised it and pointed to the prosecutions of the original World Trade
Center bombers in regular federal district court as a model for the government to follow now. McCain criticized it.
McCain must now press Obama for specifics on these special new rights that he wants to confer on terrorists by pressing him to answer the following
ten questions on specific rights that are granted to criminals in the
U.S. and may now be bestowed on terrorists courtesy of the Supreme
Court.
Since you praised the Supreme Court's ruling that the right to the writ of habeas corpus applies to suspected foreign terrorists captured on enemy soil who never even set foot on
American soil, do you believe that all of the rights the U.S.
Constitution affords to criminal defendants apply to Osama bin Laden
and all other terrorists, as you implied in your interview with Jake Tapper, and your surrogates have also implied?
(Certainly the clear implication of his praise of the first World Trade
Center bombing trials is that he does believe all these rights apply.)
Does the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent apply to enemy combatants,
including bin Laden, and must U.S.soldiers quickly Mirandize enemy
combatants once they are seized? If they don't, will the courts throw
out statements made by terrorists, and will this put our troops in the
position of risking their safety to Mirandize terrorists, lest
confessions be thrown out and terrorists freed?
Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel apply to enemy combatants, and
must U.S.soldiers or other representatives of the U.S.government cease
questioning if an enemy combatant requests a lawyer?
If the Sixth Amendment does apply and counsel must be provided to enemy
combatants at taxpayer expense, who will we get to go overseas and
represent these terrorists, knowing the perils involved?
Does the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures apply to enemy combatants?
If the Fourth Amendment does apply to enemy combatants, will our soldiers
be forced to secure a search warrant from a neutral and detached
magistrate before raiding known residences or dwelling places of enemy
combatants?
Most importantly, will evidence that is seized or statements that are taken
in violation of the rights that are afforded criminal defendants in the
U.S.be suppressed, as they generally are in the U.S.? Similarly,
if Osama bin Laden were captured, but all evidence against him had been
seized illegally, should all that evidence be thrown out and bin Laden
released?
If Obama is elected president, will members of the U.S.military who are
sent to combat zones be given some type of police academy-like training
to guide them so that terrorists are not freed because evidence that
was not gathered in accordance with complicated procedures that apply
to police activity in the U.S.is thrown out?
The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as allowing the use of deadly force only when confronted with deadly force. If American forces have the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden, should they be permitted to, or should they be forced to wait until he
presents an immediate threat of danger, even if it means losing the
chance to kill him? If our soldiers do kill Osama absent a threat of
deadly force, will they be put on trial in the U.S.?
What will be the implications in terms of loss of lives of U.S. soldiers if,
in addition to the perils of the war zone, they are now confronted with
the task of gathering and preserving evidence in a war zone in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution lest cases that now must be
proven in federal court be compromised?
This demonstrates exactly why we cannot treat fighting terrorism as a “law enforcement matter.” For one thing, it quickly dissolves into farce, except that there is nothing funny about the logical implications of affording terrorists
rights that our founders never intended to and requiring our government
to proceed against them according to the same rules that govern normal
criminal cases in the U.S.
This is one thing where George Bush hit the nail right on the head—in dealing with terrorism, it is simply not sufficient to serve our enemies with legal papers. Unfortunately, it may take another terrorist attack for Obama and his liberal comrades to understand this.
McCain needs to point out the obvious at every turn, even though American
memories of the horror of 9/11 have faded significantly—Obama is
running on a platform of giving special new rights to terrorists.