It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
Andrew McCarthy (the lead prosecutor of the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC attack) comments:
This is a remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism. In point of fact, while the government managed to prosecute many people responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, many also escaped prosecution because of the limits on civilian criminal prosecution. Some who contributed to the attack, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued to operate freely because they were beyond the system’s capacity to apprehend. Abdul Rahman Yasin was released prematurely because there was not sufficient evidence to hold him — he fled to Iraq, where he was harbored for a decade (and has never been apprehended).
But the lack of apprehension is also beside the point. Law enforcement is designed to catch crooks ... after they have committed a crime; presumably to make sure they do not commit another crime as well as to see justice done.
That model fails spectacularly when the crooks kills themselves in the process while killing thousand of others.
To have a Presidential contender, after 9/11, suggest that the way to stop another 9/11 is to find and jail the perpetrators is in insult to my intelligence.
No comments:
Post a Comment