Thom Hartmann: Why don’t the frightened wing of the Conservative and neo-Conservative movements think the US Constitution is strong enough to protect Americans from the 9/11 criminals? And what do they think of the brave wing of Conservatives who have issued a statement asking the frightened wing to back off? In our second segment our old friend former Congressman Bob Barr will be here to explain why he's not afraid of the terrorists and he believes in American criminal justice and our court system.

But first, here’s Frank Holton, who works with Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy, did I say Chris? Chris Holton, I’m sorry, who works with Frank Gaffney. And Chris, if I get this right, you’re afraid of terrorists being brought to New York City, welcome to the show by the way. centerforsecuritypolicy.org if people want to learn all about the work that you’re doing. Chris?

Chris Holton: Yes.

Thom Hartmann: Hey.

Chris Holton: Good morning.

Thom Hartmann: Good morning.

Chris Holton: How are you today?

Thom Hartmann: I am very well, thank you, and I hope you are too. Why are you afraid of terrorists being brought to New York for trial after we’ve had well over three hundred terrorists brought to trial in the United States, and the vast majority of them are rotting in American jails right now?

Chris Holton: It’s not a matter of fear, Thom. It’s a matter of why should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be entitled to the constitutional rights of a US citizen. That’s the objection.

Thom Hartmann: Well, excuse me. Are you… I’m a little baffled here. The Constitution does not say citizen. The Constitution says person, and whether a person is a citizen or not, they have constitutional rights, in the United States. Were you unaware of that?

Chris Holton: Yes. But, he hasn’t been in the United States, Thom. That’s the whole point.

Thom Hartmann: Well, we’re claiming that Guantanamo is US territory, and I mean, granted it’s not one of the fifty states, but when he’s brought to New York, he will have constitutional rights, and he doesn’t have to be a citizen to have them. And this has been true of all the other terrorists. I mean, when prosecuted, what was his name, Moussaoui, the twentieth hijacker, you know, he wasn’t a citizen. He was given constitutional rights, he was prosecuted, the guy is sitting, you know, underground in a solitary confinement for the rest of his life, right now. What’s the big deal?

Chris Holton: Well sir, actually you’re wrong. Not all of the terrorists, the al Qaeda terrorists are being brought to this country to stand trial in Federal court.

Thom Hartmann: I know there’s a few that are going to be, who are going to be coming before military commissions. You’re right.

Chris Holton: Right, so it is not true that all of these terrorists are being brought to the United States to stand trial in Federal Court. Many of them are being tried in military tribunals for a variety of offences,and…

Thom Hartmann: But those are not the ones who planned and executed 9/11. Those are ones who are being charged with crimes that, you know, happened in Iraq, happened in Afghanistan, other parts of the world. USS Cole, for example. In this case, this was a crime that was committed in New York City, and…..

Chris Holton: Actually you’re wrong about that, because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was indicted before 9/11 for his role in the USS Cole attack.

Thom Hartmann: But wouldn’t it be better to prosecute him for the really big crime he committed?

Chris Holton: Well, it’s murder, either way, I suppose, so I don’t know that he can be tried for 9/11 before he should be tried for the crime that he committed in 2000.

Thom Hartmann: Well, there is no particular order. If you’ve got multiple crimes, you’re not going to run into double jeopardy problems.

Chris Holton: No, but I think you should be tried in a military tribunal with his fellow terrorists, for his role in the USS Cole attack.

Thom Hartmann: Do you realize that military tribunals, which are typically used to charge members of armies, or members of our own army, actually, is the most frequent use of military tribunals, that there have only been three successful prosecutions of anything even remotely close to this before military tribunals, (a), and (b) the appeals process which is available to somebody who has been prosecuted under a military tribunal, which goes all the way to the Supreme Court, is almost twice as lengthy, expensive and likely to produce an overturn, than the criminal court system which has been in use since George Washington’s day, is well understood, has been tried out over and over again, and has convicted and in many cases put to death, terrorists here in the United States?

