Why are Republicans afraid of the law? Did they collectively buy into Dubya's belief that the U.S. Constitution, and therefore our entire system of government, was nothing more than a "goddam piece of paper," and, furthermore , should be abandoned if it might possibly be used to protect a swarthy Muslim?
What is so terrible about applying our system of justice to prosecute the accused criminal Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City? Critics on the right claim that it is wrong to criminalize acts of terror, and that his "enemy combatant" status demands prosecution by a military tribunal. But it's important to remember that the designation "enemy combatant" was invented by the Bush Crime Family, and that neither Mohammed nor any of his accused co-conspirators were members of any kind of army or military organization, which is one of the reasons Attorney General Eric Holder decided the best course of action was to try them as criminals.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric H. Holder, said, "We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready . . . I'm not (afraid) of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else has to be afraid either."
But the NeoCons are afraid. Ironically, these are the same lemming-like clump that chanted "rule-of-law, rule-of-law" when the question arose if it was proper to try a sitting President caught in a carefully designed perjury trap . . . about sex play with a "girlfriend." They wanted every comma, semi-colon, and gerund phrase of the Constitution upheld and respected when prosecuting Bill Clinton; but if the same documents might grant a fair trial to a Muslim criminal suspect? Fughetabout it.
Some Republicans argue that a criminal trial gives the impression that America really isn't involved in a war against terrorism. And if you think about it, the Bush administration never once adequately defined the "war on terror," what the parameters were, who the enemy was, how to gauge success or failure, or when "victory" would (could?) be achieved. Logic would say that when an administration declares war against a concept, rather than a nation or regime, and does so without going to Congress to obtain a legal declaration, then the only legal course that would make certain captured alleged terrorists are brought to justice would be within the parameters of our legal system.
Would the naysayers rather see these alleged criminals sit at GITMO forever? What message would that send about our system of justice and our faith in that system? Has our nation become so permanently broken that we are actually afraid to apply our own laws to criminals? Were the ideals crafted by the Founding Father's that frightening?
President Obama is confident that these critics will be silenced once a guilty verdict is obtained and Mohammed is sentenced to death. "I don't think it would be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC News. Doubtlessly mindful of the fact that another group of anti-Obama haters would jump him for that statement, the President quickly added that he wasn't intending to prejudge the outcome of the case.
Sadly, no matter what action Obama takes in this case, it will be wrong in the eyes of the Limbot-Beck-Dittoheads; if he prosecutes Mohammed he's inviting another terrorist attack on NYC; if he leaves him at GITMO then he's ignoring the issue and sweeping the 9/11 attacks under the rug.