Trial Judge, Warren Wilbert, turned away objections from prosecutors Tuesday, January 12, 2010, allowing confessed partial birth abortionist killer, Scott Roeder, the right to assert "defense of others" in his upcoming murder trial. Roeder contents that his fatal shooting of Dr. George Tiller was justifiable, as it was necessary to protect the lives of unborn children.
To be fair, Judge Wilbert ruled the Defendant must be allowed to present a credible defense, and as he had already admitted committing this pre-mediated murder, telling the jury his reason for killing Dr. Tiller was the only one relevant. To preclude Roeder from telling his side of the story would have rendered his trial nothing more than a charade, in which only the prosecutors got to offer testimony to the jurors.
Irrespective of your views on abortion, this example of judicial "fairness" is presented to illustrate why civilian trials are not compatible with war winning. The salient point here is that a Judge must be FAIR to the government and EQUALLY FAIR to the defendant, finding the right balance between these two diametrically opposed parties to achieve a truly fair trial.
Now, turning to our Sally Fields' Sissy Ass war prosecutions policy, Federal Judge, Lewis Kaplan, is being called upon to strike a similar fair balance for the gov't. and a Mr. Ghailani, who has been charged with Conspiracy to bomb two American Embassies in East Africa in 1988 which terror attack killed 224 innocent people. Having spent more than five years in Gitmo, Ghailani was the first detainee transferred by the Administration to DoJ custody for trial in a civilian court in NYC. His attorneys have moved to have all charges dismissed, claiming that Ghailani's rights to a Speedy Trial were violated by his many years of internment at Gitmo.
Prosecutors, while acknowledging this extreme delay, agrue that the government's interest in having had an adequate opportunity to interrogate Ghailani about impending terror attacks outweighed his rights to a fair trial. Accordingly, as we lawyers like to say, "the issue is squarely joined" w/o. nuance or wiggle room. Still, Judge Kaplan, by his Oath of Office, is obligated to be fair to every defendant, even one's charged with heineous crimes, (see, Roeder). That means to preserve the rights of defendants to a Speedy Trial, Ghailana may have to be freed by Judge Kaplan. Whatever he orders in this particular case, however, the salient point is that the President has abdicated his Oath of Office, his Executive Branch responsibility as CinC. for the proper custody of our nation's enemies. Of course, the gov't. had to interrogate Ghailani, 24/7, for as long as necessary to protect the nation - not just fair, but essential to our survival and future safety.
So, having held Ghailana for proper war fighting needs, to then turn him over to the civilian courts as a street criminal, where his future incarceration is dependent upon the government having been fair to him over the period of time where is interests as a putative defendant were wholly irrelevant, is asking the Judge to ignore his own Oath of Office to find that proper balance of fairness for both parties before the court.
Accordingly, should Judge Kaplan be true to his Oath, he will refuse to free this admitted jihadist, by ruling that as an enemy combatant, he has no right to a civilian trial, let alone a speedy one. Then, Judge Kaplan should dismiss the government's case entirely, by ruling that as an enemy combatant Ghailani has no right to a civilian trial. As a Judicial Branch official, Judge Kaplan should inform the President that only the Executive has the right to fight a war.
Now, that's one constitutional confrontation I would love to see on news at eleven. Just saying.
No comments:
Post a Comment