Chris Holton: I am not concerned about the possibility of overturning a verdict as much as I am concerned about the possibility of the revealing of vital intelligence information as a result of a trial in Federal court, which would not be the case in a military tribunal.

Thom Hartmann: What intelligence information are you afraid of being revealed?

Chris Holton: Well, I mean, a variety of information could be revealed. I mean, if I’m a defense attorney revealing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, I absolutely will demand to know, you know, where the information about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed came from, who it came from, and a whole variety of…

Thom Hartmann: Of course you would, but you’re suggesting that our Federal prosecutors and the Federal government is so stupid that they’ll say, “Oh yes, sure, here you go.” I have more confidence, I’m sorry, in our Federal prosecutors. I think they know how to take names and kick ass.

Chris Holton: Well, I mean, what do we do if the case against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed comes to a point where the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, and what if we get to a situation where the defense attorney says he was never mirandized?

Thom Hartmann: Well, actually, he was mirandized, number one, and number two...

Chris Holton: How long was he held before he was mirandized, Thom?

Thom Hartmann: Well, that’s a good question, and I’m sure that it will be answered. But the point is that our Federal prosecutors, our Justice Department, you know, the one hundred percent profit, profit is the wrong word, benefit, political benefit, in this whole thing, to the Obama administration, and to the Justice Department, is to get a conviction for these guys. And so it seems to me that what’s going on is that they’re shopping jurisdictions; that they're saying, 'you know, we have a higher probability of getting a conviction, we have a higher probability of that conviction not being overturned, if we do this in Federal court, and the victims of 9/11 are going to get closure, just like the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing did, when Tim McVeigh was put to death'. And this all seems like a good thing. I don’t understand why you wouldn’t be saying, as many of your conservative colleagues are, Bob Barr, and Grover Norquist, my god, of all people, saying, you know, we trust the American criminal justice system, it works quite well, thank you very much.

Chris Holton: Well, I’m not as interested in the political benefit from this as I am in seeing to it that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed never sees a lot of daylight.

Thom Hartmann: What I’m wondering is, if your objection is entirely about political benefit because if the primary political benefit to the current Democratic administration is having a successful prosecution, is that your motivation for trying to blow up their ability to have that trial?

Chris Holton: Absolutely not. I mean, I won’t even dignify that accusation with an answer. That’s the fact. I’m sorry. This is a case where…

Thom Hartmann: Then I don’t understand your objection.

Chris Holton: Atrocities in war against the United States…

Thom Hartmann: What nation declared war against the United States?

[cross talk]

Chris Holton: The United States and given civil rights that they are not entitled to, and aside, you were the one who brought up political benefit, Thom.

Thom Hartmann: I did.

Chris Holton: I didn't bring up any political benefit.

Thom Hartmann: You’re right. You’re right.

Chris Holton: You seem to be...

Thom Hartmann: What nation declared war against us?

Chris Holton: Let me ask you a question, Thom. Do we treat al Qaeda as a criminal organization,

Thom Hartmann: Yes.

Chris Holton: Ok. If al Qaeda is treated as a criminal organization, how can we carry out air strikes against them without any type of warrant or… Can you carry out an air strike against the Mafia? Can you carry out air strikes against any other organized crime entity in the world? You know of any organization in the world that the United States that would carry out air strikes against?

Thom Hartmann: You know, Chris, you’ve raised a really, really good question and it may be an area where we have an agreement on this, because I don’t think that we should be carrying out air strikes against al Qaeda. I think that we should be having the actual legal governments in the countries where they’re operating doing police actions against these people and arresting them.

Chris Holton: There it is right there then.

Thom Hartmann: Yeah it is, it really is.

Chris Holton: I know where you're coming from, now.

Thom Hartmann: centerforsecuritypolicy.org is the web site. Chris Holton is the guy. Thank you Chris.

Transcribed by Gerard Aukstiejus.