PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
comments
80
options
 
Monday, November 16, 2009

 

 

The Obama administration's decision, announced Friday, to prosecute the avowed 9/11 mastermind in federal court struck me as a no-brainer that didn't require any comment. After all, the U.S. Constitution and the American rule of law - which we routinely tout as models for the rest of the world - seem more than adequate to the task. But I am now inspired to comment further, after having seen Rudy Giuliani running scared Sunday morning on three different networks.

Surely Obama's detractors can do better than to be fronted by the likes of Rudy Giuliani.

The decision to prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged conspirators in a Manhattan civilian court is "a pre-9/11 approach," according to the well-marketed hero of 9/11. Giuliani told Fox News yesterday: "The choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists." He told CNN: "It's an unnecessary advantage to give to the terrorists. I don't know why you want to give terrorists advantages."

Giuliani's attacks on Obama were fascinating...given the fact that, back when George W. Bush was president, he had no problem with prosecuting terrorists in federal court. In fact, three years ago, when 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui was successfully prosecuted as a civilian in a federal court in Virginia, Giuliani essentially vetted the proceedings by showing up to testify. And then he had this to say:

"I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly as we say we are. We are a nation of law. I think he (Moussaoui) is going to be a symbol of American justice."

And even back in the Bill Clinton era, when the '93 World Trade Center bombers were successfully prosecuted in federal court, Giuliani was full of praise again. Here he was, on March 5, 1994: "It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world, that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication...(The guilty verdict) demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon - the law."

Giuliani was asked yesterday to square his current complaints with his '94 statements; in reply, he said the comparison is "silly," since he now believes that his '94 statements were "a mistake." He never got around to saying whether his far more recent praise for the Moussaoui civilian trial was a mistake. Or whether he thought that the Bush administration had made a mistake in 2003 by seeking to prosecute shoe-bomber Richard Reid in federal court (where Reid pleaded guilty). Or whether, during the post-9/11 era, it has been a mistake to have roughly 110 terrorism cases prosecuted in federal courts - with 145 convictions.

But never mind the ample track record of civilian-court prosecutions, and never mind whatever Giuliani said in the past. The real problem is his current argument (shared by the usual anti-Obama suspects), which suggests that the U.S. courts are not strong enough to handle these new prosecutions, and that the trial will become propaganda grist for the bad guys. (Over the weekend, this argument was seconded by that renowned genius of jurisprudence, Sarah Palin, who wrote on Facebook that Obama's "atrocious decision" will give Mohammed "the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric.")

In response, I simply ask: Why do these people have so little apparent faith in the American system of justice and the Constitution itself?

Of course such a trial will give Mohammed the opportunity to spew, but the terrorists are spewing all the time, in statements and video messages; they hardly need the excuse of a court trial to spew anew. Why are Giuliani and the other critics running scared? How come they have so little optimism that the American message would trump the terrorist message in the global marketplace of ideas? Shouldn't they be eager to display our freedoms to the world, to advertise judicial fair play and the fundamental constitutional values that have made us great?

It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who believed that we couldn't lose in any open contest of ideologies. It was the George W. Bush administration that prosecuted the alleged 20th 9/11 hijacker in a federal civilian court, prompting Giuliani to say of the proceedings,"I was in awe of our system." Shouldn't we all feel just as patriotic today?

 

 

Posted by Dick Polman @ 10:26 AM  Permalink | 80 comments
Comments   
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:06 AM, 11/16/2009
    Another good one, Dick. This is the same Giuliani who has exploited his post 9/11 role by turning into a money machine for himself and his cronies (including Bernie Kerik - now wearing prison stripes). Guiliani is nothing but a loudmouth bully whose time has come and gone.
    John Q. Public
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:01 PM, 11/16/2009
    So jwad, what advantage is the journalist giving the suspects? I beleive you wanted to say thet "THE LAW" is giving them an advantage. You are familiar with the phrase "rule of law" I presume. I notice you didn't comment on the number of suspects tried and found guilty by our advantageous court system. Hey, if the facts don't support your opinion, IGNORE THEM!
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:03 PM, 11/16/2009
    The difference is Zacarias Moussaoui and the WTC 93 bombers were arrested in the United States, not picked up on the battlefields of Afghanistan. I would still like to know where in our Constitution the right to trial by a jury of your peers is extended to the enemy on the battlefield? Probably in the same place the left gets the right to take over the healthcare system, bail out the UAW, and abort children.
    jmc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:07 PM, 11/16/2009
    jwad, the point is that it answers the question "How do we close Guantanamo?"
    MikeP
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:23 PM, 11/16/2009
    jmc is absolutely correct. It is all defined by the details of the case. Keep in mind that during WWII Germans attempting sabatoge were arrested in the US in civilian clothes. They were tried by Military tribunal and hanged all within 3 months time. In an age where jurors in Philadelphia are intimidated by defendants, how fair is it that we put 12 people at risk of terror by al qaeda or even American jihadists.
    yes
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:26 PM, 11/16/2009
    Thank you Mr. Polman for being the one mainstream media journalist in America that wasnt spending your weekend analyzing Sarah Palin's book line by line eagerly searching for mistakes. I am gratified that you found something else to write about today. Kudos!
    Frito1
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:29 PM, 11/16/2009
    jwad, read the Constitution, it says all men are created equal, not just Americans. So, our constitution applies to all the fall under our scope, no matter how they got there.
    Master Dreamz
  • Comment removed.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:43 PM, 11/16/2009
    Master, I think that was the Declaration of Independence. Some Senator did the same thing last week I think. Anyway, is anybody more cowardly than a right winger these days?
    SteveMG
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:53 PM, 11/16/2009
    i don't think I can add to Polman's words. sorry but history is an unaltering beyotch. those direct quotes are damning. Rudy is just another flip-flopping, happy parrot who got his marching orders to pipe in for the opposition with some snarky soundbites that are now biting him in the arse. to paraphrase the convalescing George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani's career has been on a "five-spiral crash" culminating with his dead-before-arrival 2008 Presidential bid ... who can forget the biting commentary of that doomed dalliance: Giuliani's campaign was summed up as "a noun, a verb and 9/11." RG = just another lame politician turned talking (nonsense) head. Yo Rudy, go back to the old combover look when New Yawkers used to like ya.
    jimy_max
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:00 PM, 11/16/2009
    Wow, I guess Polman is counting on the dimwitedness of his liberal bloggers to gobble up his nonsense. KSM is a war criminal who was captured overseas and should be tried and executed in a military tribunal. Same thing we did in Nuremburg. But instead, we are go to give KSM a show trial all at great expense to the US taxpayer. It's liberal idiocy at its finest.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:11 PM, 11/16/2009
    swedesboromike: Wars are fought between nation states, such as we fought against Germany. A military tribunal was appropriate. But just because GWB said we are at war doesn't make it so. Wars against nebulous entities (terror, drugs, etc) never end. KSM conspired to cause a severe criminal act. Trial in a criminal court is appropriate.
    Chris Landee


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About Dick Polman

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.