Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on Trial in NY?

[lindy]

Here's the charge sheet from Gitmo (remember the focus WAS on him being an enemy combatant) :

http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/ter...20808chrgs.pdf

Charges are attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft, terrorism, and providing material support for terrorism

Can't seem to Googlefu the civilian indictment of US v. KSM though but surely the charges will be significantly different.

I'm sure his defense will be sponsored by some wealthy Middle Eastern Islamic defense fund.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

I do not advocate basing important decisions on ass'umptions and benefit greatly from the broad base of knowledge and opinions of members here.

But FWIW, I doubt this arrangement would have been made without prior certainty that these five individuals would plead guilty.

There are a lot of islamic extremists who would love to go down in history as those who planned the execution of the September 11th attacks (or "National Service Day" as Obama has purposed we call it).

I don't think the idea of being killed by the Country of which they want to fall is much of a deterrent, rather the opposite.

(Paragraph deleted b/c my New York Federal Court info was wrong about the death penalty. )

Part of me hopes they get a #2 buckshot to the gut at 10 yards (that about right QP's?). More importantly though, I wonder if keeping them in a flat walled cell for the rest of their lives (w/o light, bedding or human contact), would strike a bigger blow to their extremist cause of insiting a "holy war". We could even put up some brail on the west side of the cell wall and give them a mat to kneel on, in keeping with the 1st Amendment.

Originally Posted by nmap

I cannot help wondering how far the rule of law can and should go.

This is exactly what the Federal / Military Officials were faced with in the wake 9/11 and there has certainly been a major impact. I wonder if this trial will somehow have a similar affect on the state level.

Originally Posted by lindy

As I understand it, the definitions of asymmetric warfare and terrorism differ merely by the respective points of view.

I believe AQ declared war on the U.S. via UBL's 1996 fatwa titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
....
KSM & Co are soldiers without uniforms and they should be treated as such. This is a military issue and not a civilian one.

Thank you for your service Lindy. The legal differences between Domestic Terrorism vs Foreign Terrorism are based on laws not points of view though. By the Legal definition 9/11 was an act of Domestic Terrorism.

AQ is a supra-national dissident group - not soldiers of a sovereign nation. This is an extremely important distinction because it is at the crux of determining authority of civilian law and Military law on the homeland. It obviously raises many difficult questions on targeting the countries who fund their activity.

I'm a bad global citizen b/c I care a great deal more on the measures that are taken on home soil than when deployed abroad. I think until you live it you should STFU before passing judgement on the conduct a soldier who served abroad - it should be handled internally. I don't feel the same way on deployment in the home land (aside from physical invasion of a foreign government) such as what is now happening in Italy. I think privatizing "martial law" with corps like XE (Blackwater) could be a great deal worse.

IMH and inexperienced opinion what makes being a member of the Armed Forces such a difficult task; is not only the mental and physical training, combat, pay imbalances due to war profiteering -but being obligated take orders - while also having sworn to uphold the Constitution. It is what I perceive as a lack of discussion and transparency which reminds me of Abe Lincoln's POV:

"I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made..." --February 21, 1861

Just my .000002

[Costa]

What scares me is how this affects the morale of people fighting. By putting on a show for the media in an effort to prove to the world how "civil" and "understanding" we are, not only do we run the risk of INCREASING the threat or potential threat, we encourage a dangerous attitude and the breeding ground for others like it. The whole thing is counter-productive.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

KSM did not commit a crime in NYC that I am aware of.

Should we have tried him in Pakistan?

Should we trust the courts that let OJ, Robert Blake, etc. go free?

TR

Oh but he certainly did!! And the courts you cite were not federal courts that I am aware of

[Richard]

What scares me is how this affects the morale of people fighting. By putting on a show for the media in an effort to prove to the world how "civil" and "understanding" we are, not only do we run the risk of INCREASING the threat or potential threat, we encourage a dangerous attitude and the breeding ground for others like it. The whole thing is counter-productive.

Astounding.

Richard

[Richard]

Trying them in a civilian cout of law is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

Astounding.

Richard

[Richard]

I cannot help wondering how far the rule of law can and should go. This is, of course, complicated by my emotional preference for the terrorists' fate - or, perhaps I should say alleged terrorists.

The rule of law really does give the judge enormous flexibility. It gives a single juror the opportunity to prevent conviction. The rules will give the alleged terrorists access to a great deal of information - including information that is best kept secure. All of this has costs involved.

We risk their acquittal. We gain, from that, a reputation as a society ruled by law. But we risk decreased deterrence, and thus perhaps increased vulnerability.

We spend time and money. Same gain as before. But we risk ignoring other crimes and other criminals.

We distribute information. Same gain. But we risk the increased vulnerability mentioned earlier.

