Graham has provided Obama a way out of this standoff: Send KSM to a military tribunal in exchange for Congress abandoning legislation that would deny funding to close Gitmo. Next, the administration would work with Congress to create a “national security court,” which would govern how other current and future terrorism suspects can be held in preventive detention.

This was criticized rightly by Glenn Greenwald who suggested it might lead to something like Minority Report, the adaptation of the Philip K. Dick short story where the police receive telepathic indications of crime before it happens.  But the real crime is having the venue of a criminal trial decided by political branches like a health care bill.  Where is due process in all this?  This invites intervention by the federal courts in a way injurious to the cause of justice.  How would you like politicians deciding whether say you get tried by a jury or not?  It’s outrageous. 

Besides, Senator Graham is also involved in an intrusive effort that is more dangerous than the Dangerous REAL ID that the states beat back in an monumental political effort.  It would require an ID card for all legal workers in the United States.  Check this out from the New York Times:

In addition to opening a path to legal status for an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, the bill Mr. Schumer and Mr. Graham are shaping would tighten enforcement against hiring illegal immigrant workers by creating a national biometric identification card for all workers, including American citizens and legal immigrants.

A national BIOMETRIC identification card?  ALL workers?  This is what the Wall Street Journal described for such an ID card:

A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.

Has Senator Graham read the Book of Revelation? 

“He [the second beast] also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beats or the number of his name.”  Revelation 13:16-17 (NIV)

I once admired Senator Graham so much I sent him an email hoping he would someday run for President.  But any politician who would advocate a biometric ID card for all American workers is beyond the pale of my support.  “I know not what course others may take,..” the most famous Hanoverian once said, but I know my choice.  As a follower of Christ, I have no choice.  If Senator Graham does not repudiate this idea I will not support him for any office nor encourage others to do so. 

PS:  If anyone reads this and is convicted to know more about Jesus Christ, contact me off post at eesjresquire@netscape.net.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (R). Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. (Of course this is no endorsement of this blogpost or blog by the International Bible Society or Zondervan)

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society.  Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

My fellow conservatives and Republicans are obsessing with this issue for political gain.  I will wait for them to repent.  I am afraid it might take the loss of rights for Americans or conservatives or followers of Christ before this will happen.

Well, it may be happening ALREADY.  I refer to the Blackwater trial.  Dan Miller writes at Pajamas Media that “Legal proceedings driven by political motivations do not constitute justice.”  Come again?  The blatantly political attempt to force KSM into a military trial, to the point of cutting off funds for the civilian trial, and the campaign to deny rights to terror suspects accomplanied by bad law and dubious history, is this not politically driven? 

I agree with much of Miller’s critique.  The Vice President ought not even be discussing a pending legal matter publicly.  Another nation ought not be publicly interfering in a pending civilian trial in our nation.  Biden should have whispered to the Iraqi officials in the case, “We’ll handle it without any interference from you.  By the way, where’s the oil money?”  I do not know the facts behind the  Blackwater matter.  Perhaps these men are innocent; I certainly hope so. 

Miller continues:

Moreover, long after September 28, the NSD prosecutors persisted in the improper use of compelled testimony — directly contrary to strongly worded advice from the criminal division’s “taint committee,” which had been established to prevent just that.

Compelled testimony?  Contrast the lament of Senator Collins that they did not interrogate the underwear bomber long enough:

“Less than one hour.  * * *  Then he was given a Miranda warning and a lawyer.  And not surprisingly, he stopped talking.”

No word on what to do.  Perhaps some “compelled testimony” might have resulted. 

Suppose Iraq had “compelled” some statements out of the Blackwater suspects?  What would be our reaction?  These statements were made under threat of loss of their jobs.  No waterboarding or torture was even hinted.  Yet, it is legally compelled testimony in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  Conservatives are outraged that the government elected to appeal this case.  Miller: 

Whatever may have been the reasoning behind the decision to appeal the judge’s ruling in the Blackwater case rather than to start over and do it right, it is offensive to see the Blackwater guards, let alone the U.S. judicial system, held hostage to the Obama administration’s political agenda. A war on sanity seems to have trumped the war on terrorism.

So it’s bad for President Obama to conduct a political trial, but its great for conservatives to politicize a national security trial.  Let’s try a modest proposal:  Give appropriate rights to all in American courts and use the courts to find the truth, not use the justice system as a political football.

Senator Collins also repeated the slogan that terror suspects do not have the rights of American citizens.  I know Sen. Collins is not intending to play to xenophobic elements in American society.  But this will do so.  Glenn Greenwald totally demolishes her claims in this column from yesterday.

