New Yorkers React to the KSM Terror Trials
Having taken the time to talk through the entire Khalid Sheikh Mohammed affair with people on both side of the aisle, I’ve finally drawn some conclusions. I don’t think the real problem here is whether President Obama – through the office of Eric Holder – made the right or wrong call on this. The sticking point is that he made both calls by deciding to send one group to civilian trials and another to military tribunals. Our official legislative process for dealing with these so called “enemy combatants” remains woefully murky, and the president needs to be the one setting the tone and direction for how we will process them.
This is the subject of my column this week at Pajamas Media, New Yorkers Face the Prospect of a Terrorism Trial in their Back Yard. I also include a round-up of reactions from New Yorkers, both famous and obscure. A short bit to get you started.
America’s mayor, Rudy Giuliani – frequently mentioned as a possible seeker of Paterson’s job — came out with some of the harshest criticism of Holder’s announcement. But as George Stephanopoulos pointed out to him, Rudy seems to be as confused about how to handle these cases as President Obama. Back when Zacarias Moussaoui was put on trial in similar fashion, Giuliani described the process as a “symbol of justice.”
Conversely, the president had a moment back in the day when he was perfectly happy to see KSM go before a military tribunal. Tribunals are good! Then, after taking office, he denounced the practice. Tribunals are bad! And now, Khalid and his cronies will have a civilian trial, but another group of bombers will take the military route. Tribunals are good … except when they’re bad!
opinions powered by SendLove.to
18 Responses to “New Yorkers React to the KSM Terror Trials”
See this is the problem with our woeful lack of space exploration and colonization initiatives. If we would have been on the ball, we could have built a court and prison on the moon for folks like KSM. Try and convict. BAM! No worries.
The problem is that the decision to bring terrorists from a well established base legally sanctioned base in Gitmo to the mainland of America and give them full citizenship rights is probably the most offensively idiotic decision ever made by an American President in the past hundred years. Not only did Obama come down on both sides of the issue as you point out, but his final decision was an attempt to appease the far left in the Democratic Party.
If you think Rudy G's comments on the decision were “some of the harshest”, you haven't spoken to enough people saying what is probably unprintable. Just look at the polls. In the liberal, pro-Obama bastion of NYC, approval for it is running in the 40s. Rasmussen has the national split at 51% opposed, 29% in favor, with 76% opposed vs 14% in favor of giving them the same rights as citizens. And this despite the fact that most think there will not be another terrorist attack as a result.
The problem is that the decision to bring terrorists from a well established base legally sanctioned base in Gitmo to the mainland of America and give them full citizenship rights is probably the most offensively idiotic decision ever made by an American President in the past hundred years.
My emphasis above. DaMav, we give fair trials in civilian courts to non-citizens all the time. I'm not sure where my thinking is on this entirely, but I do think this is a pretty weak reason to object (imho).
Our official legislative process for dealing with these so called “enemy combatants” remains woefully murky, and the president needs to be the one setting the tone and direction for how we will process them.
Obama is finding out this is not the quick and easy process he made it out to be. I do give him credit for moving the process along after Bush's (dare I say) dithering for years.
and give them full citizenship rights
We are only giving them the rights spelled out in our Constitution and rule of law. Citizens and noncitizens deserve fair trials…
I finally have a position in congruence with that of most Americans and no sooner do I begin to bask in the warm and reassuring glow of conformity with the majority than you come along and call it “weak”. As revenge for laying waste to my moment of glory, I will subject you to my verbose rationale!
I will agree there are two sides to this. However the counterpoints are that military tribunals are also “fair”, by design, and a well established tradition in America during times of war, stretching back to George Washington. And civilian courts, while perhaps one of the best system in the world, are hardly perfect. Surely you would agree that there have been numerous miscarriages of justice in civilian courts: Cases dismissed on technicalities, child rapists given light sentences, juries awarding lottery ticket winnings for trivial offenses, etc etc. Ask your last ten acquaintances who went through a divorce if civilian courts are always fair and you are guaranteed a sharply split opinion. My point is not to attack the judicial system in general but to recognize that there is no ideal means of determining guilt, innocence, or punishment.
