Trying Ahmed Abu Khatalla: A military tribunal is the only appropriate venue
First, all due kudos to those responsible for the capture, albeit tardily, of the terrorist thug suspected of directing the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Thanks to the intrepid work of Delta Force commandos and the FBI, a very bad actor is in American custody. The days of Ahmed Abu Khatalla sipping tea at his mother's house, entertaining the inquiries of Western journalists and publicly mocking the United States appear to be over. Or, when it comes to the latter, maybe not.
What's far from over is the debate about what Mr. Abu Khatalla is. Is he a civilian criminal who, as the Obama administration once again is planning, should be tried in our civilian criminal justice system and, in the process, handed a valuable propaganda tool? Or is he an enemy combatant, as more than a few veteran prosecutors contend, and a transnational terrorist, as others more adroitly characterize him, who should be tried by a military tribunal?
By definition, Abu Khatalla is the latter. As Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the former prosecutor leading a House committee's investigation into the Benghazi attack, succinctly put it, “A non-U.S. citizen who committed a crime outside of the United States in what can only be defined as an act of terror tantamount more to a war than a criminal code violation puts me in the camp of arguing for a noncivilian court trial.”
The venue question should be moot. That it isn't not only suggests that the Obama administration seeks its own propaganda pedestal but that it continues to fail to understand the true nature of the war Islamofascists are waging.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- VA ‘priorities’
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Same old Cuba
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- ‘Diversity’ or discrimination?: A step back
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes