Visit the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Web Site!

Friday, April 8, 2011


This is my first my contribution to The Political Pub Crawl. The topic is based on the recent decision of the Obama administration to conduct military tribunals for the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay. I hope the topic proves to be both interesting and thought provoking. I hope to participate more within The Political Pub Crawl with insights mostly of foreign conduct and policy.

This past week came the announcement of what some consider a controversial move. The decision of the Obama administration to subject Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other 9/11 plotters to military tribunals rather than try their cases in a civilian courts. This is in stark contrast to early rhetoric by the Obama administration to close down Guantanamo Bay and hold the trial of these terrorists in a civilian court in New York City.

While this changes the original course of the Obama administration, it is a move that should be applauded. This is especially true when you consider the difficulties and problems that would result from subjecting these terrorists to civilian courts. Most were apprehended by US military forces or CIA agents in foreign lands. When engaged in war and combat both the US military and the CIA are not expected to protect the legal rights of their captives, nor are they trained in maintaining the integrity of a chain of custody when it comes to any evidence involved. Many CIA and military assets involved in these operations are classified. It can be assured that both the CIA and the military would not want to risk exposing these classified assets in an open civilian court. These are just a few factors that had to be considered when deciding where to try these individuals.

The decision to hold military tribunals also speaks volumes about the conduct in which the administration will take in the war on terrorism. In fact the move to hold military tribunals validates terrorists and their actions as acts of war, whereas a civilian trial would diminish these terrorists to mere criminals. And let us remember that war is not a criminal prosecution or inquiry. We capture, kill, and harm the other side not for what they have done, but for who they are. War is pre-emptive. And this facilitates the need to carry out actions against the enemy regardless if they have actually carried out hostile acts.

1 comment:

Kolsch said...

The question, in my mind isn't really whether or not this is the right thing to do, as it clearly is, but what was the motivation behind it? The timing of Eric Holders announcement was suspiciously suspect. At best it was pretty damn convienient. Of course my cynical mind is suited for political intrigue since i suspect everyones motives. He clearly does not believe that this is the right thing to do, yet he reverses his policy just after he official announces his re-election campaign. Holder himself was arrogant enough to say that he knew better than Congress and the American public. He used those words, "I know better." He blamed Congress' intercession for him not being able to do what he wanted. What a whiny little bitch. Dammit, Eric, it isn't what you want. You aren't in charge, buddy. Neither is your boss. I AM IN CHARGE, and other voters like me.

I think he missed that part of civics pertaining to seperation of powers and checks and balances. Maybe the NYC school system forgoes the Constitution entirely. I honestly believe that his administration would operate with despotic power and policies if it could. I am glad that some in Congress haven't lost all their brain cells to the drug called Washington DC.