Precedence to try terrorists under UCMJ

Should a terrorist have more constitutional rights than the military? If a military person commits a crime, they are tried under the UCMJ. So should a terrorist have more rights than our own military? There is precedence for Guantanimo Bay and terrorists being tried under the UCMJ. Read this Wall Street Journal article which states the following:

“There is ample constitutional precedent to support the detention of a suspected al Qaeda agent, even an American citizen, who plans to carry out terrorist attacks on our soil. During World War II, eight Nazi saboteurs secretly landed in New York to attack factories and plants. Two of them were American citizens.

After their capture, FDR sent them to military detention, where they were tried and most of them executed. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court upheld the detention and trial by military authorities of American citizens who “associate” with “the military arm of the enemy” and “enter this country bent on hostile acts.” If FDR were president today, Padilla might have fared far worse than he has.”

read more | digg story

Iraq and Al Qaeda

The main stream media would have you think that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and certainly Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the US Invasion. The reality is Iraq had known ties to Al Qaeda. The evidence is overwhelming so much so that the 9/11 victims won a court case against Iraq tieing Iraq to 9/11. Here is a quote from Barack Obama continuing to propagate the myth that there were no ties of Iraq to Al Qaeda.

“At the time the President uttered those words, there was no hard evidence that Iraq had those stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. There was not any evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, or that Iraq had operational ties to the al Qaeda terrorists who carried them out. By launching a war based on faulty premises and bad intelligence, President Bush failed Wilson’s test. So did Congress when it voted to give him the authority to wage war.

Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.

History will catalog the reasons why we waged a war that didn’t need to be fought, but two stand out. In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisions about matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, not ideology and politics.”

I challenge you to read on to know the truth and not politics.