The real risk is that federal judges will do what al-Qaeda cannot: order that committed jihadists be released.
By Debra Burlingame
Two weeks ago, I was among a small group of USS Cole and 9/11 victims' families who met with President Obama at the White House. Despite President Obama's assurances that the safety and security of the American people is his number one priority, I left the meeting with little confidence that the President appreciates the grave consequences of shutting down Guantanamo or the complex problems associated with adjudicating detainee cases in the federal court system. Indeed, he told us that he is "not at all concerned" about the security issues of bringing the detainees to the U.S. His rationale for this is simple: whether detainees are held in a federal prison or a military facility, either location would present a "hard target" for future terrorist attacks aimed at freeing them. He believes the detainees will be forgotten by their fellow militants.
They will not be forgotten, however, by an army of elite defense lawyers who have declared that nothing less than a platinum standard of due process is acceptable for men who killed 3,000 innocent people, even if that means letting them and other dangerous terrorists go free. Indeed, the most real and immediate risk posed by bringing detainees to U.S. soil is that federal judges will do what al-Qaeda cannot: order that committed jihadists be released. Last year, in habeas corpus proceedings, a federal judge ordered the release of 17 Chinese Muslims who were training in Afghanistan with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement to carry out terrorist attacks in mainland China. That case was recently reversed, but will no doubt be appealed. Does it make sense to release these individuals to suburban Virginia?
How will the federal courts handle evidentiary matters involving classified information being demanded by the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed representing himself? Will prosecutors be forced to disclose crucial battlefield intelligence or dismiss their cases?
The Pentagon has identified some 61 former detainees who have returned to the battlefield, among them Abdullah al-Ajmi, a Kuwaiti who carried out a suicide attack in Mosul that killed 12 Iraqi soldiers. Last September, al-Qaeda bombed the American embassy in Yemen, killing six people, including an 18-year-old Muslim-American teenager from upstate New York. That attack is believed to have been planned by a former detainee, now the leader of al-Qaeda in Yemen and a graduate of Saudi Arabia's terrorist "rehabilitation" program. Though touted by the U.S. State Department as a model program, Saudi Arabia has reached out to Interpol after losing track of some 85 admitted members of al-Qaeda, including 11 former Gitmo detainees.
Nearly 100 of the current detainees are from Yemen, a country whose president previously released two of the men responsible in the USS Cole attack, and which refuses to make guarantees that repatriated detainees will be prevented from engaging in future terrorist activities. Indeed, he recently released 170 admitted militants in furtherance of a truce with al-Qaeda.
President Obama made an important admission in that White House meeting with victims' families. He said that, "the world saw what happened at Abu Ghraib and mixed that up with Guantanamo." The detention center has become a symbol, he said, of American injustice, and "fair or not," it has to be shut down. Going forward, the President has a solemn obligation not to allow the safety and security of the American people to be put at risk to correct a misperception elsewhere in the world, particularly when terrorism is a global problem. Nor should the President allow alien enemy combatants to propagandize our justice system simply to satisfy the same civil rights absolutists who will be first in line, as they were after 9/11, to decry the government's institutional failures when the next catastrophic attack occurs.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the United States to hold enemy combatants in preventative detention until the end of hostilities. We cannot expect our military to risk their lives fighting the enemy, then to risk them again to secure criminal evidence in the midst of war. Congress should step up and fulfill its responsibility to create a balanced, reasonable and consistent legal framework for trying detainee cases which recognizes that criminal courts, operating in a vacuum, can hurt us far more than world opinion.
It's been said that the war on terror won't be won on the battlefield. No, but if the ACLU has its way, it will be lost in the courts.
Debra Burlingame, a former attorney, is co-founder of 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America.
Email This Post | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
Comments (7)
If Obama believes that "the world saw what happened at Abu Ghraib and mixed that up with Guantanamo”, then it’s his job to explain the mix-up and to clear up the confusion for “the World” (whoever that might be), not to let dangerous terrorists go scott-free. But given his anti-Guantanamo stance as a candidate, and the influence of his Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who sees the war on terror as strictly a law-enforcement matter, and who is gung-ho for closing Guantanamo even though he has no idea how to go about it, chances are that Obama will choose the worst possible route.
As for the latest hot trend in the legal profession, where no elite law firm is quite elite enough unless it has on its portfolio at least one Guantanamo detainee with a sob-story, there is no question that history will judge it for the disgrace that it is. The only question is how much damage will be done and how many people will pay with their lives for this fad to pass.
