GOP: Trying Somali Terrorist On US Soil (And In NYC) Is "Harming" Our National Security

~~Chelydra serpentina~~ Mitch McConnell speaks to reporters (AP)

A Somali man was flown to New York City late Monday night to be tried in the Southern District of New York for providing information to the Somali terrorist group Shabab as well as Al Qaeda. Now, Congressional Republicans are offering harsh criticism of the Obama administration for not transferring him to Guantanamo Bay. "The administration has purposefully imported a terrorist into the US and is providing him all the rights of US citizens in court," vulgar obstructionist and Yertle the Turtle lookalike Mitch McConnell said on the House floor today. "This ideological rigidity being displayed by the administration is harming the national security of the United States of America."

Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, who is believed to be in his mid-20s, was initially captured on a ship "in the Gulf region" on April 19, and was held in a US Navy brig. There he was questioned for two months. After the "very cooperative" interrogations, Warsame was read his Miranda rights and questioned again by the FBI so that his testimony could be used in civilian court. According to the Times, authorities are still unsure of Warsame's role as a terrorist, as "one portrayed him as a “senior operational commander” while another played down his role." It is considerably easier to try these subjects in civilian court because prosecutors merely have to prove that Warsame aided the terrorist groups. A military tribunal forces the government to actually prove he was a member of the terrorist groups, a problem that has plagued many prosecutions thus far.

To review: Mitch McConnell and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee aren't upset that the man was secretly detained for two months, or that Obama has essentially continued the erosion of habeas corpus begun under the Bush administration. (And forget that Bush himself tried and convicted hundreds of suspected terrorists under civilian law.) They're complaining that he's not being held in a prison that has become a symbol of the decay of American values and a valuable recruiting tool to terrorists. Refusing to treat these subjects in an extrajudicial manner is something the Obama administration has shirked for far too long. If Republicans want to stop "harming the national security of the United States," they can agree to concessions to prevent the country's economy from spiraling into freefall by defaulting on its loans.

You can read the government's considerably vague complaint against the man here [pdf].

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Christopher Robbins in News on July 6, 2011 5:43 PM

Comments [rss]

Adam Moreira

Yes and no. It might be a chance to try to deny him his rights in a US court (because he doesn't have any legal status here), but I would do it. If successful, that would shoot down the GOP arguments. The tribunal option should be a fallback.

xXxMExXx

Bring all the terrorists to Manhattan! Lets make it the new Guantanamo Bay!

Ben Franklin

Jay Carney admitted to a war crime today. He said the man we captured and interrogated on a Navy ship was taken under the rules of war. This would make him a POW. You are not allowed to try POW's in civilian courts. No one bothered to follow up on that point in the press conference.

Obviously we aren't going to tote all of these guys we pick up in Afghanistan and elsewhere back to Manhattan. And you couldn't get a conviction if you did. Only a fool would engage in such an errand. But you can put these people before military tribunals to determine their status or to punish them for war crimes. You can also hold them indefinitely. The option Holder and Obama have chosen is the only one that is forbidden. It also has the distinction of being the most ridiculous.

Obama never fails to choose the dumbest and least moral of all options. Bush had a much better grasp of this issue.

Politburo

There are several standards that have to be met in order to get POW status. One big one is that you have to be wearing a uniform or other kind of distinctive symbol. Another big one is that you have to be following the 'laws and customs of war' yourself. You don't get to be a terrorist and then claim POW status after the fact.

Also, you are most certainly allowed to try POWs in civilian courts. The Convention allows "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions.. pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." However, acts of war by a POW are granted immunity. But terrorism is not an act of war and this guy isn't a POW, so that's rather moot.

Adam Moreira

Depends on if he is granted rights in civilian courts. Dare the courts to say no---at their own peril---and leave them at the mercy of the NYC media.

petercow

Ben,
You're wrong. can absolutely detain someone, and then try him civilly. That was just done in the Galani case.For a good overview of the issues read here:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/201...

zombiebob

Mitchy looks like a living-dead ventriloquist dummy. Which is of course being operated by Jesus-a!

blindmalice

Casey Anthony, Casey Anthony, just keep focusing on Casey Anthony, my fat Nancy Grace fellow Americans. Theres nothing to see here.

ed_Extinct

POWs should always be tried on neutral soil.

petercow

He's not a prisoner of war. And prisoners of war don't have to stand trial. They aren't criminals.

ed_Extinct

I misspoke, foreign enemy combatant.

petercow

There's no such thing as a "foreign enemy combatant", either.

You can be one of two things - an accused criminal, or a prisoner of war.

The Geneva Convention requires that a competent tribunal decide that, in a timely fashion.

If a criminal, you get charged with a crime. If a prisoner of war, you can't be charged in a civilian court, but you can be charged with war crimes.

ed_Extinct

regardless, he should not be tired within the United States.

petercow

Great reasoning.

He absolutely should. You don't think the Constitution is strong enough?
Don't be a pussy. The U.S. tries and convicts terrorists all the time.

Grow a pair, coward.

ed_Extinct

What's your fucking problem, man? It's my opinion.

If he committed the "crime" on US soil, then yes, if not then no.

petercow

Your opinion is contrary to the law and the Constitution.

He's an alleged common criminal. Don't elevate him by giving him special treatment.

ed_Extinct

This isn't a civilian trial, he wasn't walking in Manhattan. He's an enemy combatant and should be tried off of US soil or in Washington DC. They want to try him in a civilian court because many military tribunals haven't worked in the past, seems lame and if you want to go with the Constitution, then a military tribunal is what it should be.

"The Constitution’s text as well as historical precedent provide ample support for the President’s decision to utilize military tribunals to try those who would seek to destroy our Constitution by actions that are contrary to the laws of war and the law of nations." ~John C. Eastman

petercow

Is that a joke? Quoting a law school professor?

How about law and the Constitution?

Newsflash to both Prof. Eastman and you - the following things are imaginary:
1) the Justice League

2) the Easter Bunny

3) an "enemy combatant"

And you really think this Somali nebbish is "seeking to destroy the Constitution"? LOL

How ironic. What you propose, does more damage to the Constitution and the country, than that putz could ever dream.

ed_Extinct

Quoting him, quoting the Constitution. Read up. 6th Amendment.

wss233

He's being tried in Manhattan because the courts here have more experience with terrorism and piracy trials, which can obviously get very complicated. It's not just an arbitrary decision. There is a precedent. In the past we've tried Somali pirates in Manhattan. That's almost standard. The only difference now is that someone accused this man of being a terrorist. I'm not sure why that accusation should exclude him from what has become the normal process for handling pirates caught at sea.