Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on Trial in NY?

[levinj]

Sir,

Well said. I may personally wish that these guys had never been taken alive, but that's my desire for vengeance talking. When I think about it, though, I wonder if Dad's assessment might be more correct.

Maybe we should let these guys live out the rest of their (brief and unpleasant) lives among the general population of a prison. Why make them martyrs? Why should we give them what they're so clearly eager to receive?

I think letting them suffer in a jail cell for a life sentence - if they make it that far - might be sweet justice indeed.

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

But this isn't our system's rule of laws. They're making this up as they go. The actual rule of law on the books currently is the military tribunal system for Gitmo detainees that the Obama administration just thumbed their noses at and said, "No, I can do you one better." Don't mistake grandstanding for "rule of law."


Again - if this pattern we set is to be repeated across the globe, then American citizens (to include service members fighting for their country) could be taken and tried in domestic courts for their crimes, under THAT country's laws. This should put the fear into all of us.

[Richard]

Based on some of the thoughts being posted - I would guess that there are many on this forum who have never operated in a country where there is no SOFA and you are - whether a civilian or government employee - in fact - subject to the laws of the host nation. This is nothing new - at least in my lifetime - and is a fact of life in the vast world outside the American 'bubble.'

Richard's $.02

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Richard

Based on some of the thoughts being posted - I would guess that there are many on this forum who have never operated in a country where there is no SOFA and you are - whether a civilian or government employee - in fact - subject to the laws of the host nation. This is nothing new - at least in my lifetime - and is a fact of life in the vast world outside the American 'bubble.'

Richard's $.02

Again, operated IN a country. Key element, different story altogether. Also noting that if an American soldier commits a crime against a civilian in a host nation we do try and bring that soldier into US military custody to handle it. Rarely do we allow that soldier to be handled by the host nation. (Generally part of an SOF, yes, but the way we do business.) Crimes committed in the course of war (prior to a SOF) are just that - war, assuming they are part of the action. So assuming radical Islam thinks they've declared "war" on us doesn't this mean we've taken their "soldiers" into domestic courts?

Mohammad didn't operate IN our country at the time of his crime. He operated outside of our country and has been forcibly brought into our control. So, again - following this logic - it would be permissible for a foreign national to come to our country and for instance, grab a strategic planner they believed assisted in planning a great travesty wrought upon their people. They'd bring this person into their country and try them according to their laws. No extradition, no war crimes tribunal, etc. It just doesn't pass the smell test and it isn't how we operate. No matter how you look at it, this administration is totally rewriting the book.

[The Reaper]

I believe that many of the attorneys and others planning to defend these swine have more of an interest in attacking the country and its institutions than they do in defending their clients. Almost no one disputes their guilt, most were bragging about it before their capture.

I am afraid that this trial could very easily result in little to no punishment for the perpetrators, and could cause serious damage to this country. Even if incarcerated in a Federal prison, these scum will continue to spread their filth, recruit followers, and serve as examples to others who would commit heinous acts against us. At this point, if we have extracted all of the intel these war criminals have, the best that could have happened would have been a speedy trial by competent military authorities, followed by a swift trip to the gallows, and a quick, unlamented, non-denominational burial in an unmarked grave, preferably underneath a public urinal.

We didn't give Goering and Tojo civil court trials in America with full up legal teams and the rights accorded to an American citizen for very good reasons.

I also believe that this sets a dangerous precedent, and offers hope to our enemies. Our Constitution will be a fine story for our subjugators to tell their children about as an example of failed government when we sell them the chains that they bind us with.

Be careful what you wish for.

TR

[echoes]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

At this point, if we have extracted all of the intel these war criminals have, the best that could have happened would have been a speedy trial by competent military authorities, followed by a swift trip to the gallows, and a quick, unlamented, non-denominational burial in an unmarked grave, preferably underneath a public urinal.

I also believe that this sets a dangerous precedent, and offers hope to our enemies. Be careful what you wish for.

Very well said Sir!

Am not forgetting that Our enemies include a certain Iranian and North Korean President, and all their followers...who are watching all this!

Great job Big O! Take another bow...

[lindy]

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

Sir, how does the Military Tribunal system counter this?

It would seem that a change from of jurisdiction from Military to Civilian is hypocrisy, yes? On the world stage it would appear that Bush was wrong and Obama is correct. I think this issue is too important to become a partisan issue with the ultimate end goal of the appeasement of political supporters. I honestly believe this current administration does NOT consider the Nation's best interests before it acts.

It is like we're back to the hanging chad garbage. Try explaining Democracy to a group of foreigners whose government violently crushed anti-government protests, arrested all the opposition party leaders, then days later claimed to have held a "free and fair" election where the incumbent won the majority. The foreigners repeatedly raised Bush v. Gore and honestly believed that our "election" was a farce. "Presidents should be chosen by people and not courts."

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.

The AG didn't convince me that civilian trials are a better idea than what was in place but then again, he doesn't have to. But when I'm in Norway next month, I'll do my best to defend our actions in the pubs...and your comments above are just the ammo needed to argue that point more effectively.

Regarding living outside the SOFA, always carry Marlboro and Hershey's chocolate! My experience has shown that combination is VERY EFFECTIVE in convincing young border guards to lower their AKs. I just gotta find something to get them to take their damn fingers off the triggers!!!

I fully agree that living in a foreign country where the cavalry will NOT be coming is very sobering. Try explaining why we have a "safe haven" in the house, evac plans, and PACE commo to two teenage girls! But then again...that's part of the appeal of foreign service!

