The Hill
The Big Question: How will the 9/11 trials play out legally, politically?
By Sydelle Moore and Tony Romm - 11/18/09 11:59 AM ET
Some of the nation's top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer some insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.
Today's question:
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to hold detainee trials in New York City has attracted criticism from Republicans. Democrats, meanwhile, are accusing the GOP of playing politics. How will this issue play out legally and politically?
...John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
The decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court opens up the likelihood that the defendant's right to what is called "discovery" will require providing the defense team with intelligence that will surely make its way back to terrorist allies. These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals. The civilian trial of Omar Abdel Rahman after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center led to supplying sensitive information to the defense team, and it ended up in the hands of other terrorists. The lesson should have been learned. There's far more at stake here than political posturing.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/68361-the-big-question-how-will-the-911-trials-play-out-legally-politically
Notice, the republication of the Big Questions with the date November 20, 2009 with John F. McManus' responses at the JBS site does not contain the question posted on The Hill site for Nov. 18, 2009.
Also see listing of similar columns since McManus was included
http://www.johnbirchsociety.org/component/search/hill%2Bbig%2Bquestions/%252F?ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&limit=20
The answer to that question attributed by The Hill to John F. McManus prompted formerly JBS-affiliated William Grigg's posting at Lew Rockwell Blog.
November 21, 2009
An Unexpected Endorsement of the Hitlerian “Terror Tribunals”
Posted by William Grigg on November 21, 2009 11:36 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/43366.html
Grigg and other posters ask for explanation and clarification on the question directly on the John Birch Society's republication of The Hill's Big Questions.
We'd like to see clarification or outright statement the Hill made a mistake in attributing this particular answer to John F. McManus.
The answer attributed to McManus is nothing short of a complete turnaround by the man who wrote of The Insiders, and over the decades ranted about Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission members and a design for all that would be a rejection of the foundational principles of this country, including illegal and "undeclared" wars not authorized by Congressional Acts.
In particular, how would McManus explain this:
excerpt from The Hill
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals.
Problems with this position coming from the president of the John Birch Society would be numerous. An organization that recognizes the rights guaranteed in the Constituion are unalienable - God-given - is the position of the JBS - and the sanctity of the writ of habeas corpus also recognizes the problematic situation of so-called military courts 'where no rights exist.'
And excusing the position of a military trial where no rights exist with what McManus (attributed by the Hill) says further about the 'terrorists' crimes being an act of war and posing in question form "didn't we go to war as a result?" - that is nothing short of illogical.
so from our perspective, we're holding out McManus and the JBS did not include the question and response from the Hill on its Nov. 20, 2009 piece on select questions and answers because the response was not from John F. McManus.
We could for instance envision Laurie Milroie answering that way, strongly and emphatically so, but not John F. McManus.
As for William Grigg, the situation is clouded further by postings on his blog/website concerning his firing.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Will Grigg's Birch Blog -- The Lost Episodes
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/08/will-griggs-birch-blog-lost-episodes.html
Obviously a major rift occurred between Grigg and the John Birch Society back in 2006. But back around that time, Grigg also considered McManus his friend and colleague.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The (Murder-)Suicide of the West
...In what sense would ending the war in May 1945 have been “premature,” when the Japanese leadership had been sending out peace feelers for nearly a year – following the unimaginable horrors of the Battle of Saipan?
In January 1945, the Japanese had quietly provided MacArthur with surrender terms that were, for all practical purposes, identical to those accepted after the terror bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Had those terms “been accepted when first offered, there would have been no heavy loss of life on Iwo Jima (over 26,033 Americans killed or wounded, approximately 21,000 Japanese killed) and Okinawa (over 39,000 U.S. dead and wounded, 109,000 Japanese dead), no fire bombing of Japanese cities by B-29 bombers (it is estimated that the dropping of 1,700 tons of incendiary explosives on Japanese cities during March 9th-10th alone killed over 80,000 civilians and destroyed 260,000 buildings), and no use of the atomic bomb,” writes my friend and colleague John F. McManus...
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/search?q=mcmanus
Shouldn't he have asked McManus directly for either a clarification or a correction before posting to the Lew Rockwell Blog on Nov. 21, 2009?
He doesn't appear to ask if a correction is in order until Nov. 29, 2009.
However, if John F. McManus and the JBS scrubbed the question and answer from their New American in-print publication and website and McManus did indeed respond in the way The Hill report shows, there will be no satisfactory explanation.
If McManus and the JBS clarify that is McManus' answer to the Hill Big Question, we believe the organization will lose its longstanding credibility.
If the scrubbing occurred that is nothing short of hiding the truth and lying for one's own benefit.
The response by what have always appeared to be principled John Birch Society members (finding out the President of the John Birch Society lied by not including the question and answer in the Nov. 20, 2009 piece) would be disastrous for the John Birch Society, not only because of the times we live in, but for future times.
Net the Truth Online
John F. McManus Answers the The "Big Questions" PDF | Print | E-mail
Written by John F. McManus
Friday, 20 November 2009 13:00
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq
Will Grigg said:
Here's the REALLY "Big Question" --
Why did Jack McManus, contradicting the previous JBS position, embrace the neo-con position on "terror tribunals"? --
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/043366.html
Is this one of those "ride-the-wave" decisions? Is Jack hanging ten on a Red State Fascist wave?
November 21, 2009
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq
zman said:
Huh?
I see Will Grigg gets a low rating for asking a legitimate question of Mr. McManus. Perhaps Birchers are no more interested in the truth or asking tough questions than those with more "mainstream" views.
Why did The New American publish a contradictory article (on the issue of trying terrorists in public courts) by Becky Akers on the same day as this article was published?
November 23, 2009
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/948-becky-akers/2367-trying-terrorists
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq
fleck said:
I would like clarification. Ne disrespect intended.
John F. McManus, president of The John Birch Society, said:
"The decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court opens up the likelihood that the defendant's right to what is called "discovery" will require providing the defense team with intelligence that will surely make its way back to terrorist allies. These trials should be held in military courts where no such rights exist. Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?), not the acts of ordinary criminals. The civilian trial of Omar Abdel Rahman after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center led to supplying sensitive information to the defense team, and it ended up in the hands of other terrorists. The lesson should have been learned. There's far more at stake here than political posturing."
I say:
I certainly understand the problem with a civilian court procedure. I am not a big fan of military courts either. Can somebody clarify?
What exactly is the JBS position on this?
November 23, 2009
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq
Will Grigg said:
On the subject of needed "clarifications"....
This line from McManus' statement desperately needs one: "Their crimes were acts of war (didn't we go to war as a result?)...."
Is it now the official JBS position that the Constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war is a dead letter? It must be, if that statement is to make any kind of sense. Otherwise, with no declaration of war, and the courts in full operation, there is no legal rationale whatsoever for trying those accused criminals before military tribunals, per the controlling precedent, Ex Parte Milligan (1866) -- see http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1865/1865_0
November 24, 2009
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq
Mr. Grigg said:
Correction, Please!
It's been more than a week since Mr. McManus endorsed the unconstitutional use of military tribunals and effectively repudiated the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war. Is this now the official JBS position, given that McManus is the official spokesman and arbiter of JBS ideology? Is the JBS going to retract or correct his statement? Or, in keeping with past performance, will JBS upper management do nothing in the hope that this embarrassment will simply go away -- and then praise itself for displaying "leadership"?
November 29, 2009
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5668-john-f-mcmanus-answers-the-the-qbig-questionsq
No comments:
Post a Comment