Obama Brings bin Laden Son-in-Law to New York for Trial


#1

How many ‘jihadist’ will come to N.Y. to help out an old friend?

He is an unlawful enemy combatant, captured on foreign soil while engaged in hostilities against the United States. He belongs in the military justice system and detention facility established by Congress in accordance with the Constitution and the Supreme Court. Yet President Barack Obama has brought Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, to face a civilian trial on U.S. soil in federal court in New York City.

In so doing, President Obama has defied the express will of Congress, which already refused to transfer foreign terror suspects from the Guantánamo Bay prison to the U.S. at the beginning of Obama’s first term. The decision to bring Abu Ghaith to New York is just the latest in a series of executive actions taken by President Obama that contradict the explicit intent of the legislature. It is also an action in pursuit of a policy doomed to fail.

Obama Brings bin Laden Son-in-Law to New York for Trial


#2

That’d be because he’s being charged with conspiracy to kill Americans rather than any charges applicable to a military court.

And where exactly in the Constitution is the clause about how to handle enemy combatants? I can’t seem to find it in my copy…


#3

None are needed, because he’s not American in any sense of the word.


#4

Referring to this statement in the OP:

He belongs in the military justice system and detention facility established by Congress in accordance with the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

I’ve read my Constitution, and no where in it does it say anything about military justice, military detention facilities, or enemy combatants.


#5

It DOES, however, say something about THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Guess who that DOESN’T include…


#6

I’m in agreement with Fantasy. I think in accordance with the Constitution means, that since he is not an American citizen, he is not entitled to due process and a trial by jury of peers.

The questions I have though are, what is it that Obama thinks he will accomplish with this? I highly doubt that US citizens will find him any less quilty than he would be found in a military court. Secondly. Can Congress or the judicial branch not block this?


#7

This case is obviously different because it is terrorism, but what if a foreign citizen commits a regular crime in the US. Should we be able to hold that person indefinitely without any rights?


#8

Yes this case is different. Do I think they should be held indefinitely? No. Though I don’t know exactly, but I do believe that there are laws set up for travelers with VISAs/passports and how everything is handled accordingly. Maybe I should have clarrified what I stated above more clearly. Being that he was a non-citizen enemy combatant taking part in terroristic activities on foreign soil against the US, he is not protected under the Constitution to due process and a trial by jury of peers.


#9

Our government can snatch up American citizens, on American soil, and hold them indefinitely. Sadly enough, this notion is accepted by the majority of both sides of the isle.


#10

Funny…I haven’t had anyone I know snatched up and held indefinitely. Do we have any names…or is this secret black helicopter stuff that is happening in the wee hours of the morning like alien abductions…or should that be illegal alien abductions? :smiley: