An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The New York ‘Show Trials’ Not as Simple as They Seem

I’m a bit conflicted about Eric Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants to New York City to stand trial for their parts in planning the attacks. Today, on Mid Stream Radio — 1 pm eastern, Noon central, 10 am left coast — we’ll have some special guests on to discuss this subject, if you’d care to stop by and contribute your thoughts, but I have a few thoughts to share here in advance.

I’ll confess that my initial reaction was one of relief and support of this idea, as risky as it might be. Though some of my regular readers will find it shocking, I actually found myself agreeing with certain portions of Glenn Greenwald’s column which partially supports the idea, while criticizing other aspects of it.

First, there are a number of issues surrounding this situation which come to us from the past and can no longer be changed, so they really don’t factor into a decision about this move. For example, I opposed the original establishment of the detention facility at Gitmo for this purpose. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of holding people indefinitely with no process in place to handle their situation. I also think that the term “enemy combatant” is something the Bush administration dreamed up and is fairly useless to us. These people are either criminals who are being held prisoner, or they are prisoners of war. We should have made a clear distinction on that from the beginning.

But as I said, that’s now all water under the bridge and we are stuck with the situation we have today. So what to do? I will confess that my personal desires color my decision making process here. Frankly, I think that if we’ve gotten all the useful information out of KSM that we can reasonably expect to get, I just want to get the guy in front of a firing squad and kill him. And if that requires a “show trial” which is actually “unfair” to him, then a big part of me is willing to swallow my moral hesitancy, paint the patina of justice on this and get it over with.

But what’s the best way to proceed? Greenwald complains about that fact that some other prisoners will be getting military tribunals, apparently fearing that they won’t get their full measure of “justice” in such a venue as they might in a civilian trial in New York. But the tribunals do address other valid concerns brought up by Ed Morrissey, which I share. There may be questions of evidence chain handling, how the information was obtained, (torture?) and due process which could make a civilian trial nearly impossible even KSM is being defended by a first year public defender who barely passed the bar. And will information critical to a conviction be suppressed because it’s classified? Would that result in a not guilty verdict? And if so, what do we do then… let the guy go? And if we don’t, then the entire process is exposed as a sham.

In a way, a mean spirited little part of me just wishes we could ship KSM back to whatever location we picked him up at and shoot him and bury him there. But that really doesn’t solve anything either I suppose. Either way, we’ll have a few folks on our show today to try to hash it all out and you’re invited to come along for the ride and add your own perspective. Follow the link up top to join in the chat during the show or call in at (646) 595-3963 with your own comments. See you on the radio.

  • "In a way, a mean spirited little part of me just wishes we could ship KSM back to whatever location we picked him up at and shoot him and bury him there."

    Me too. Doesn't feel mean-spirited to me though. Feels human.
  • DLS
    As I wrote elsewhere, there is justification for doing a civil trial. The reason: This was an event that happened here, prior to the start of war. It is like the earlier World Trade Center attack and like the Oklahoma City attack (even though the OKC attack was by domestic rather than by foreign terrorists).

    The justification is the only thing that can be offered in defense of this stunt. It is a PR stunt, and a clumsy, stupid stunt. Holding it in New York City reeks of the most stupid childishness and basest appeals to emotion, as well as being an immediate basis for demanding a change of venue. That the suspects were tortured after the war started only compromises the situation. (Presumably there is so much other evidence, not obtained by torture, that the decision was made that the federal government could proceed nevertheless, despite the torture, that is.) This also reeks of a corrupt-Carteresque, clumsy attempt at trying to appear to seek a higher moral and behavioral plane, as remediation for the opprobrium the evil Bush-Cheney administration had wrought among the clucking PC cretins, so often in Europe rather than in left-extremist pockets here in the USA. If this was meant to appeal to the far Left and to fall back upon the Bush era, that only makes the Obama team look like bumbling elists again, once more clumsy and out of touch with the times and reality of the US public (which is what matters!).

