Family members of people killed on September 11, 2001, and in other terror attacks say they are outraged by President Obama's draft order calling for the suspension of war crimes trials of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.
"To me it's beyond comprehension that they would take the side of the terrorists," said Peter Gadiel, whose son, James, was killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. "Many of these people have been released and been right back killing, right back at their terrorist work again."
Obama's request on the first full day of his presidency came as a draft order was being prepared ordering the closing of the Guantanamo prison within a year. A judge responded by halting the case against a Canadian detainee accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan, issuing a 120-day continuance in the case.
Click here for photos.
"I see no reason why we should delay these proceedings. Let justice be served," said Jefferson Crowther, whose 24-year-old son, Welles, was killed in the Twin Towers after he saved the lives of several others.
Critics blasted Obama's decision, which they said would delay justice in cases that have already been waiting for the better part of a decade.
"There is no need to suspend [the military tribunals]. There is no reason why [Obama] can't conduct a concurrent review at the same time that the military commission process is moving forward to render justice for the terrorists that have murdered thousands of people," said former Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who lost 17 sailors during a suicide bombing attack on the USS Cole in 2000. A suspect in the case is being held at Guantanamo.
"It demeans their deaths because we seem to be more concerned with the rights of detainees than we are with the justice that is being denied to my sailors that were killed," Lippold told FOXNews.com.
Obama's request may mark the end of the system used by the Bush administration to try terror suspects. War crimes charges against 21 men are pending at Guantanamo, though the detainees may have to be moved to America or extradited, depending on the administration's plans for them.
The Obama administration is calling for a systematic review of each detainee's case to determine who can be released and who cannot. "It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how such individuals can and should be prosecuted," says the draft order released on Wednesday.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said he would take the detainees in his own district, which lies just a few miles from the field near Shanksville, Pa., where United Flight 93 crashed after it was hijacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, killing all 44 people aboard.
"Sure, I'd take them. They're no more dangerous in my district than in Guantanamo," Murtha said, calling the Guantanamo prison a "sore in the United States' moral standards."
"There's no reason not to put them in prisons in the United States and handle them the way they would handle any other prisoners."
But some 9/11 families said they were concerned that if the trials were moved to criminal courts in the U.S., the proceedings would put civilians at risk.
"The safest place to have these trials is Guantanamo Bay. If they were to move to the homeland it would endanger all of us," said Lorraine Arias Believeau of New Jersey, whose brother, Adam, was killed on 9/11.
But human rights groups welcomed the president's draft order, calling it an important first step for his administration.
"It is a major positive step in the right direction," said Jamil Dakwar, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who observed pretrial hearings at Guantanamo this week.
If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution.
Some of the accused terrorists, meanwhile, were impatient to have their trials proceed.
"We should continue so we don't go backward, we go forward," Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks told the judge in their case. He is among five detainees accused in the attacks who have asked to be given the death penalty, believing they will become martyrs if they are executed.
Lippold, who helped determine detainee policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as a strategic planner, said he feels he has a large investment "in making sure that these guys do not return to the fight, that they do not kill again."
He said moving the cases to civilian courts was primarily a political act and could make it difficult to proceed with cases without compromising vital intelligence sources and methods.
"The whole issue of detainees has become so politically charged that people forget that Americans lives are at stake," he told FOXNews.com.
Crowther, a volunteer fireman for decades, said he does not care where the trials take place, but he wants to see more action from his government.
"I'm constantly doing my part — I want my government to do its part for me. I want those people who participated in my son's death and the death of some 3,000 others, I want to see them punished, if found guilty, in a court of law," he said.
If the cases don't go to trial, Crowther said, "many, many families are going to be very upset."