And we might want to think carefully about the value gained from the perception that we are a society who upholds (at all costs?) the rule of law. Because there are those who just might exploit those rules, and our dedication to those rules, to our considerable detriment.

I think it might be worthwhile to reflect on a rhetorical question - that being, what are the limits, if any, to our commitment to the rule of law? How much should we risk and sacrifice in furtherance of this ideal?

Purely in my opinion, terrorists have the potential to extract an awful price. Maybe they cross the line and deserve the label of "outlaws" in the classic sense - outlaws being those no longer under the protection of the law. Perhaps the law of national survival can, at some point, transcend the statutory law of the courtroom. Once again, MOO, YMMV.

Astounding.

Richard

[Richard]

With all due respect Sir, if that is in fact the case, then US Mil is actually the World Police. Why is NYC a better place to try these men than The Hague? From your article, KSM planned many international attacks.

As I understand it, the definitions of asymmetric warfare and terrorism differ merely by the respective points of view.

I believe AQ declared war on the U.S. via UBL's 1996 fatwa titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

My Muslim Brothers of The World:
Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis. they are asking you to do whatever you can, with one own means and ability, to expel the enemy, humiliated and defeated, out of the sanctities of Islam.

UBL & AQ want war. Here's the entire fatwa:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terroris...atwa_1996.html

I too am all about the rule of law. As a matter of fact, I've sworn to support it and defend it twice: at work and on the weekends.

KSM & Co are soldiers without uniforms and they should be treated as such. This is a military issue and not a civilian one. I think that Rubberneck is spot on.

Personally, I think this whole thing of a civilian trial is an intentional distraction by the White House. How many folks watched the ENTIRE OJ trial? Give Joe Six-pack something to watch on TV and talk about at the water cooler the next day. What else are we to watch since 90210 and Melrose Place aren't on?

Astounding.

Richard

[Richard]

I think the majority of folks who are against this all have the same idea exactly how this will work out.

Beyond the simple fact that I, personally, am 100% against this terrorist bastard and his ilk having the opportunity to manipulate the system, I'm very unhappy he/they will be afforded Constitutional rights. Animals like this that attacked America, not just New York btw, don't deserve to breath the same oxygen I do.

Yeah, I know...and I don't care.

Furthermore, who the hell would consider defending these bastards? There is NO defense for what they have done, and would do again...given half a chance.

Astounding.

Richard

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dad

Oh but he certainly did!! And the courts you cite were not federal courts that I am aware of

What crimes did KSM commit in NY?

Should the Nuremberg trials have been conducted in NYC as well?

TR

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Richard

FWIW - I disagree. KSM and company were foreign citizens who committed crimes against American citizens which fall under federal law and - therefore - are to be tried under federal law in a federal court in New York - the most notable site of those crimes.

Here's the thing

Using this logic one could argue that George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al are foreign citizens who committed crimes against Syrian/Iranian/Saudi/Palestinian/Afghani/Iraqi/?istan citizens which fall under [insert country of your choice federal or equivalent] law and - therefore - are to be tried under [insert here] law in a [insert here] court in [insert here].

Unless I missed something (and I'm pretty sure I didn't and the Pakistanis just handed them over upon capture) these men were not extradited for trial in our country via normal, internationally accepted means. We snatched them in conjunction with the Pakistanis as war criminals. They are war criminals in GWOT. Therefore, we're basically saying - "Hey, come snatch our dudes! It's cool! Then try them in YOUR country according to YOUR laws if you think our guys may have broken one of your laws! It doesn't need to be a war criminal thing anymore - it's totally open season! We think that's how it goes." We've effectively removed the whole war criminal / war crimes element by taking it out of war tribunal and putting it in to Federal court without regular extradition.

And under these circumstances a Federal judge could look at the defendants and easily say....

"Hey, you know... we don't legally have these guys in our custody! Too bad so sad! They go free."

It astounds me that so many people in this country - the Obama administration included - seem to believe that for years the Bush administration just sat on their hands and didn't try these guys at Gitmo because they didn't feel like it. When really, there are incredibly complex legal issues happening here, the likes of which have NEVER been contemplated before in the history of the world. The closest we've come is Nuremburg. The Bush administration went slow and methodical and were extremely circumspect to the point of being frozen. The Obama administration seems hell bent on going headlong into a potential disaster.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by Richard

Astounding.

Richard

Is it? In essence, we face a difficult problem, we have no sure way to address it, and we seek solutions. The current discussion may represent a part of the greater society's dialog on many important changes.

With regard to the legal system, I am inclined to consider its functioning in the light of Tainter in his "Collapse of Complex Societies" book. Briefly, he suggests that all societies add complexity in the form of solutions to their problems. A court system is a solution to a problem - they add complexity, but their benefits outweigh the costs of the added systems. Likewise, an appeals court adds further complexity (and hence costs) in order to address further problems. The difficulty comes as the added complexity costs more than it is worth - in essence, the new changes produce a negative return. Costs, in this case, encompass much more than money - rather, they include all the costs, both material and intangible, to all elements of the society.