Cong. John Boehner repeated the same charge that “…Terrorists…should not be given the same rights as American citizens.” 

Let me say it again:  Non-citizens have every right in court citizens do – even illegal non-citizens – and in fact non-citizens have the additional right to consult, under the 1963 Vienna Convention, with their diplomatic representative.

Senator Collins was upset that there will be a lawyer at public expense.  Why attack the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel?  Do we want to return to the days before Gideon v. Wainwright when only the rich had a good lawyer?  It will also erode the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by hindering public funding for public defense and cause hostility for criminal defense attorneys and their efforts.

I do not object to a change of venue consistent with our law.  It seems to me that the prosecution for the 9/11 attacks could be any district where an overt act consistent with the conspiracy without offending the constitutional rights of suspects.  At the very least, the District of Columbia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maine could be proper venues.  (At least one of the 9/11 terrorists flew from Portland, Maine to Boston to fly to Logan Airport in Boston.)  There may be other venues where planning was done or traning obtained.  The Sixth Amendment states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,…”

Note:  it is in ALL criminal prosecutions, not ALL but terror prosecutions. 

If this trial turns into a political football as it seems to me, my fellow conservatives run the risk of doing what they claim most to fear:  A successful appeal by KSM.  The original Constitution condemns bills of attainder:

“No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

The British Parliament had the power to indict and try individuals for crimes or bad behavior (or bad politics) through the device of the Bill of Attainder.  Neither Congress nor the states can pass a bill of attainder. 

If Senator Graham and Representaive King have their way, the venue and even the funding for the trial will be in jeopardy.  You cannot defund a crminal trial.  It violates common sense and could be construed as a bill of attainder and new trial ordered. 

Charles Krauthammer, who I also greatly admire, says that the military tribunal argument is unassailable.  That might surprise Judge Andrew Napolitano or Glenn Greenwald or Cong. Ron Paul.  (Paul has not spoken distinctly on this question but he voted to prevent the denial of funds to close the prison at Guantanamo and the vote was 212 to 213 – perhaps the first time Paul’s vote decided a bill pending in Congress!) 

The history cited by proponents for military tribunals is at best misleading.  Here is what I found:

While foreign enemy nationals have generally been tried by a military tribunal, this is not a war by or against a foreign nation.  We did not try former Vice President Aaron Burr as a military combatant; nor were the St. Albans raiders (Confederates who in 1864 attacked the Vermont town of St. Albans to gain funds for their cause) sought to be tried by the United States before a military tribunal.   The attorney for the United States in that case cited a prior alleged attempt by Southern sympathizers to burn New York City that was brought – not before a military tribunal – but in a civilian court.  Nor even the Puerto Rican terrorists who sought to assassinate President Truman and fired shots into Congress in 1952 were tried before a military tribunal.  Even Osama bin Laden and those who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were not tried before a military tribunal.  Even the shoe bomber was tried in a civilian court.  He tried to bomb an airliner; kill hundreds of people. 

Senator Collins derided the fact that the underwear bomber refused to talk.  How should we make him talk?  Beat it out of him?  Waterboard him?  I am confident she would deny that.  But that is the implication.  Many would vote for that.  But its illegal.  Do we want to risk going back to the days when police could beat confessions out of suspects with impunity?

I agree with Senator Collins that the intelligence failed.  Even with the huge DHS bureaucracy, we did not connect the dots.  Ron Paul was right again.  Increasing the bureaucracy did not ensure our security.  But liberty was damaged.

I share much of Senator Collins’ sentiment.  Terrorists need severe punishment to deter additional attacks.  But we can’t keep the denial of rights to foreign terrorism suspects.  It will spread to drug dealers and violent offenders.  Senator Feingold showed that the “sneak and peek” warrant power, designed for terrorism suspects was used largely in other criminal cases.  (Thanks to the Badger Herald, the true libertarian paper at UW-Madison)

I agree with Senator Collins about one other thing:  “This charade must stop.”  But not in the way she means.  The charade that we can pick and choose the rights to protect.  This is a dangerous road to go down.  I won’t support it.  The alternatve is perpetual wars, military tribunals in continuous session and loss of liberty.  The only thing to do is make this position so difficult to defend that the politicians move on to something safer. 

My fellow conservatives and Republicans are obsessing with this issue for political gain.  I will wait for them to repent.  I am afraid it might take the loss of rights for Americans or conservatives or followers of Christ before this will happen.