Senate buffoonery: the terror trials in NYC

Just prior to the Thanksgiving break we were treated to a display of Senate buffoonery concerning the upcoming terrorist trials in New York City.

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Hanging in the balance, of course, is what a jury will ultimately do with the men who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks once their defense counsel successfully blocks any testimony regarding their confessions while being held at the Guantanamo Bay military facility.

Enemy combatants captured during war are not entitled to taxpayer funded defense attorneys in civilian courts.  Nor are they afforded 'Miranda rights' despite the Obama Administration's contention that each time an enemy combatant is captured on the battlefield they should be read their rights.

Imagine the response to such an assertion from, say, Franklin Delano Roosevelt during WWII, or Harry Truman, or any other President in U.S. history.

The mere suggestion of such a thing would have been laughed to scorn and dismissed outright.

Yet here we are in this post-American era with a President that fancies himself the 'President of the World' rather than the guardian of U.S. interests, and a Congress that rubber-stamps each and every initiative the 'emperor' sends their way.

It is no shock, then, that Democratic Senators engaged in buffoonery regarding the upcoming terrorist trials.  In fact, such a thing has become so commonplace that it is to be expected.  The shock, at least for me, has been how thoroughly hilarious it all has become.

But the hilarity has an edge, which we shall see in a moment.

So, sit back, relax, perhaps get some popcorn and a coke.  Get ready to be treated to some of the most wacky buffoonery that has ever been put on display since the days of Vaudeville.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from San Francisco, had the following response to a question posed by CNS:

Would U.S. troops have to read Osama bin Laden his Miranda rights if and when they capture him? It's a “murky area,” Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com. She said Americans should trust the judgment of Attorney General Eric Holder who, unlike his predecessors, is“not blemished in any way."

Osama bin Laden?  Reading him the Miranda rights if he's captured somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan?  This is 'murky'?  How so?  An enemy combatant, the most dangerous person in the world who admitted to being responsible for 9/11, should be read his 'Miranda rights' and given taxpayer funded legal counsel?  And ERIC HOLDER, of all people, is 'not blemished in any way?'

Excuse me while I allow myself to fall out of my chair in rollicking, uncontrolled laughter.

Perhaps Senator Feinstein forgot her medication.

And then there is Senator Chris Dodd, that ultimate example of honesty and integrity in government, who refused to answer the question as to whether or not bin Laden should be read his Miranda rights.

What's so difficult about the question, Senator?  You had no hesitation whatsoever about accepting sweet mortgage deals from the very corporations you voted to bail out when it was discovered they were so corrupt and incompetent that they don't need to be in business in the first place.

Now notice the great and illustrious Senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez, a Republican, as he shines forth on the subject:

CNSNews.com: When we catch bin Laden, should he be Mirandized? Should he be read his Miranda rights? If there’s going to be a civil proceeding, the attorney general said it wouldn’t matter.
 
Menendez: As far as I’m concerned he should be prosecuted, brought to justice, and hopefully – and I fully expect – convicted.

In case you missed it, his answer would be 'yes'--Osama bin Laden, in order to be tried in a civilian court, would be read his Miranda rights.  That is the only way to have a successful trial in a civilian court without having all of the charges dropped.

But the Senator who gave the most outrageously hilarious response to the whole thing was Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told CNSNews.com that civilian courts are well-suited to prosecute al Qaeda terrorists and that "if people don't believe in our system, maybe they ought to go somewhere else.” 

Conrad also dismissed a question about the rights of terrorists captured on foreign battlefields and the rules of evidence in terms of a civilian court trial as not serious.

I can hardly contain my waves of rolling laughter.

He actually said that terrorists on FOREIGN battlefields are subject to 'rules of evidence' as we have here in the states and that anyone who disagrees with the notion that an enemy war combatant should be tried in U.S. civilian courts should 'go somewhere else.'

Senator, perhaps it is YOU who should go someplace else, such as into the street when the citizens get so fed up with the likes of you that we vote you charlatans out of office, or physically throw you into the street, which ever is most appropriate.

And THAT, as they say, is 'not too funny.'

For commentary on other issues, visit my blog at The Liberty Sphere.