send to a friend | print | comment
Beyond disrespect
by Peg Luksik
We display yellow ribbons to support our military men and women. We pray for them, privately and publicly. We write letters and send supplies. In every segment of our society, Americans are telling the members of our Armed Forces that we appreciate their sacrifice and value their service.
With one exception.
The administration is planning to bring the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 onto American soil and into American civilian courts for trial. The message is that those who took American lives and destroyed American property cannot get a fair shake if they are tried at Guantanamo in the Courts of Military Justice.
Those courts are unfamiliar to most of us, so on the surface, it sounds like the Washington establishment is simply trying to ensure that justice is done.
That is a false perception.
The Courts of Military Justice are the forums in which every member of Americas Armed Forces is tried when he is accused of a crime. They include lawyers and procedures that are designed to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. They are designed to ensure that the security of America is protected as well.
It is beyond disrespectful for Washington to say that the legal system that is good enough for every person who is defending America is somehow not good enough for the people who are attacking America. Bringing these people onto American soil is compounding the problem. The base at Guantanamo is isolated for a reason. The isolation keeps it from being a target.
The terrorists being brought to trial have openly boasted about their success in murdering Americans and publicly stated that dying a martyr’s death is a goal for them, as long as they kill Americans in the process. When we transfer their trials to areas that are filled with Americans, we are painting a huge target on the back of every citizen who lives within those areas.
America’s military service members, both those on active duty today and those veterans who have completed their service, work to keep our country safe from attack. They serve so their families and their neighbors will not be on the front lines of a battlefield.
For this administration to decide unilaterally to bring that front line to New York, or southwestern Pennsylvania, or any other part of this nation, is a direct slap in the face of every man and woman who has given blood to protect Americans. Trying to justify such a reckless and perilous action defies imagination.
The administration has attempted to counter the outrage by saying that they will set aside $73 million to help with security. That does not begin to cover the additional costs to the local governments. So not only is Washington proposing to put American lives and property at risk unnecessarily, they are planning to make the American taxpayer pay for it.
This is madness. A secure location and an appropriate system for ensuring that justice is served already exist in Guantanamo. We should use them.
The writer is a Republican candidate for Senate.
March 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Tags: Peg Luksik
Leave a Reply
pa2012.com blogs
Red in a Sea of Blue
Purple in Pennsylvania
The Latest from @pa2012 news
More UpdatesStay connected with pa2012.com:
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
Try vedi
Mar 2nd, 2010
Ok then.
rplinpa
Mar 2nd, 2010
How sad this writer has so little faith in the ability of our military and our police to protect us under a circumstance like a trial.
She will undoubtedly cite 9-11 as an example of a possibility for whatever town hosts the trial. But we are light years from 9-11 in our sophistication, dedication and readiness to face these challenges. Our military and police forces are now trained and prepared to deal with the risk she wants to run away from.
Further, it is sad the writer has so little understanding on the differing ways under which these courts work. Geography is not the only difference. The most common ways we have tried these folks have netted convictions that are faster and more punitive than those done in the military courts.
It used to be that Republicans were the tough ones. Not anymore. They fear for everything and like a child, think if we can’t see the terrorists, then they won’t hurt us. Grow up and have pride in the ability of our armed forces and our police to do what they train and get paid to do!
Bruce Bailey
Mar 2nd, 2010
rplinpa — So well said. Thank you.
The Republican party since 9/11: The Party of Fear. The Party of Ignorance. The Party of No.
Oh…and also the Party of Arlen Specter.
Adam
Mar 2nd, 2010
These terrorists like to think of themselves as holy warriors fighting an evil empire. Trying them in our court system not only undercuts their characterization of America as tyrannical, but it also contradicts the idea that they are anything more than common thugs.
TB
Mar 2nd, 2010
Sit down. Please.
Ed H.
Mar 2nd, 2010
Applause for the excellent responses from both rplinpa and Adam. The thing to remember here is that Pat Toomey’s skewed views likely reflect very closely those of Ms. Luksik.
Adam Schwartzbaum
Mar 2nd, 2010
What is “beyond disrespectful” is Republican contempt for our system of justice, article III courts, and the rule of law. Nothing better vindicates the genius of our Constitution and the greatness of our democratic system of government then when criminals who oppose us because of our values and ideals are fairly tried in our federal court system.
Our federal courts have the resources, procedural safeguards, and experience to try these cases fairly and without harming our national security. Trying these cases in federal court sends a powerful message to every American enemy that our government is resilient in the face of terror and will not compromise its values and its Constitution. I can think of no better way to win the war for the hearts and minds of people around the world than to show them how the best system of justice in the world deals with the world’s worst criminals.
Lee Levan
Mar 2nd, 2010
Hey, Peg, you forgot to add that THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WESTPADEM6
Mar 2nd, 2010
Ms. Luksik,
I see your concern. I would point out though that I remember recalling the conviction rate of terrorists in a court of law has been much more successful, as opposed to a military tribunal when dealing with these terrorists.
Any thoughts? Here is a link that discusses conviction rates for you:
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1tu3uj/bestoftheblogs.com/Home/25767/r:t
Military tribunals: 15%
Court of law: 88%
I want those terrorists convicted. How do justify this position in the face of these statistics?
David Diano
Mar 2nd, 2010
Peg-
Actually, the military courts offer fewer protections for our servicemen and women and are a poor substitute for a civilian court. The military courts are the ones that aren’t good enough for our soldiers.
As for the “front lines”, it was the civilian citizens of New York who were at the front lines of 9/11. They DESERVE the chance to confront terrorists, where the attacks occurred, and show the world they are not afraid.
Unfortunately, Peg, you and most of the members of your party are paralyzed by not only fear of the shackled terrorists but of the judicial system that is the cornerstone of our Democracy.
We are sick of your cowering.
Bruce Bailey
Mar 2nd, 2010
Too bad we can’t just hang out in this thread and sing Kumbaya together for awhile. Seems like we’re all on the same page with this one.
Rob
Mar 3rd, 2010
At least she now is talking about something other than depriving rape victims of their right not to bear the offspring of the rapists.
She should run for church office and leave government to those who believe in the Wall of Separation designed by Thomas Jefferson, himself a former subversive. I have no use for people who are primarily interested in telling others how to live instead of becoming involved in the serious tasks of governing in accordance with the powers that the Constitution confers on government.
David Diano
Mar 3rd, 2010
Rob-
The thing is: this article could have been written by Toomey as well. Scary.