What are the advantages of trying KSM et al. in civilian courts? Well, we can pat ourselves on the back in a feel good exercise for extending full legal rights to those who sought, seek, and succeeded in our mass murder. To some, a benefit will be that the defense will put the hated Bush Administration on trial and perhaps generate additional embarrassment to America. To some, it will be an opportunity to force the revelation of sensitive information about our defense and intelligence operations. Perhaps, although I doubt it, there will be some marginal benefit from those who will be so impressed with America doing this that they will give up violent Jihad against us and seek a more civilized approach to their goals.
This must be weighed against the negatives. First, there is the enhanced potential for the case to be dismissed, or lost by the government because of exclusion of evidence or determination of prosecutorial misconduct. Do we then turn these confessed terrorists free? How embarrassing if we don't! How outrageous if we do! Second, it is not in our national interest to reveal our intel secrets to the world through discovery. Third, we are giving the terrorists a chance to churn out huge quantities of propaganda which might weaken our position. Some will be taken in, others will feel sorry for them, and others will be motivated by it. Fourth, the action will be widely perceived as a sign of weakness in American resolve, i.e. it plays to Bin Laden's “weak horse” stereotype. Many are more impressed by decisive action than dithering about high minded principles — a fact of human nature — and like it or not a potent recruitment tool for the Jihadists. Fifth, the trial in New York is almost a “bring it on” challenge to al Qaeda and its allies to make a statement in response, increasing the risk of further terrorist attacks. Sixth, there will be huge expense generated in providing special security to the court, the judge, the witnesses, the jury as well as the defendants during a prolonged trial and perhaps afterwards. Every member of a jury that convicts these defendants will be marked for life for revenge, as will their families. Killing anyone in any way connected with the trial will be seen as a blow against the Great Satan for years into the future, and assured of front page coverage.
That's the off the top of my head take on this and why I feel the decision is a faulty one. I'm sure many will disagree. But I will be hiding in my 76% majority mental jacuzzi and enjoying every minute of it.
This is a little more complicated than an non-citizen sticking up a liquor store and being tried.
These were people sending their young-men soldiers to hijack planes and wage war on civilians in NYC and the military in the Pentagon, and perhaps even the White house or Capitol if those people in the plane that crashed in PA had not stopped them. Gov. Paterson, who seems to be on the outs with O, said he would not have made the decision to have the NYC trial; perhaps he is just being practical.
We are at war. The NYC five targeted CIVILIANS and they have a better chance of some kind of deal than the Gitmo five who targeted a Navy ship. Strange outcome.
T-Steel: “we could have built a court and prison on the moon for folks like KSM.
This cracked me up; I just finished reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein. A penal colony on the moon didn't work out so well
Careful with that thought.
If we are indeed at War the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon would have to be considered just as legitimate as the fire bombing of Dresden or the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We probably don't want to go there.
You left out Pearl Harbor. It's all war. My point is this split gives a potentially better outcome for the Gitmo Five.
Whoops, I meant the NYC Five.
11/18/09–Memorandum to the file–Agreed with something Davebo said. Make note of extraordinary event.
Can someone argue that he is something other than an illegal combatant outside of a declared war?
No declared war, no Geneva. Illegal combatants deserve civil rights?
Very true jchem. I've read “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” also. But I just couldn't resist mentioning a penal colony on the moon when folks deem terrorists like KSM as “scum that shouldn't walk the Earth”. Then how about the Moon then? LOL!
Actually a space station penal colony just inside the asteroid belt wouldn't be bad either.
“Can someone argue that he is something other than an illegal combatant outside of a declared war?”
Oh, sure. That's easy, in fact. Read on.