In the meantime, keep up the good work, Ms. Burlingame. Your campaign is a source of inspiration to those of us who still recognize terror for what it is, and an honor to the memory of your brother.
February 26, 2009 2:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 26, 2009 14:56
Ms Burlingame
The rule of law and the principle that every one is innocent until he is proven guilty are the basis of a humanistic society. You have to know that you are dealing with human lives which were partly destroyed by your government and you share a part of the responsibility if you do not object to that.Following the emotions is destructive. The terrorists follow their emotions too.
February 23, 2009 12:15 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 23, 2009 12:15
Ms. Burlingame,
I have an idea that just might suit your taste. How about if once the US determines there is no further intelligence [or never was any] to be gained from the detainees, the US gives each one a full frontal lobotomy and returns them to their country of origin.
They wouldn't be a threat to the US and we could release them. Hence, not using taxpayer dollars to take care of them.
Yes, it's uncivilized and even sick and demented, but it's something that might appeal to you.
February 23, 2009 10:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 23, 2009 10:38
"3,000 innocent people DIED on Sept. 11."
And how does that have the slightest bearing on whether or not the specific individuals being held in Guantanamo Bay had anything to do with those crimes?
How do you KNOW they did the things which you just take it on faith that they did?
Unless and until they are subject to the Due Process requirements of the US Constitution, yo DON'T know.
That is why we HAVE Due Process. Because you may be wrong.
February 22, 2009 10:06 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 22, 2009 22:06
A Lesson to this ex attorney: do not break the laws of USA and International Conventions [as adopted after the advise and consent of the USA Senate], else you will face blowback.
To intelligent people the events of the Twin Towers should have indicated that you do not abuse or subscribe to the abuse of society.
That The USA was lazy in prosecution according to the laws/constitution of the USA, tortured prisoners [ a clear transgression of International and USA Statute LAw], kept abusing prisoners for years, without access to lawyers, to courts or indeed to face any charges, indicates that the USA WANTED TO MAKE MORE JIHADISTS.
If you break it you own it. DO NOT BREAK LAWS, else you will be in trouble. The USa is having FUN experiencing this issue [So will I
srael]
February 22, 2009 6:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 22, 2009 18:46
I went thru the whole registration hassle just to reply to the above garbage.
timothy2me is apparently an America-hater who by turning the Constitution into a suicide pact hopes (with the ACLU and most of the demcong) to destroy this country.
Nowhere in our history, or anyone else's, are battle field prisoners treated as criminals - under the US Constitution, with the full rights of criminal defense.
3,000 innocent people DIED on Sept. 11.
Does timothy2me hold an annual 9/11 party to celebrate?
February 22, 2009 10:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 22, 2009 10:15
I see where you are a former attorney. I guess I don't have to wonder why. Rather hard to support the law and the constitution as an attorney when you obviously hate them so much.
First off Gitmo is nothing more than a totalitarian wet dream. It was chosen and created to be just that, a place above and beyond the law or constitution. It is as illegal and un-American as it can get.
Second, the attack on the USS Cole was an act of war, not terrorism as you have tried to spin it. Those killed in the attack were not civilians but military personnel. Those involves should be charged with war crimes.
Third, I believe murder is still illegal in New York. That is where the World Trade Center's 3000 murders occurred, that is where those involved should be tried and where the families of the victims can watch the trials. As for “evidentiary matters involving classified information” spare me that mumbo jumbo it-is-a-secret crap. If it is secret then it isn’t evidence
"Last year, in habeas corpus proceedings, a federal judge ordered the release of 17 Chinese Muslims who were training in Afghanistan with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement to carry out terrorist attacks in mainland China."
They were never found to be hostile to the US. The stupidity doesn't lie with releasing them but putting them in Gitmo in the first place. They have been held for 7 years for committing no crime and that is an affront to everything America stands for or should I say once stood for.
As for "Habeas Corpus" you apparently didn't learn in law school that it is the bedrock of our legal system. Without Habeas Corpus our courts and legal system are less than meaningless. Our constitution was based on it and it was included in the body of the constitution, not in the bill of rights amendments.
As for those who were captured on the battlefield they are POWs and with they overthrow of Taliban rule and democratic elections in Afghanistan they should have come under the jurisdiction of the Afghan government.
The mistake with Gitmo as a prison is not that it should be closed but that it ever existed as one in the first place.
The President, Congress and every member of the military take an oath. That oath is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The oath isn't to listen or follow crackpots like you.
February 22, 2009 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Posted on February 22, 2009 09:32