About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Scarborough falsely claimed trials of foreign terror suspects through U.S. judiciary are "unprecedented"

November 16, 2009 8:04 am ET — 16 Comments

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that it is "unprecedented" to try foreign terror suspects through the United States' judicial system, stating, "It's unprecedented to afford constitutional rights to, basically, prisoners of war." In fact, during the Bush and Clinton administrations numerous foreign terrorists have been tried and imprisoned by our federal system, including 9-11 conspirator Zacarious Moussaoui and 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Scarborough suggested trials of foreign terror suspects in federal justice system are "unprecedented"

From the November 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: Giuliani called it ideology run wild. You had ideology, a lot of Democrats would say, on the right for eight years under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney where these people were thrown in prisons and they didn't get lawyers and of course we've debated that debate.

It seems to me Eric Holder and Barack Obama come into office and Democrats take over and we go all the way to the other side doing something unprecedented. And Mark Halperin, you had Pat Leahy - and I must say I am completely flummoxed as to why the chairman of the Judiciary Committee would compare Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to Timothy McVeigh. Timothy McVeigh, born in the United States of America, a citizen of the United States of America, afforded all the constitutional protections that are afforded to those who are citizens of the United States of America. And he and people like him have been afforded those constitutional protections for over 200 years. People that blow up Americans - kill them - this has never happened before. It's unprecedented to afford constitutional rights to, basically, prisoners of war.

Fact: Clinton and Bush administrations tried and imprisoned foreign terror suspects in our federal system

Bush administration used federal justice system to bring several foreign terrorism suspects to justice. During the George W. Bush administration, several foreign terrorists were brought to justice through the federal justice system, including 9-11 conspirator Zacarious Moussaoui, "Shoe bomber" Richard Reid and East African embassy bombing perpetrators Wahid el-Hage, Mohammed Sadiq Odeh, Mohammed Rashed al-Owhali, and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed.

Clinton administration also used federal justice system to bring foreign terror suspects to justice. During the Clinton administration, 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and "urban terrorism" plotters Sheik Oma Abdel Rahman and others were brought to justice through the federal justice system.

There are already 216 international terrorists in U.S. prisons. A May 29 Slate.com article reported that according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, "federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped. At the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Diosnomeama (November 16, 2009 8:45 am ET)
        1
      This is happening because for both sides, party loyalty is more important than doing the right thing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Cannonball (November 16, 2009 9:18 am ET)
      2 9
      I have to take this opportunity to bash Obama. The trials in NY target only the cases the administration thinks it can win. They deny such basic fair trial rights to the rest of the GB prisoners by opting to either try them in military trials, with limited civil rights or no trials with continued indefinite detention. This is cherry picking for show trials and is dishonest, unfair and a slippery-slope to further deterioration of all of our constitutional rights. Obama is failing his promise to close the Bay and try the prisoners in U.S. courts.

      I fear terrorism when I travel overseas where U.S. intelligence is less effective, although they have done a great job. I have no fear on U.S. soil, just like I do not fear mass murderers appearing before me to kill indiscriminately. It's not that neither of these things may happen to me, it's that I am not going to let that remote possibility chnage my life. All of America should feel the same way. We must protect our civil rights and those of our criminals, lest we be charged as criminals and denied a defense. We chose to arrest supposed civilian terrorists and move them to U.S. soil. If we didn't want to extend to them internationally supported rights, we should have shot them dead on foriegn soil. After all, such mindless killing seems to be business as usual based on the level of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Obama has broken most of the anti-war promises that caused me to vote for him over Hillary Clinton. I thought she was too hawkish. But now, Obama is the new Bush (or should I day Cheney). Who will I vote for next time? Where are the true Americans that are willing to take office and steer us back on track even if it means losing the next election?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by pongotwistleton (November 16, 2009 1:19 pm ET)
        2 2
        The trials in NY target only the cases the administration thinks it can win. They deny such basic fair trial rights to the rest of the GB prisoners by opting to either try them in military trials, with limited civil rights or no trials with continued indefinite detention. This is cherry picking for show trials and is dishonest, unfair and a slippery-slope to further deterioration of all of our constitutional rights.

