Merry Christmas, Over a Million More Files Potentially Related to the Epstein Case...
Supreme Court Ruled on Trump's Use of National Guard In This Blue State
Bari Weiss Is Everything Today’s Journalists Hate
Another Left-Wing Judge Just Decided He's Got More Authority Than President Trump
Despite No Evidence, This USAID Cuts Narrative Has Taken Hold
'The President Can't Do Everything:' Sen. Kennedy Calls on Senate to Use Reconciliation
Australia Just Admitted the Truth: You Can’t Have ‘Multiculturalism’ and Free Speech
D.C. Police Officer Hospitalized After Being Struck by Motorist on I-695
Popular Neo-Nazi to Campaign Against Vivek Ramaswamy in Ohio Gubernatorial Race
Stephen Miller Blasts CBS for Sympathizing With Criminal Illegal Immigrants
Federal Judge Blocks California Policy Forcing Schools to Hide Gender Transitions From Par...
US Sanctions Five European's Behind the 'Global Censorship-Industrial Complex'
98 Minnesota Mayors Warn of Fiscal Fallout After State Spends $18 Billion Surplus
ICE Agents Fired at Incoming Van in Maryland
Federal Judge Rules That Michigan Cannot Disrupt International Line 5 Pipeline
Tipsheet

Boumediene

Our Democratic friends are once again scrambling to defend Senator Obama’s latest national security gaffe.

Obama supports the recent Supreme Court majority opinion in the Boumediene decision, which extended for the first time habeas corpus rights to foreign enemy combatants held abroad. The Senator went even further than the Court and said that accused terrorists should be tried in American courts as was Omar Abdel Rahman, “the blind sheik”, who masterminded the first World Trade Center bombing.

Advertisement

Last week, in a call with reporters and bloggers, I pointed out Obama’s folly. The Rahman case demonstrates some of the main reasons why we should not treat enemy combatants as ordinary criminal defendants. Such proceedings potentially compromise results, sources and methods of intelligence gathering. In the course of prosecuting Rahman, the government was compelled to turn over a list of un-indicted co-conspirators to the defendant. That list included the name of Osama bin Laden. We later learned that within ten days a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum, letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.

My comments apparently caused the DNC to send out an A.P.B. for anything that might help their candidate out of this problem. Their “Googling” efforts revealed the fact that last year I pointed out that bin Laden would have to be given due process when he is apprehended.

Given that our Democrat friends apparently don’t understand what “due process” means for enemy combatants, they probably thought they had found a silver bullet for their candidate. For them, my statement supports Obama’s argument for terrorist trials in United States courts.

Advertisement

Of course, it doesn’t. Under several centuries of British and U.S. law, enemy combatants, especially those who are foreign combatants, do not have the same rights as American citizens. This does not mean that they cannot be given certain rights. In 2005, under the Detainee Treatment Act, Congress provided enemy combatants arrested and held abroad with certain procedural rights, such as the right to detention hearings where they may call and cross examine witnesses, etc. It was the due process to which all such prisoners were entitled at the time of my statement last year.

This is a far cry from a trial in a United States court, which Senator Obama would grant them.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos