Flight 253 aftermath: 20 Republicans oppose civilian trial for Abdulmutallab
With the news that the would be Flight 253 terrorist, Abdulmutallab, is to be tried in civilian court and has received a taxpayer funded lawyer, comes this report that more than 20 Republican senators have signed a letter to Barack Obama opposing the civilian trial of Abdulmutallab. The letter is still being circulated through the senate for more signatures and then it will be sent to the president.
These senators prefer the path that any president who is serious about defending America from terrorism would have taken– labeling Abdulmutallab an enemy combatant and trying him before a military tribunal.
Abdulmutallab’s offense was much more than just a criminal offense; his offense was an act of war against the United States and it should be treated as such. But this administration is treating Abdulmutallab as if he is nothing more than a criminal. It is time to get serious about this issue. Barack Obama, and the American people, dodged a huge bullet on Christmas day and it should have served as notice that this war is not over and it is not going to end anytime soon. The president should have taken the warning that he was given by Abdulmutallab and used it to show the world that he is strong and serious on the issue of terrorism and the defense of the United States.
Instead the government has provided Abdulmutallab with the very rights that he opposes– United States citizen’s right– and given him a lawyer at taxpayer expense so that he can use the United States as a stage to embarrass us in front of the world. He is going to use the very system that he supposedly is fighting against because we do not consider he and his ilk as a serious threat to the United States any more.
It is good to know that we have at least 20 senators that take this issue seriously and it will be interesting to see how many more sign this letter, and who they are. This is not going to change the mindless decision that was made in this case but hopefully the president will learn from his multiple blunders and if there are any future attempts made on America’s soil perhaps he will handle it better.
With the Christmas day and Fort Hood attacks, Barack Obama already has two strikes against him, he cannot afford a third. Neither can the American people. If he continues to be weak on this issue, the enemy will not be afraid to continue.
America's Watchtower 
Richard Reid, known as the shoe bomber, also got a public trial in our civil courts, was there opposition to him being tried like that then? I don’t remember any.
This is why we are better than them, because instead of just executing them, or holding a secret trial, we try them in civil court. We are not like them, and we can not act like them, no matter how angry we become.
Looks to me as just political bluster and nothing else.
LikeLike
I think it’s too late for Obama. Nothing he can do at this point that will ever make him appear to be a strong leader. He’s a panty-waist president. It’s kind of hard to be viewed as a real leader when you bow down & lick the dirt off of other people’s boots.
His weakness began to show during the Somali pirate incident, was exposed a little more by the lack of response to the N. Korea missile launch on the 4th of July and seems to become even more apparent every time he is challenged by some third-world nut job.
The enemy is not afraid. They will continue to attack us. And under Obama’s leadership, they will succeed. El no tiene cájones.
LikeLike
Just what is the jurisdiction? Is it Denmark where he boarded or Detroit, the destination? As mentioned by a previous commenter, shoe bomber was given a civilian trial. Roeder is getting a civilian trial. VonBrunn would have gotten a civilian trial. Why should this guy be any different? Oh, I get it… He has a funny sounding name.
LikeLike
He also happens to have been linked to the group that Barack Obama himself admitted we were at war with in his last speech. That is another difference, but you want to forget about that one. This was an act of war, you can’t really think that there is no difference can you?
BTW, Richard Reid should have been given a military tribunal also.
LikeLike
Well, I did point out a difference. I could point out other obvious differences including the link to AQ. However, I was more interested in seeing what the response to Roeder would have been. Nobody (conservatives) called for Roeder to be sent to Gitmo or to be water boarded for more information. By the definition in the Patriot act, he is a terrorist. Why is he being treated differently? Remember this is a war on TERROR.
Maybe I missed the part where congress passed a resolution to send AQ terrorists to Gitmo.
LikeLike
Brigitte Gabriel talks a lot about how the radical Islamist understand our legal system and go out of their way to use our legal system against us. If for no other reason, all acts of terrorism should be treated as you said and handled by the military.
This is nothing more than nonsense to bring them into our court system.
LikeLike
They use our system against us and the ironic part is that they are fighting us because of that system.
LikeLike
How many terrorists were able to take advantage of our legal system and are now free because of it? My guess would be none to not many.
Political bluster.
The wrong guy is in the White House, they’ll criticize him for anything.
LikeLike
Great answer by Scott Brown (R) running in Mass:
I have always said, being somebody who was in the military for 30 years – I’m a JAG now, I was an infantry officer and quartermaster – I understand the laws of war and the rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions and how we treat people. The biggest mistake that I think the president’s making is that he’s treating these people as ordinary criminals, and they’re lawyering them up at taxpayer expense instead of treating them like they are. We’re in a time of a war. These are clearly enemy combatants, and they should have been shipped down to Guantanamo Bay and interrogated, pursuant to all legal means. Then if they felt, once they released the information, they still have, as they’ve done before, the option to bring them to civil court if they think it’s appropriate. It’s not like — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being picked up in Pakistan and then say, hey I’ll see you in New York with my attorneys.
It’s clear what the intent is, is to manipulate our judicial system, make a show not only of us but also certainly their methods. And it’s wrong. That’s one of the main differences between Martha Coakley and me. She believes that Eric Holder is right, and we should offer constitutional protections to people who have never had them before. I just don’t get it. As an attorney of 25 years, I’m like, ‘This is different.’
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/06/interview_with_scott_brown_99794.html
He also responds to a comment about Kennedy’s seat and says this ( I luv this answer)
Obviously the talk has been that this is Ted Kennedy’s seat. Are people still talking about that in this race?
Brown: With all due respect, it’s not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s the people’s seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat. And people are looking forward to having, finally, an opportunity to make an informed, clear decision. There’s a reason why they manipulated the Senate succession legislation here in Massachusetts, why the president called Governor Patrick to send down an interim senator. They wanted that 60th vote. And people are upset about that. They’re tired of the power grab and the lack of respect for the voters. And I offer the opportunity to send a message.
LikeLike
Listening to Boston talk radio, there is quite a bit of excitement about Scott Brown. Wouldn’t is be something if he could pull it off? In the end I think that he will lose but you just never know in a special election.
LikeLike
It would be amazing. I’ll be doing my part, anyway. The thing I’m hanging on to is that they said if he only loses by a small percentage, it will still have a huge impact.
LikeLike
Dick Reid should have been in front of a military tribunal as well. You can’t justify Obama’s mistakes by comparing them to Bush’s mistakes.
LikeLike