So - although I recognize the dangerous territory I speak of - I do wonder if the legal system is (or even can be) an effective solution to this new problem. I wonder if what it costs us (and not merely in money!) will not far exceed the benefits.

[greenberetTFS]

Richard,

You know that I have the highest respect for your thoughts and opinions,but please be honest with me now,wouldn't you really just wish that these "pricks" would be just taken out and shot? ..................

Big Teddy

[incarcerated]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...dministration/


Some Fear Bush Administration Could Become Target in 9/11 Trial

FOXNews.com
Updated November 14, 2009
Some critics say a civilian trial -- instead of a military tribunal -- for self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his accomplices could end up targeting the Bush administration and its anti-terror policies.

The Obama administration, in deciding to try alleged Sept. 11 conspirators in a New York courtroom, has said it is setting its sights on convictions, but some critics say a civilian trial -- instead of a military tribunal -- could end up targeting the Bush administration and its anti-terror policies.

One of those five defendants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has been at the center of the debate over those Bush-era polices, in particular the harsh interrogation techniques used on Mohammed and others in an effort to obtain information on Al Qaeda and any additional attacks.

"The government is going to try to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed on trial. Defense lawyers will try and put the government on trial," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Fox News.

The Justice Department says in a 2005 memo that CIA interrogators subjected Mohammed 183 times to waterboarding, a near-drowning technique described by Obama officials as illegal torture. But others disagree with Obama, most notably former Vice President Dick Cheney, who argues that the techniques used have kept the country safe from another attack.

Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, announced in the summer that he would investigate whether CIA officers should be prosecuted for their interrogations, setting off intense debate over the prospect of prosecuting officials from the previous administration.

But on Friday, in announcing a civilian trial for Mohammed and four other detainees, Holder dismissed questions about whether politics was a factor in the decision.

"My job as attorney general is to look at the law, apply the facts to the law and ultimately do what I think is in the best interests of this country and our system of justice. Those are my guides," he said. "To the extent that there are political consequences, well, you know, I'll just have to take my lumps, to the extent that those are set in my way."

"But I think if people will, in a neutral and detached way, look at the decision that I have made today, understand the reasons why I made those decisions, and try to do something that's rare in Washington -- leave the politics out of it and focus on what's in the best interest of this country -- I think the criticism will be relatively mild."

But Holder already has faced strong criticism from conservatives and some families of 9/11 victims.

Karl Rove, a former top Bush adviser and now a Fox News contributor, said some attorneys in the Justice Department have tried for years to undermine the military tribunals system and "gain for these war criminals the rights that we would accord American citizens who might be accused of knocking over the local 7-Eleven."

"I think we make a mistake by focusing on the politics of it," Rove said. "What we ought to do is focus on the real danger this represents to the American interest and to the American security in the years ahead."

Supporters of trying the detainees in military tribunals note that the tribunals have relaxed standards for presenting evidence and offer minimized risk of disclosing government anti-terror secrets.

Tom Ridge, head of the Homeland Security Department in the Bush administration, warned against using the trials as a means of going after Bush administration officials.

"You'd like to think that ... it is simply their interpretation that these individuals are entitled to these kinds of criminal justice protections -- rather than using it as a fishing expedition to revisit decisions made during the past six years," he told FoxNews.com, adding that "time will tell."

"If we discover later that it's really just a facade to delve into a fishing expedition, I would find that just unacceptable, outrageous and a further distortion of the system," he said. "If it's subterfuge for the fishing expedition, that's just wrong and unconscionable."

FoxNews.com's Stephen Clark and Joseph Abrams contributed to this report.

[Richard]

What I may wish as an individual and what our nation must be as a society whose admiration and strength among world nations has been predicated on the ideas of a democratically created republic of laws and one which abides by the rule of those laws, are sometimes at odds with each other. But to behave otherwise is to say to the world that 'I do not truly believe in that of which I claim is just and to which I am willing to swear an oath to defend, of why I am here in your country and willing to give my life, of a system of government I believe offers by far a fairer and better way for all people to live' - and is hypocrisy.

IMO - we easily fault others for such whimsical hypocritical thinking and actions, and have shown far too much of it ourselves in our nation's somewhat checkered past - and we know it - and we have used that knowledge to become a far better nation than I think we, ourselves, sometimes deserve. We should not want a return to those somewhat ignoble times as recorded in our History books, to resort to vigilantism as in the past because we are confused and scared and uncertain and angry, to lose trust in our system's rule of laws because some are in disagreement and it is a confusingly difficult time, to become those of which we are so stridently preaching and fighting against at home and abroad.

For if we do...what then...

Richard's $.02