Following the recent Supreme Court decision, Barack Obama has stepped up his rhetoric regarding his desire to see the War on Terror fought in the court system. In an interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper, Obama said the following:

It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States. But we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. Let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that in previous terrorist attacks, for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

Sen. Obama implies that the legal response to the first WTC was sufficient. Not only does the lead prosecutor of that case find this statement a “remarkably ignorant account of the American experience with jihadism,” but the 9/11 commission long ago pointed out the failure of this action:

As a result of the investigations and arrests, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals, including Ajaj, Salameh, Ayyad, Abouhalima, the Blind Sheikh, and Ramzi Yousef, for crimes related to the World Trade Center bombing and other plots.

An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism. Neither President Clinton, his principal advisers, the Congress, nor the news media felt prompted, until later, to press the question of whether the procedures that put the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef behind bars would really protect Americans against the new virus of which these individuals were just the first symptoms.⁸

Third, the successful use of the legal system to address the first World Trade Center bombing had the side effect of obscuring the need to examine the character and extent of the new threat facing the United States. The trials did not bring the Bin Ladin network to the attention of the public and policymakers.

In other words, the legal framework that Obama now holds up as the ideal for dealing with terrorism was found by the 9/11 Commission to be a contributing factor in the 2001 attacks. Obama has often used the 9/11 Commission as a weapon against the Bush administration, claiming on the 5th year anniversary of the attacks that what was needed was “a change in policy, like the need to finally implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission.” Apparently their words are only important when it suits his political purpose.

Scott over at Power Line also points at that the Nuremberg trials, which Obama cites repeatedly as an example of how we should deal with terrorism, were themselves military commissions which offered fewer protections than those struck down by Boumediene, a decision applauded by Obama.

There are many things about Barack Obama that do not bode well for the future of America should he be elected President, but his brazen ignorance when it comes to fighting terrorism ranks #1.

 Print This Post