Does the Obama administration ever get tired of getting things wrong? As their public support drains from the health-care overhaul they’ve pushed for the last several months, they have managed to find another way to marginalize themselves with the American public. By overwhelming numbers in the latest Gallup survey, Americans disapprove of the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a federal court — and can barely get a majority of Democrats to support it:
By 59% to 36%, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, rather than in a civilian criminal court. Most Republicans and independents favor holding the trial in a military court, while the slight majority of Democrats disagree.
These findings come from a Nov. 20-22 USA Today/Gallup poll conducted a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Mohammed’s case would move from a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, where the admitted terrorist was originally charged, to a federal court in New York City.
As with most Gallup surveys, this poll was taken among adults, not registered or likely voters. That type of sample usually produces numbers that are more sympathetic to liberal policy positions but are less predictive in election forecasting. This suggests that the decision may be even less popular in the more predictive sampling of registered or likely voters.
The partisan breakdown is significant, too. Republicans oppose the decision 74/22, as might be expected. Independents, though, also oppose it by almost 2-1, 63/32. Democrats support it — but only by eight points, 51/43. Support for a federal court trial is a fringe position among everyone but Democrats.
And then, there's this:
6 comments:
What difference does it make? Military, federal, either way his guilt is so clear there is only one possible outcome: Guilty, followed by either life imprisonment or execution.
What difference does it make?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4
Pastorius,
It may not matter what the people want unfortunately in this case. The Obama administration seems to have already decided to try this in a civilian court.
Yep.
From what I can understand, the issue of military or federal court is just the consequence of a rather larger debate: Should organised terrorist attacks be considered as a simple criminal action or a military attack on the US?
The legal fate of this specific individual is important only as a symbol by which one side or another may declare a victory.
I don't know the law where you live, but here in the USA each case is considered a "Precedent", and can then be cited by lawyers at future trials as reason the government should give further leniency to further terrorist activity.
That's why Lindsay Graham was telling Holder we're making bad law here ...
Post a Comment