* * *
“You left out Pearl Harbor. It's all war.”
The “9-11″ terrorism preceded the war, which we initiated, in Afghanistan (and later, in Iraq).
As I wrote before, the precedents are the earlier World Trade Center attack as well as the Oklahoma City attack. While there is much to deride and to criticize in more measured prose about this decision (it was so clumsy, even the far left here in the USA, among the likely intended few supporters, seem to be divided, and puzzled if not upset sometimes when discussing it), the actual legality of it appears to be sound — the only, tiny part of it that does seem to be sound, if not sensible.
Now, there may be complications, in addition to the clumsiness and idiocy about this (it reeks of being a gesture of “atonement for Evil Bush sins” aimed at fringists here and in Europe, primarily, while being so clumsy it also screams “inept play-pen elistist pretense at high-mindedness and playing 'government'”). For starters, the cheap emotional-appeal PR stunt especially of holding it in New York is obviously going to see demands for a change of venue. More important is the concern about evidence and revelations about torture (to want this is for ObamaCo to be perverse as well as blatantly political), and revelations of sources and methods and classified information. Details about the suspects' capture and confessions are going to be troublesome. But all these are susidiary to the small but essential point that the trials themselves likely are fully legal. They were for an act or acts removed from war, and have precedents.
The most obvious problem with the military tribunal route is that we have plugged away at it for, what, seven years with two rounds of judicial review and legislative tinkering and so far have five convictions going to the next round of Supreme Court mandated review. If they have enough untainted evidence to obtain a conviction in United States district Court it is a safer way to go with these high profile terrorists, leaving the establishment of military tribunal route for lower profile, lower level of evidence terrorists.
Terrorists have always been treated as criminals before 9/11 in the United States. Reagan swore we would stay in Lebanon as long as it took to bring the planners of the Marine barracks bombings to justice. While his resolve lasted only three months it shows his desire to treat the terrorists as criminals.
The idea to treat terrorists as enemy combatants came about as part of the hopefully now discredited idea that the way to fight terrorism is by waging conventional war on suspected sponsor states. It probably would be only a minor loss if it suffered the same fate.
The idea to hold the trial in New York is hardly a PR stunt. It has to be held there or another location where the crime was committed (Constitution). This narrows the choice down to New York, Washington or rural Pennsylvania. Certainly New York was picked because the prosecutors and courts there have the most experience with this type of trial Even if there is a change in venue the experienced New York prosecutors would then stay with the trial. .
(Before you type your fingers bloody realize I never pass an opportunity to gouge St. Ronnie about his poor anti-terrorism record. I was Navy serving with the Marines at the time of the Lebanon barracks bombing. Those were brother Marines who died there. St. Ronnie's failure to extract revenge and punishment for this event coupled with being the first President to negotiate with terrorists explains a lot about how we got where we are today.)
Ripped From Today's Headlines:
Holder Defends Trying Alleged 9/11 Plotters in Civilian Court
“At Wednesday's hearing, Mr. Holder said one reason he chose civilian courts to try 9/11 detainees was a certainty of success. In response to questions about the possibility some detainees may not be found guilty, he said: “Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won.”
“Sen. Kyl asked the attorney general: “How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court, when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed?”
Am I missing something, or does this say it all?
[...] Having taken the time to talk through the entire Khalid Sheikh Mohammed affair with people on both side of the aisle, I’ve finally drawn some conclusions. I don’t think the real problem here is whether President Obama – through the office of Eric …Read Original Story: New Yorkers React to the KSM Terror Trials – The Moderate Voice [...]
[...] Having taken the time to talk through the entire Khalid Sheikh Mohammed affair with people on both side of the aisle, I’ve finally drawn some conclusions. I don’t think the real problem here is whether President Obama – through the office of Eric…Read Original Story: New Yorkers React to the KSM Terror Trials – The Moderate Voice [...]