Why Was Clarence Thomas the Lone Dissenter in a Recent Second Amendment Ruling?
How the US Olympic Team Is Giving the Finger to the Carbon Emission...
CNN Host Gets Roasted for Her Explanation for Why She Cut Off a...
Is This Why There's Going to Be a Game Seven in the Stanley...
New Pentagon Chief of Staff Slammed As 'Unqualified' and Not 'Trustworthy'
Former White House Physician to Biden: Submit to a Drug Test Before the...
Six Years After This Climate 'Prophet' Said Arctic Ice Would Be Gone, It's...
On Dobbs Anniversary, Democrats Remain Obsessed on Abortion
Biden Wasn't the Only One With a Lacking Take on the Attacks Against...
Latest White House Communications Hire Scrubs Social Media Account Over Troubling Views
Here's What a New Poll Says About How Young People Vote
There's an Update About the 12-Year-old Texas Girl Who Was Reportedly Murdered by...
A ‘Trans’ Athlete Robbed Women of a Women's NCAA Title. Here’s What He...
Five Illegal Aliens Charged With Kidnapping 14-Year-Old Girl
Will Congress Take Internet Safety Seriously?


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.


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.


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


Trending on Townhall Videos