        That's a solid point. Although I whole-heartedly agree with your latter statement that most of those now in Guantanemo should have been shot dead on sight, long ago, I don't see how the administration can grant some detainees the protections afforded by our criminal justice system, but then withhold those same protections from other detainees. You're correct, they are cherry-picking here. Had there been any question in Holder's mind whether he could obtain a conviction of KSM, there's no way he'd be tried in NY.

        So now an islamic slug whose guilt will easily be established by the evidence is given an open trial, while the other illiterate pedophile prophet worshippers, whose guilt would be more difficult to establish in accordance with the rules of evidence, will be denied that right. Let's see if the lemming progressives give a hue and cry over this hypocrisy.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by newzhound (November 16, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
          1  
          AP 11/16/2009: Federal judges find 30 Guantanamo Bay detainees are granted their release because the government can't prove its case against them.

          Is that why you want taxi drivers and other innocents shot on sight? Because the government has no evidence they've done anything wrong?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Cannonball (November 16, 2009 1:47 pm ET)
            1 1
            You missed my larger point. But to address your narrow objection, these people were called "enemy combatants". If so, they could have been killed by out troops as part of the warfare. However, they were scooped up and sent for interrogation (and many times, torture) to get information. This is a clear violation of world law and our own laws. So the category was redefined as a civilian type arrest to avoid application of the Geneva Convention. See my point? Also, don't you think alot of civilians have been summarily killed for their anti-American activities in these countries? In some countries, simply killing a civilian during a war is murder. But not here, it is assasination of a terrorist. How can these people be terrorists defending their own country from foriegn invasion? Obviously, they are really just citizen who want us, the invaders, to leave.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (November 16, 2009 5:23 pm ET)
             

          Won’t be as easy as you think, If he is afforded all the rights of an American citizen then all of the interrogations will be inadmissible since he was not read his rights and he did not have a attorney. If all the evidence against him is held to our civilian standards of evidence collection then a lot of it may as well be inadmissible. This is why his trail should be by a military tribunal not civilian courts. Wonder if he will get a bail hearing?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (November 16, 2009 9:33 am ET)
      5  
      It just seems as if these Republicans are becoming more and more 'Defense Attorneys' for these Terrorists, huh? No Republican yet have stood tall and stated why we Americans can give justice to ANY person foreign or domestic in our American Courts, why? Hmmm, maybe MSM needs to focus on these questions, instead of giving these Republicans the stage in mounting the "defense" for these Terrorists when they do come to NY. Just saying, LOL.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 16, 2009 10:44 am ET)
      1 1
      I don't think it really matters on the main points of whether you agree with this trial situation or not, but:

      Isn't there a difference between KSM and Moussaoui/Yousef, in that the latter two were captured on US domestic soil and were at least at one time legally here, vs KSM who was captured on foreign soil during a military operation?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (November 16, 2009 5:26 pm ET)
          2
        Of course it make all the difference in the world but MMFA isn’t going to mention that. It’s a simple fact that the US has never before tried foreign fighters captured on foreign soil in us civil courts. MMFA can spin it all they want its not going to change that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (November 17, 2009 8:19 am ET)
             
          Uhm, Ramzi Yousef was not captured on "US domestic soil" He was captured in Pakistan in 1995. So MMFA is not "spinning it all they want," they are reporting facts.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Why_Not_Me (November 17, 2009 9:48 am ET)
             
          Scarborough just apologized. Will you?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by highliter (November 17, 2009 1:03 pm ET)
               
            As soon as you can find me the names of foreign fighters captured on foreign soil during a war that were tried in US civil courts.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (November 16, 2009 11:26 am ET)
         
      Do you actually expect Joe Scarborough to know what he's talking about?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (November 16, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        1
      The right wing gasbags claim trying terrorists in this country will make us less safe.

      Following the American Civil War, the United States tried a number of former Confederate officers in courts martial without restarting that War.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (November 16, 2009 5:15 pm ET)
           
        Court martial’s are military trials dumb ass. Not civilian court trials.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wunderhof (November 17, 2009 2:56 am ET)
         
      The cited criminals were captured in the US and there were no other options unless you do what FDR did in WWII with the German saboteurs and have them tried before a military commission, as the other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.