    Obviously this trial should be held elsewhere. I'd love to see it held on the West Coast, and while this trial has many a leftist anti-death-penality person hypocritically silent, what would be their response if the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals got involved later and somehow complicated or disrupted the show, which is what this show trail is being organized to provide, a show, Feeling Good, and bashing Bush?
  • DLS
    "As I wrote elsewhere, there is justification for doing a civil trial."

    It is accomplished fact, or is well on the way to being so, now.

    This still doesn't address what will be done with people detailed after the war began, who were terrorists, i.e., war criminals, who could and probably should have been executed promptly in the field rather than brought to Guantanamo.

    This show trial won't empty Guantanamo. What will be done to do that? (We're ages away from ceding the prison and the base someday back to Cuba, and greatly revising our Cuba relations and policy...one thing at a time)
  • bacalove
    Why do the GOP fear the terrorists being tried in open court in New York? I think they are greatly angered that this is something they did not do -- try the terrorists anywhere! However, these terrorists are not military and should not be tried as such. The GOP remind me of bullies who pretend to be tough but are really afraid. May be Ground Zero can heal and be revived once these men are tried and found guilty. God knows these men should have been put on trial years ago. Thank God it is finally going to get done!
  • DdW
    Call me naive--or worse--but I have great faith in our justice system, our courts and our Constitution
  • DLS
    "I have great faith in our justice system, our courts and our Constitution"

    Well, they are the objects of abuse and the source, as well -- and are being misused for PR stunt stuff this time. But I don't think there will be any kind of serious farce -- all the concern about "backfiring" if things go wrong so far seems to be speculation on what could go wrong (PR-wise or otherwise) given things being conducted normally. (The most embarrassing scenario, for example, would be acquittals.)
  • dduck12
    I agree with this:
    Well, they are the objects of abuse and the source, as well -- and are being misused for PR stunt stuff this time.
    I disagree with this: But I don't think there will be any kind of serious farce -- all the concern about "backfiring" if things go wrong so far seems to be speculation on what could go wrong (PR-wise or otherwise) given things being conducted normally.

    This will be a huge PR/propaganda boost for radical Islam (and a possible recruiting tape), a slap in the face to moderate Islam, and we taxpayers in NY/NYC and Fed., will finance this Circus.
    That said, I respect the desire of some of the murdered victims' families (I think they are split on this)
    for a public trial, not a military one. I believe Obama's decision to reinstate the Military Commissions, was a good one. But, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by letting the terrorists go from pleading guilty, in the Military Court, to a possible not guilty plea and the resultant Circus.
  • DLS
    "But, he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by letting the terrorists go from pleading guilty, in the Military Court, to a possible not guilty plea and the resultant Circus."

    There's no single, identifiable reason why he approved of this, either. PR stunt? Bush-laundering? Carterish "high-mindedness"? What?
  • dduck12
    If I were paranoid, I would put pressure by the far left, on the top of the list.
  • Rambie
    "In a way, a mean spirited little part of me just wishes we could ship KSM back to whatever location we picked him up at and shoot him and bury him there."

    Oh come on Jazz, you really want to set that kind of president?
  • dduck12
    Was that a Freudian slip: president vs precedent?
  • Rambie
    LOL... yeah, you caught me. I was posting fast and didn't proof read.

    Good catch DDuck12.
  • dduck12
    You seem to have a sense of humor. Try this. a really funny NYT article.

    http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytim...
  • DLS
    "If I were paranoid, I would put pressure by the far left, on the top of the list."

    Well, this trial decision does reek of "atonement for Bush sins" drivel, as I have said. Yeech.

    It also seems another clumsy maneuver by a play-pen elitist gang. They're trying whatever they can -- now they want to house the terrorism suspects currently in Cuba, in Illinois. If it's good enough for the President's own state, it should put everyone at ease, I guess they may believe the public feels about it. (I think about the real-world implications, namely that all the other people in other states resisting any housing of suspects on NIMBY grounds -- call it "safety," "security threat," whatever else, it's NIMBYism as well as political posturing for or against the two political parties' stance -- will, if Illinois accepts the prisoners and gets federal money, reverse their stance and be angry that the federal government hasn't sent any prisoners to their states, too.) To what extent this is meant to be also "symbolic" [gag], I'm unsure.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC