Terrorism Comes To New York City--Again?

For those of you who are not familiar with the landscape in New York City, you are looking at Foley Square, the center of legal activity in The Big Apple. The building on the left is the United States Courthouse where the Obama administration wants to try terrorists from top Al-Qaeda leaders down to the level of the Detroit-bound underwear bomber. Beautiful, isn't it? But how beautiful will it be if those trials actually go forward?

The Holder Justice Department is determined to hold the trials in New York City. Nobody can get a decent explanation of how this idiotic decision was made in the first place, but determined they are. Still, it ain't over 'til it's over. There has been a groundswell of public opinion against holding trials for mass murderers and wannabe murderers within walking distance of the hole in the ground that some of them created on September 11, 2001. And now, there is a growing rebellion against the plan in Congress.

John Boehner (R-OH), the House minority leader, on Wednesday announced that under no circumstances were the American people going to allow the terrorist trial to go forward in New York. "There is not going to be a trial in New York, I guarantee it. There is no appetite for the trials in Congress." He also made it clear that Republicans would make it a high-profile mid-term election issue, and that the people of the city of New York would not stand for it. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has introduced a bill denying Congressional funding for civilian trials for 9-11 terrorists, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said he would introduce companion legislation in the Senate next week.

The nation is beginning to wake up to the issue that conservatives have been hammering at for a long time now. Why are terrorists being removed from Guantanamo at all, let alone removed from the jurisdiction of military detention and military courts and placed in the hands of civilian attorneys? At least part of this answer is attributable to Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo detention facility, and he was still riding high on that promise when the decision was made. Since then, the idea of bringing terrorist defendants onto mainland American soil has lost considerable public favor. That was followed by the Christmas underwear bomber's failed attack on an airliner over Detroit, and finally by a miserable State of the Union Address.

Miranda rights, civilian courts, and terrorists in our midst by invitation of the government have lost their shine. Senate Republicans hammered Attorney General Holder during hearings on the Christmas bomber, and why after a half hour of successful interrogation, the terrorist was suddenly allowed to "lawyer up." Holder was simply unable to give the Senators a decent answer. The line from the Justice Department has always been that they can successfully prosecute terrorists in civilian courts (and point to the Moussaoui conviction as if that were the only consideration).

Terrorists should be held as long as necessary under the rules of war to obtain whatever information can be gotten from them, in as safe a place as possible (Guantanamo, perhaps?), and as far from urban civilian population centers as possible. They have no more legal status than any other prisoner of war, and less in that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to combatants in a battle zone who are armed and not in any recognizable uniform, whether caught fighting or not.

Once the decision has been made that the detainees are of no further use to intelligence services, and a trial becomes necessary, they are not entitled to anything other than a military tribunal, conducted under the rules of those courts (or the rules of the Nuremberg Trials, as far as I'm concerned), not the rules of civilian courts. In no way are they entitled to be brought into the United States proper for trial in a civilian court, whether the government believes it will gain a conviction or not.

The civilian concerns of the people are vastly more important than some political decision made by a very politicized Justice Department. Even if the Obama administration were justified in its decision, the United States, including its territories, is a very large country. Why New York City? Why hold the trial under the very noses of the friends and families of the 3000 innocent civilians who were murdered in the World Trade Center? Why invite the distinct possibility of further terrorist attacks by radical Muslims determined to stand up for their oppressed brethren? Why do it in the courthouse square of the city that is the heart of American commerce, so despised by the primitives? And why do it one of the most densely-populated cities in the world?

And even if moved from Guantanamo into the United States, we still have no legitimate answer for why the case is being taken out of military control and passed over to civilian control. There are military facilities all over the United States where the trials could take place. And if the Justice Department were to continue in its insistence on civilian trials, there is no reason to conduct it as a publicity stunt for Obama justice in New York City. Hold them in some far-flung village in the Nevada desert. Even Governor's Island in New York is not in the heart of urban New York City, and a temporary court could be set up there. There is no law requiring that trials be held in the traditional courthouse. I've conducted trials in makeshift temporary courts made from triple-wide house trailers.

Boehner's announcement came on the heels of a few very bad months for the Obama administration. The "Massachusetts miracle" cost Obama his supermajority in the Senate, and many blue dog Democrats are just as displeased about the Justice Department decision as are the Republicans. Statewide Democratic special election successes are going the way of the passenger pigeon. The House members are not unaware that this could happen to them next. Suddenly, a threat of Congressional action to halt the Holder/Obama decision becomes at least a serious threat rather than a mouse shaking its fist at the approaching eagle.

Though the Christmas bomber has now been Mirandized and placed under civilian rules, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the government from putting him right back into the custody of the Department of Defense as an unprivileged enemy belligerent. It's unlikely that Holder will do this easily or willingly, but now is facing that possibility because of the avalanche of criticism surrounding the earlier Justice Department civilian trial decisions. In fact, anyone who has been determined to be an Al Qaeda affiliate (like the Christmas bomber) has been specifically targeted by the Sessions Amendment to the federal law which makes it clear that any detainee who is "a part of Al Qaeda is automatically deemed an unprivileged combatant." The terrorists already scheduled to be moved to New York City have not yet been determined specifically to be Al Qaeda affiliates, but more than sufficient evidence of their terrorist activities doesn't require the niceties of the Sessions Amendment. The old law will do as well. Get them back to Guantanamo, where they belong, or at least keep them out of New York City.

Boehner's announcement now packs clout, particularly after the attempted Christmas airliner bombing, the Fort Hood massacre, and three three major Democratic electoral losses. The doctrinaire leftist Obama administration now meets public anger and serious political opposition. The very day of the State of the Union speech, Obama and his minions were rumored to be reconsidering their dangerous and mindless move. Though there are no substantiated rumors, particularly about transferring the terrorists back into military custody, there is at lest an inkling that the fools who consider terrorists to be simple criminals are considering conducting the trial(s) somewhere other than in a major urban center, and perhaps closer to a high-security prison.

UPDATE: Since the writing of this post, there has been a major development. New York Senator Chuck Schumer made a public announcement that the trial(s) would indeed be moved outside of New York City. The New York Daily News reports that the White House has "ordered" the Justice Department to find another venue. As is typical of the Obama administration, the White House has denied that it "ordered" the move, but rather that Senator Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg asked Obama to request the Holder Justice Department to move the trial. Who's in charge here? Nevertheless, the trial venue has not yet been officially moved, and the song-and-dance from the administration will undoubtedly still be going on at the time this post and update publish. If there is any change between now and then, I will do a second update. However, the main theme of the post hasn't changed, and it further emphasizes the point that Republicans, and the voices of the people most concerned with the original decision are no longer "irrelevant" to the decision-making process in Washington.

New York Mayor Bloomberg made a personal phone call to Holder, reversing his earlier agreement that New York could handle the trials, and six Senators from both parties have sent an urgent letter to Holder demanding that he seek an alternative. Even my own Senator Dianne Feinstein, not known for deviating from the party line, has joined in the protests. The New York Post on Friday also says the decision has been made, but still cites no specific White House or Justice Department official who is willing to go on the record. Rather, there seem to be admissions that they are (or may be) reconsidering their decision. This is the typical kind of affair that the Obamists like to drop on us on weekends when the press and TV are least likely to go on the attack.