Source: Fox News
Obama tries to persuade the Americans that he is against the terrorists by intending to send more troops to Afghanistan, while he abolishes the laws that P. Bush made to protect America. One has to admit that for 7.5 years after the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists failed to commit any attack on the US, that’s besides saying that they were on the verge of the complete destruction in Iraq. (That’s why the fighting slightly increased in Afghanistan, because many of the terrorists fled Iraq after being defeated.) Now Obama came to the rescue of the terrorists.
Has any of those who voted for Obama wondered why most of the Arabs (except for the Lebanese) voted for Obama? Why did the terrorists took breath when Obama won the elections? Why the communists voted for Obama? Is it by coincidence that the enemies of America and humanity allied with the Democrats and voted for Obama?
P. Bush gave the world and America a lot. He liberated Lebanon. This is one of the most beautiful aspects in the history of America. He fought the terrorists, the same as his antecedors fought nazism and fashism.
Being sympathetic with the terrorists does not mean he is a human, but either pro-terrorism, silly, or against America. I think the latter is the true. Just imagine Roosevelt was nice with the fascists and Nazists as Obama today is with the terrorists!
Simply speaking, I don’t trust Obama. Everything about him is mysterious. His religion, beliefs, goals, and deeds. If he were so honest, I don’t think he would have needed that much propaganda to deliver his beautiful goals, but he used brainwashing as all the Nazists and communists regimes do. He is simply a liar and anti-America.
One more thing I would like to say: Shame on the blacks. This is not a racist word of me, but because they are racists themselves. Almost all of the blacks voted for Obama, not out of a political belief, but simply because he is black. That is, the reason is racism, while they live in a country that protected them from racism, and while they claim they hate racism.
Michel Abi Raad (Lebanon)
Well, I disagree with the statement that blacks voted for Obama only because he is black… If you look in states controlled vastly by Republicans you’ll see that the districts where Democrats thrive are usually districts populated heavily by blacks. So they do tend to vote that way reguardless of color. However, I’m sure that the fact he is black lead more of them out of their homes than it would have had he been white. As matter of fact, I know this to be true simply by looking at the last three elections where whites were running in the election for both parties, and you’ll easily see that the numbers are dramatically differant when compared to this election. Do I feel thats a bad thing… Yes. The reason behind it is that the people who voted this time that didn’t last time (and were eligible during both elections) are comprised of people who really have no true love for their country, only for their race. I don’t recall seeing many blacks walk around with a Bill Clinton shirt on after that election, however they seem to fill the streets now. (no I don’t mean that in any manner other than exactly as I said it.) Instead of being proud of a race, lets put our differances aside, as so many of you (black and white, and whatever race you may be…) say you want to do, but seem to refuse to do. If you want to vote for a black man then do so because you feel he is good for the country, not for you. We, as Americans have fallen into the mentality of ‘vote for the man who fills my wallet the most.’ but we fail to see that the man who fills your wallet maybe cutting into your bank account to do it. For example, during the campaign, President Obama stated that he was intending on increasing taxes on several groups, e.g. Joe the Plumber, but a large portion of those groups were corporations. Corporations control factories where Average Joe works. These Corporations, instead of eating a tax hike, would be likely to cut jobs at the factories, for example eliminating a third shift crew putting Average Joe out of work, which in turn makes him unable to pay his bills mortgage, and effectively losing his house, which then give the bank another bad loan and thus increasing the banks debt. Which is incidentally the primary issue we’re having right now with our economy being in the state its in. So in stead of making it worse, lets make it better. A simple suggestion is lets take a page from F. Roosevelt. Increase in government controlled public works, an interstate revitialization program for example. Then lets look at something more permanent, like penalizing corporations for outsourcing. (Lets face it this kills two birds with one stone, we get to increase jobs in the US, and get people that speak more clearly and well defined english, not that I do or anything, being a southerner.) The penalty could be a “Tax” for every dollar spent to pay an employee not based in the U.S. This tax could go to funding an interstate revitalization program mentioned previously. Instead we have a president who will insist on giving more tax breaks to people who didn’t even work. This didn’t work once so why would it work now?