If Ahmed Abu Khatallah also wanted an abortion or a sex change operation, it would be US Government policy to pay for either one: (His 2nd and 10th Amendment rights are a different story.)
While the suspected mastermind of the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi is now on U.S. soil, the political fallout related to his prosecution may just be beginning.
The criminal complaint against Ahmed Abu Khatallah was filed nearly a year ago, and he was nabbed two weeks ago in eastern Libya. He appeared in a federal court in Washington on Saturday – much to some Republicans’ chagrin.
“I have serious concerns that conducting a rushed interrogation onboard a ship and then turning Abu Khatallah over to our civilian courts risks losing critical intelligence that could lead us to other terrorists or prevent future attacks,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, said in a statement Saturday. “I’ve asked the Defense and Justice Departments for an update on his status-including whether he has been told he has the right to remain silent.”
“If they bring him to the United States, they’re going to Mirandize this guy and it would be a mistake for the ages to read this guy his Miranda rights,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Earlier this month, Rep. Peter King of New York expressed other concerns to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer – chiefly, that U.S. authorities aren’t doing enough to maximize the amount of information they get from Abu Khatallah.
“Before he’s turned over to civilian authorities, the FBI and all of our intelligence agencies, CIA and others, should interrogate him as long as they have to,” said King, a member of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence. “I’m not that concerned about a criminal conviction. We’re going to get that ultimately. It’s important we get as much intelligence out of him as possible. Both what happened, who planned it, how it happened.”
Shame on you, Peter! How dare you prejudge a person’s innocence or guilt! Congressman King sounds like President Obama and Attorney General Holder announcing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guilty before he had had his (since reconsidered) civilian trial. If our criminal justice system has even a whiff of validity (a shaky conceit, sometimes), it is the bedrock belief in a person’s innocence until proven guilty.
I do not believe Ahmed Abu Khatallah is innocent (though how would I know?), and the manner of his “arrest” would mean that neither would many of my countrymen. How, then, could he receive a fair trial? It’s nonsensical. He must, therefore, be tried (or just dealt with) by different means. Obama has killed American citizens (Anwar al-Awlaki most prominently) without benefit of trial. Why would he get squeamish about Mirandizing a Libyan terrorist? Execute him, leave his head on a pike, and be done with it.
I do bring good news, however:
For Democrats in tight races, Abu Khatallah’s capture only further sheds light on a controversy that has damaged the Obama administration’s reputation for handling national security matters.
Second, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – who is toying with the idea of running for president in 2016 – could once again face tough questions about her role in handling U.S. security in the region when the attacks occurred.
A government that couldn’t convict O.J. Simpson thinks it can convict this scumbag. I already know I’d hold out for acquittal—not because I think he’s innocent, but because I have too much respect for our system of justice to pollute it by show trial. If he has rights (and he does not) he has all rights.
Military tribunal, summary execution, poisoned mashed potatoes. They all have more judicial integrity than what this lot proposes.