Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Hi you're watching Defcon three and I'm KT Mack brown and joining me is former attorney general -- -- is your friend of the show.
Can comment on everything from legal issues emigration and take get knowledge of terrorists -- -- -- -- ballpark grant -- nice yeah.
Then obviously offended close to -- -- -- clearly different about us husband.
-- -- what scarcer and the attorney general was a law school college of my husband's a long time account.
But not that -- talent they have they were great study partners anyway amateur attorney general.
I want to ask you about the president's announcement yesterday about the -- Parents can keep gitmo plan and they're going to use civilian.
They're not going to use civilian person and -- -- the military tribunals -- through the whole issue because you were very were attorney general Bush Administration prior -- that you're the federal district.
Judge who heard the first terrorist case.
Ten years ago fifteen years ago.
He we have a military commissions act right initially after 9/11 President Bush announced that he was gonna try.
People in front of a military commission.
Which he would established by executive order that's been done before on FDR did it.
During world war two and he did he established a military commission by executive order and got its weapons -- what's -- -- you can't do that.
By executive order we're gonna need an act of congress -- him and congress.
-- the military commissions act -- military commission system was put in place.
And of course there was litigation is there is over everything.
And in in in this war and -- -- I think the most lawyers war in our history.
And by the time it got up to -- the Supreme Court and even though they were ready to go ahead with -- Military commissions.
Cut KSM was ready to plead guilty how -- Sheikh Mohamed -- hours later the mastermind of -- elect.
Among other things is also the man who himself they hated Daniel Pearl.
On was -- to plead guilty in front of the tribunal at Guantanamo.
President Obama was in office and he immediately.
Suspended military commissions and -- was gonna close Guantanamo -- -- -- And that's where it stood.
Until recently when he the initially the attorney general announced that he was gonna bring.
College Sheikh Mohamed and others to the United States to be tried before a civilian court.
Just try to correct that you presided ever worked a perfect -- correct.
Through that drew the line and said that they weren't gonna appropriate money.
There was an upheaval in New York.
Opposing it right and security real security reasons all kinds of his would have shut down.
An hour and a -- lower Manhattan for years.
I would also draw on an even bigger target on New York in the -- was there awarded him and that's where things stood.
The president kept saying over -- attorney general kept announcing his preference for.
Civilian trials in fact he testified as recently as couple weeks ago.
Less than two weeks I think that Guantanamo was -- recruiting tool for al-Qaeda we've heard that over and over again.
And then of course -- yesterday yeah came the announcement that military commissions were gonna continue it at Guantanamo.
He did not say he's gonna put Khalid Sheikh Mohamed in front of -- that's.
No less so -- there where Khalid Sheikh Mohamed -- -- -- -- -- -- comes to lower Manhattan.
It puts up in the -- -- -- to military tribunal I don't think he ever comes to lower Manhattan because of all the Ritz security director.
Correct and that the city and he the president also announced that he was open to the idea of indefinite detention.
Get -- accident -- I thought that one of the campaign.
Seems -- how terrible this was that we were having an indefinite detention of people either trial for crimes for -- -- from -- list isn't.
He said that we'll move -- have periodic reviews of each detainee will push we have that.
Before there -- periodic reviews under the bush administration for every detainee.
And the notwithstanding that he announced this as an innovation and announce that he is willing to suffer.
This isn't everything everywhere the president's announced as a good thing right.
From the point of view as a jurist.
It's part of a good thing right.
I think a better thing would be to concede that.
Civilian courts are not well adapted to trying these kinds of cases particularly when people have been apprehended overseas.
And the evidence hasn't been gathered in a way that's consistent with presenting at the civilian court and it's also.
To put people like that and a civilian court undermines literally hundreds of years of the development of rules of war in which when people.
Carry their arms openly follow recognized chain of command Wear uniforms and don't target civilians have been.
They get treated a particular way I think it detained until the end of hostilities.
And it is a mistake I think to go to them and say if you violate all -- those rules we've got a better deal for you get a trial in front of the civilian court.
With a court appointed lawyer and the opportunity to use it as a platform.
So so let me go back if a terrorist whether -- the Times Square bomber whether -- underwear bomber whether somebody is picked up in the hills of Afghanistan.
Is that enemy combatant -- because he doesn't Wear uniform doesn't carry a military ideas you have -- who wasn't -- what's the -- If somebody.
War the Taliban.
It is perfectly proper under applicable -- to treat that person as an enemy combatant.
On this administration's already announced that when we capture people here they much prefer to put them civilian courts regardless where you put the -- don't.
The fact is they should be treated initially as intelligence assets.
Right right information and everything everything you have been in this what you -- really good point I think at that.
A year ago Brees said they're two tracks that if you get somebody -- underwear bomber there's the track that prosecutes him.
There's a second track which looks at him as an intelligence asset.
And that what we want to make sure we do is get as much information as we can from him before he goes -- that track.
I think that second tranquility the first right.
We ought to be initially looking at every one of these people as an intelligence -- But.
I think that in in in fact when you look at that with a record military commissions it hasn't been great.
Tom I think the military isn't really well suited to do this and think there so there are -- water turn out well suited to military tribunal's authority you know.
You have congress pull up its collective socks and I create -- the court for national security cases and for terrorism cases.
They can do that so that's not what the military tribunals now it is at the 2000 and it is not very it isn't a -- that you need.
A legislation that would create this whole new court to deal with this -- and I understand we have we have special purpose courts but have bankruptcy court posture we have tax court right we have.
A Court of Appeals that hears patent cases.
So it's not as if this is unheard of congress wanted to do what they could do it.
Okay although want what's lacking is the will.
Filter by section