Poll: Terror Trials - Military or Civilian?

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham has strong words for the administration about the lack of trials for the terrorists connected to 9/11.

I thought that after the backlash the Obama Administration received over giving Mohammed and his co-conspirators the same constitutional rights as American citizens, it would move forward with military commissions. Needless to say, it came as a surprise to me and others when Attorney General Holder stated that “New York is not off the table” and a decision was expected “in a number of weeks.”

That was five months ago, and the Department of Justice is no closer today to announcing where or when the trials will be held. I fear there is only one reason for the delay and that is politics.

I believe that civilian trials have a place in the war on terror, and in some specific instances may be preferable to military commissions. However, when it comes to those members of the enemy force who planned the vicious Sept. 11 attack, the use of civilian trials undermines the war effort.

Simply put, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not worthy of trial by military commission, who would be?

Until a couple of weeks ago, the Obama Administration would have replied Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the alleged coordinator of the attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 American sailors dead and 39 wounded.

In November 2009, Attorney General Holder said that al-Nashiri’s case is “uniquely situated for a military commission as opposed to an Article III (civilian) court.” But the administration’s indecision on holding terrorists accountable for their war crimes has reached a new level with an announcement that the planned military commission trial of al-Nashiri has now been indefinitely shelved.

According to some reports, prosecutors are ready to try al-Nashiri by military commission, but the administration does not want to proceed without corresponding civilian trials for other detainees.

poll by twiigs.com

By: Brant