Tim Sumner

9/11, Andy McCarthy, Barack Obama, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, KSM

Andrew McCarthy: No Compromise on Enemy Combatants; We’re winning because we should be winning

by  • 

Andrew McCarthy writes in the National Review Online this afternoon:

This is how we ought to think about rumors swirling around that the Obama administration is looking for a deal on enemy combatants and that some GOP types are listening. The compromise would be: KSM gets a military commission, but Republicans agree to close Gitmo and bring the combatants to stateside federal prisons.

This would be a terrible sell-out of our national security. It would also be unnecessary. The American people strongly support military commissions for enemy combatants — not for all terrorism cases, but for all unlawful alien enemy operatives who have no right to be tried in our civilian courts and for whom Congress has authorized military commissions.
…
We are winning on enemy combatants. We are winning on the fact that they should be treated like war prisoners and tried, if at all, by military commission. We are winning on the fact that they should not be Mirandized but should be detained without trial and interrogated as war prisoners. We are winning on the fact that Gitmo is a fine facility and a far better place to detain and try terrorists than any detention center in the United States. We are winning on these issues not because we are more politically savvy, but because our policies on these matters are the right ones. … READ THE REST

9/11, Barack Obama, detainees, enemy combatants, Eric Holder, Military Commissions

We need a ‘Rule of War Act’ (Graham negotiating 9/11 trial, Obama steps in, paging C-SPAN)

by  • 

Colleagues of Senator Lindsay Graham have leaked that he and the White House are negotiating over where and how to conduct the 9/11 trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four co-conspirators. In additional, President Barack Obama will apparently take a personal role in the negotiations and may overrule Attorney General Eric Holder’s decisions to this point.

We need a statute, a ‘Rule of War Act’, with no special date, sunset provisions, or naming it after some personage or group.

It would be the civilian authority providing for the common defense, while informed by the governed.

First, the entire negotiation and [formalized, federal debate *] needs conducted in the open — televised on C-SPAN — over the course of this year.

The top issues should be placed in simply, uniform terms on the November 2 national election ballot to express the people’s will. Congress should then create the statute in 2011 and the President can veto or sign it.

We should learn from the past, cover those enemies we now detain, and keep in mind this war may take some time and there will be future wars.

Here is my further two cents, my general thoughts on the statute’s provisions, for what they are worth.

When enemy war criminals are captured, we should prosecute them by military tribunal solely based upon our national security, what protects our people;

Lawful enemy belligerents should be detained for as long as hostilities last;

Unlawful enemy belligerents should be detained for as long as each remains a threat;

America’s foreign enemies should be afforded none of our Constitutional rights;

The Judiciary’s sole role should be classified detention review akin to determining probable cause;

and all long-term enemy detentions should take place isolated far from the civilian populace.

——

Note: * revised text.