Warrior-Mentor
11-20-2009, 05:28
Consider this a "dueling op-ed" to counter Krauthammer's Travesty in New York.
Robinson's ignorance and hypocrisy warrants commentary...
November 20, 2009
Battlefield in the War of Ideas
By Eugene Robinson
WASHINGTON -- Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and four other accused terrorists to New York for trial can't seriously believe the city will have trouble handling the expected "Trial of the Century" hoopla. The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury -- sitting just blocks from Ground Zero -- will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.
Everyone knows that the bloodthirsty blowhard -- whom officials often refer to by his initials, KSM -- is never going to see the light of day.
[COMMENT: So where's the justice in a trial where the outcome is pre-determined? This reinforces the argument that this is a show trial.]
The uproar is really about the word "war." Outrage is being voiced by those who worry that Holder and President Obama are abandoning the Bush-era doctrine of a "war on terrorism" that must at all times be conducted by military means.
[COMMENT: It is a war. Even if you foolishly refuse to acknowledge it.]
Those critics are wrong. The problem is that we can vanquish al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups without defeating the larger enemy: a militant, fundamentalist perversion of Islam.
[COMMENT: It's not a perversion of islam. It is islam. Read the koran, the hadith and the sira. Read the islamic jurisprudence. Read the words of the islamic leadership.]
We can and should go after Osama bin Laden and his collaborators with relentless determination and, yes, that fight should be led by our armed forces. But to achieve a meaningful victory, we also have to win the war of ideas -- and in that philosophical and theological struggle, the concept of justice is a key battlefield.
It's amazing that so many people who insist on the "war on terrorism" framework apparently have such little interest in understanding the enemy, which seems to me the only way to find the enemy's vulnerabilities. The jihadist narrative is largely about justice, or rather what radical imams and their followers perceive as injustice.
In the enemy's version of history, the West -- meaning the United States, Israel, Britain and what used to be called Christendom -- has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world. We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist "warriors" might commit against us.
Protesting that all this is absurd and obscene does not make it go away. And our troops' military success actually helps to further the jihadist narrative about a "crusade" against Islam.
[COMMENT: It is absurd. Our troops successes reinforce that we are right. You see, in their warped view, allah doesn't lose wars. If they are losing, it's because they are not doing the will of allah. We need to kick their ass from here to hell to show them that they aren't doing allah's work. That they are cannon fodder for an empty ideology invented by a pedophile.
It's ironic that many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give KSM a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism.
[COMMENT: There's no irony there. These are the people who understand the threat.]
If the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist -- and not just a deranged man who snapped -- then his awful rampage helps demonstrate the point I'm making. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line. If killing a terrorist in Kandahar creates one in Killeen, we'll never make progress.
[COMMENT: You couldn't be more wrong. You seem to subscribe to the warped French military philosophy that the best way to defeat an enemy is to surrender to them.]
In this context, putting KSM and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but an opportunity. It's a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach.
[COMMENT: We don't have another system of justice for Muslims. We have another system of justice for war criminals - for terrorists. And as Holder showed this week, we still have two systems of justice. But he's perverted the two into a bizzaro world - where war criminals get the rights of our citizens for killing civilians. What warped sense of justice is that?]
Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair -- and a military court might be even more offended by the fact that KSM was subjected to waterboarding -- a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the "war on Islam."
COMMENT: Boo hoo. Maybe they'll stop attacking us after we win this war.]
Holder's choice is not without risk. The biggest question I have is whether an impartial jury could be impaneled in New York. And while I believe the chance of an acquittal is incredibly remote, if it [an acquittal] happened, KSM would be kept in indefinite detention anyway -- a nightmare scenario.
[COMMENT: Ding-Ding-Ding. We have a winner! The light finally seems to come on. Remind me again, why didn't we let him plead guilty?]
But there's one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we're not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven't changed us or our ideals -- and that they never will.
I say bring it on.
[COMMENT: Brave words from someone who's not sworn an oath to "protect and defend" our Constitution.]
Write him at:
eugenerobinson@washpost.com
Robinson's ignorance and hypocrisy warrants commentary...