[Dad]

It is interesting because the good ffolkes on the left are criticizing the president accusing him of taking whichever route leads to the surest conviction. If someone wants to start a pool, I am betting at least 3 death sentences come out of the civilian courts. I would also bet the executions occur while Hasan is still a burden to the taxpayer.

[Dozer523]

A Defense Attorney is bound to offer the best possible representation to his client. The Judge is bound to ensure the fair outcome of the trial and move it along. (Though not an attorney) I did watch the Bright Center of My Universe in her High School production of To Kill A Mocking Bird and, although the 16YO playing Atticus was a tad over the top, the characters lines still ring true.
The Military Tribunal are a great disappointment to many because the trial did not turn out to be such "slam dunks" (Can't say "Tom" was as lucky.) I'm proud the military judicial system did not allow itself to be rushed. Saying that, the tribunals did not work to effect justice -- they are still in detention without trail. That is not justice to the accused, the victims or our system. So let's bring them (these non-military enemy combatants) and let them stand and acquit themselves before the US Constitution they abhor.

On a completely different note. . . I'm a little dicey about labels (in general) like "war criminal" (specifically) affixed indiscriminately to people who were scooped up on a battlefield in Afghanistan just because they were engaging US troops. It ought not to be a crime to fight against people (even us, hell even ME!) who enter your country without invitation. That is one of the reasons the Geneva Convention exists. The whole enemy combatants thing was meant to deny that protection at the start. It has failed miserably. Be careful for what you wish, indeed. .02

[Shar]

Honestly, I hope it works. I hope they get a fair trial that is safe, effective and expedient. I hope it shows the best of the American system and the US Constitution. I hope and pray that there are no ill-effects of our actions abroad. Obviously there are no easy answers to how to handle these criminals. No one is going to agree on how to do it.

So let's just pray this works.

I just have my HUGE doubts and this particular solution doesn't feel right to me.

[Basenshukai]

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 evidence federal prosecutors will use against them.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1114/p90s01-usju.html

It's called the 'rule of law' - and I'm certainly not 'livid' about it running its course.

YMMV...and so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Interesting point of view. So, is this then a matter for US law enforcement?

Should the guys in A-Stan now concern themselves with maintaining the integrity of a "crime scene" and of the rights of the accused (which is far different from the rights of a prisioner of war)?

How many Nazi war criminals where tried in the US Court system, I wonder? I'm certain quite a few Jews died at the hands of Nazis having been US citizens at the time.

OJ Simpson was technically found innocent of the crime with which he was charged in the criminal trial we all remember the most. What makes us think that this is a "slam dunk" case? Nothing in our court system is guaranteed.

It will be interesting to re-look this thread one, or two years from now when these proceedings have run their course. I wonder what legacy will be left behind for us after it is all said and done. It can go either way.

Note: I just looked at the link you provided. Let's remember, that the Obama Administration has acknowledged that water boarding is/was torture. KSM may choose, if so inclined, to twart our efforts to prosecute him under US law by having any confessions/evidence obtained under torture, or after torture, thrown out. Other such "confessions" have been thrown out in other US cases by virtue that the investigator merely slapped a detained suspect during questioning. Also, snatching him out of his home in the middle night without a warrant is somewhat illegal under our laws, isn't it? So, if this is all considered and thrown out, what is this guy really guilty of? Anything?

[Richard]

It would seem that a change from of jurisdiction from Military to Civilian is hypocrisy, yes? On the world stage it would appear that Bush was wrong and Obama is correct.

IMO - wrong is incorrect - pragmatically and deliberatively cautious while our legislative and judicial bodies sorted out the numerous issues involved in what could be argued as a less reactive and partisan manner is, I think, a more objective way to view and defend the situation we've encountered during the last 8+ years.

FWIW - there is historical customary precedent for such handling of those who operate beyond the acceptable rule of law by the international community - Adolf Eichmann is, I think, a case in point which readily comes to mind.

But let me know when America becomes a junta and the military tribunal becomes the norm rather than the exception - I may have a few decisions to make at that time which I would never have thought necessary.

Richard's $.02

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Basenshukai

Should the guys in A-Stan now concern themselves with maintaining the integrity of a "crime scene" and of the rights of the accused (which is far different from the rights of a prisioner of war)?

Very good point.

Can you imagine the evidentiary hearings and chain of custody issues with the seizures in Pakistan? I can't even begin to figure out how they are going to handle half of the procedural issues. To say this is a slam dunk is assuming they are going to plead it out - which I seriously doubt.

[Warrior-Mentor]

What's amazing is that so many are willing to comment (especially the Talking Heads) on this without having read or referenced Andrew McCarthy or Mike Mukasey who were involved in significant terror prosecutions and know the problems associated with these cases.

WILLFUL BLINDNESS is an insight filled look into the Blind Sheik trial over the World Trade Center bombing. McCarthy and Mukasey have both been prolific op-ed writers of late on this. A quick google search should provide plenty of information for those who care about being informed by the those who have been there and done this...

Andrew McCarthy:
http://author.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE5MQ==

Mike Mukasey:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...052267212.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...FjNGQwODk2YmU=
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ists-platform/

[Shar]

Originally Posted by Richard

FWIW - there is historical customary precedent for such handling of those who operate beyond the acceptable rule of law by the international community - Adolf Eichmann is, I think, a case in point which readily comes to mind.

Yes and even the Eichmann trial was met with international protest for lack of jurisdiction - to include appeals after the trial. Granted, this was all dealt with rather expeditiously because 1. this is Israel, 2. this was 45 years ago, 3. this was before the 24 hour new cycle.