November 20, 2009
Battlefield in the War of Ideas
By Eugene Robinson
WASHINGTON -- Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and four other accused terrorists to New York for trial can't seriously believe the city will have trouble handling the expected "Trial of the Century" hoopla. The critics can't really think a judge is going to give Khalid Sheik Mohammed an open microphone to spew his jihadist views, or fear that a jury -- sitting just blocks from Ground Zero -- will look for reasons to let an accused mass murderer off on some technicality.
Everyone knows that the bloodthirsty blowhard -- whom officials often refer to by his initials, KSM -- is never going to see the light of day.
[COMMENT: So where's the justice in a trial where the outcome is pre-determined? This reinforces the argument that this is a show trial.]
The uproar is really about the word "war." Outrage is being voiced by those who worry that Holder and President Obama are abandoning the Bush-era doctrine of a "war on terrorism" that must at all times be conducted by military means.
[COMMENT: It is a war. Even if you foolishly refuse to acknowledge it.]
Those critics are wrong. The problem is that we can vanquish al-Qaeda and its affiliated groups without defeating the larger enemy: a militant, fundamentalist perversion of Islam.
[COMMENT: It's not a perversion of islam. It is islam. Read the koran, the hadith and the sira. Read the islamic jurisprudence. Read the words of the islamic leadership.]
We can and should go after Osama bin Laden and his collaborators with relentless determination and, yes, that fight should be led by our armed forces. But to achieve a meaningful victory, we also have to win the war of ideas -- and in that philosophical and theological struggle, the concept of justice is a key battlefield.
It's amazing that so many people who insist on the "war on terrorism" framework apparently have such little interest in understanding the enemy, which seems to me the only way to find the enemy's vulnerabilities. The jihadist narrative is largely about justice, or rather what radical imams and their followers perceive as injustice.
In the enemy's version of history, the West -- meaning the United States, Israel, Britain and what used to be called Christendom -- has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world. We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist "warriors" might commit against us.
Protesting that all this is absurd and obscene does not make it go away. And our troops' military success actually helps to further the jihadist narrative about a "crusade" against Islam.
[COMMENT: It is absurd. Our troops successes reinforce that we are right. You see, in their warped view, allah doesn't lose wars. If they are losing, it's because they are not doing the will of allah. We need to kick their ass from here to hell to show them that they aren't doing allah's work. That they are cannon fodder for an empty ideology invented by a pedophile.
It's ironic that many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give KSM a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism.
[COMMENT: There's no irony there. These are the people who understand the threat.]
If the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist -- and not just a deranged man who snapped -- then his awful rampage helps demonstrate the point I'm making. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line. If killing a terrorist in Kandahar creates one in Killeen, we'll never make progress.
[COMMENT: You couldn't be more wrong. You seem to subscribe to the warped French military philosophy that the best way to defeat an enemy is to surrender to them.]
In this context, putting KSM and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but an opportunity. It's a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel -- that we really do practice what we preach.
[COMMENT: We don't have another system of justice for Muslims. We have another system of justice for war criminals - for terrorists. And as Holder showed this week, we still have two systems of justice. But he's perverted the two into a bizzaro world - where war criminals get the rights of our citizens for killing civilians. What warped sense of justice is that?]
Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair -- and a military court might be even more offended by the fact that KSM was subjected to waterboarding -- a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the "war on Islam."
COMMENT: Boo hoo. Maybe they'll stop attacking us after we win this war.]
Holder's choice is not without risk. The biggest question I have is whether an impartial jury could be impaneled in New York. And while I believe the chance of an acquittal is incredibly remote, if it [an acquittal] happened, KSM would be kept in indefinite detention anyway -- a nightmare scenario.
[COMMENT: Ding-Ding-Ding. We have a winner! The light finally seems to come on. Remind me again, why didn't we let him plead guilty?]
But there's one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we're not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven't changed us or our ideals -- and that they never will.
I say bring it on.
[COMMENT: Brave words from someone who's not sworn an oath to "protect and defend" our Constitution.]
Write him at:
eugenerobinson@washpost.com