The Al Qaeda Trial
The question of whether to try the 9/11 perpetrators in federal court or a military tribunal is not an easy one. It turns, in part, on whether you see the Al Qaeda attacks as an act of war or a criminal conspiracy. Al Qaeda declared war on the United States in the mid-1990s, an act of some presumption, since it was not a state or a government exile, but a terrorist cult. Although George Bush declared "War on Terrorism," he did never did so officially, via an act of Congress. What we have here, legally, is a mishmash.
I am sure that I've probably gotten something wrong in the paragraph above. I don't have much patience for legal niceties when thousands of innocents are being targeted and killed. Consequently, I've had no strong feelings about whether to try the perpetrators in a military tribunal or a federal court. Just so long as they never see the light of day again. (I'm opposed to the death penalty. Let Khalid Sheik Mohammed sit in a box the rest of his life; maybe, over time, he'll have more to tell us; maybe, over time, he will have an epiphany while watching The Mentalist on prison tv, and convert to sufism, that loveliest of Islamic strands.)
In any case, I thought Steve Simon makes an excellent case for a federal trial in today's New York Times.
-
1
All evidence indicates that locking these people in a box on an island fuels the impression, craved by Osama bin Laden and Dick Cheney, that the US is at war with Islam. That leads to more recruits. So, score one for not treating these thugs as if they were Mussolini.
-
Plus, you either believe in the rule of law or you don't. I think that America is so great, and its dedication to the rule of law is so important, that we are strong enough to try people, even really bad people!-
1.1
Agreed. And it's nice to see an American speak out against the death penalty for a change.
-
1.2
When the "really really bad people" are prisoners of war, they deserve (at the very least) to sit on a box on an island somewhere. This man orchestrated the killings of thousands of Americans guilty of nothing except being Americans. These people shouldn't even be in civilian courts, much less be given the rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution.
-
1.3
Speaking as a New Yorker, let me say that a civilian trial is absolutely appropriate.
.
These were murderers -- they committed murder on a big scale, of course, but they're murderers all the same. They're not generals, they're not soldiers. And they don't deserve the dignity of being treated like that.
.
Put them on trial downtown just like you'd put them on trial if they'd shot someone on Canal Street. Show the world that they're not special. Because they're not. They're thugs.
.
I can't believe these weak-kneed conservatives who are scared at what KSM might say from the stand. Do they really think this thug has anything to say that'll embarrass us? Are they so unsure of his guilt that they think he'll get off?
.
Sack up, conservatives. It's time for justice.
-
-
2
If we are a nation built on morality as we have claimed, then it is best to dump pragmatism and hatred as motivation and show the world that if we expect them to do right, than we must do the same.
.
I think it is worthy to make a point here about the vitriol and rhetoric:
.
To react in haste and hatred is the easy way out.
.
To react in deliberation and respect is much, much harder.
.
The GOP spittle and froth crowd has chosen the easy way out... -
3
1. ”Some point out that in earlier terrorism trials, like those of the plotters of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the defendants did ramble at length. True, but does anyone who fears a circus now remember a single word from those earlier trials?
.
2. But a judgment in New York, where the greatest suffering was inflicted, will remind us both of the narrow viciousness of the terrorists' cause and of the enduring strength of our own values.”.
Simon does make 2 points in his article which in my mind define the reasons that we should not have a "circus" in New York with the terrorist scum. KSM WILL use this as an opportunity to continue his crusade to enlist other jihadist. He will lie, and in doing so paint the US as the big bully, the "Great Satan" of the West.
.
Simply, why give him a forum to continue his rants? It only serves his purposes, and undermines ours.
.
We can prosecute them in a Military tribunal and still get the same results as Simon suggests above. I do not, nor do I care to remember what the "plotters of 1993" said. But, I can imagine that anyone contemplating terrorism, someone like Nidal Hasan does care, and remembers every word like it was yesterday. It only fuels more fire in their bellies.
.
And on point 2., how does it "remind us of the narrow viciousness of the terrorists cause, and the enduring strength of our own values"? You either believe this is so or you don't. A circus trial will only reinforce our own beliefs or those of our enemies. Nothing more.
.
Tell it like it really is Klein. This is simply a liberal side-show to further degrade the Bush II Administration by Obama. For Obama to justify his own agenda, and the agenda of the far left. THIS is the sole purpose of the side-show circus trials in New York, and nothing more. Also, the expense we will incur is not justifiable. Period.-
3.1
Bean counting and shortcuts. Hmmm.
.
How is Timothy McVeigh, your heroes, Rusty, any different from them?
.
Riddle me that, buttman... -
3.2
Oh goody, little liberal IQ53 THINKS he is saying something cute, when all he does is a continuation of 3rd Grade Name Calling.
.
Is that the best you can do, IQ53?? -
3.3
I do love the hypocrisy of resorting to name calling to decry name calling. The trial in New York only becomes a circus if we let it be one. Treating the Taliban like a government we are at war against legitimizes their position. We should treat them like we treat any other criminal and squelch the views from our allies that all we are running are kangaroo courts.
-
-
4
Either way, it's probably not going to be a fair trial so what does it matter in which court?
-
4.1
I think that 'Due Process' and 'Rule of Law' are the main operators here. The 'hard way' that I pointed out above.
.
I think that he would get a fairer trial and greater transparency, and the world would see that we aren't above the law, as no war was declared.
.
It's more difficult to do than Rusty's ill conceived arguments, as for one, rhetoric from that group isn't going to stop, and he isn't likely to have a bully pulpit large enough to make a dent -
4.2
I agree with the due process and rule of law. That said, I still don't think he'll get that fair of a trail because of the presumed guilt. Yes, it may show him for what he is or maybe it wont. But the fact that this is one of the few terrorism case that is going to federal trail makes it seem like the government thinks it has a slam dunk case. So basically the person on trail is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
-
4.3
Presumed guilt?
The man said he did it! He bragged about it. Put him on trial let him tell us puiblicly, let him tell the world. Puty him on TV, let him rant, then hang him.
-
-
5
"I am sure that I've probably gotten something wrong in the paragraph above."
JK Congrats finally a true statement. I can see how you are conflicted about where these cases are tried. If as common sense would suggest, they would be tried in a military tribunal but then it would be hard for the ACLU (who pushed for civilian trial) and other left wing numbnuts to have a forum to continue Bush-bashing. I will admit that is a better strategy for Democrats than pointing to Obama's first 10 months in office.
Speaking of logic Holder's explanation is another example of how the wheels usually fall off the wagon for liberal thought process. He argued it should be a civilian trial because most of theose killed were civilians. But as expected one of the defendants trained the hijackers and was captured by the military which would subject him to the military tribunal. But what's another inconvenient truth to the left.
Oh and one more minor detail the always escapes the so smart liberals, Khalid Sheik Mohammed is acting as his own lawyer which means according to trial rules will have access to ALL aspects of the prosecutions case including much of our security sources and methods.
Yeah tough for you, simple for anyone with an ounce of sense.
-
5.1
He acted as his own lawyer at Gitmo. He can certainly make the case to do so in Federal court and the judge can turn down that request for several valid reasons. Most importantly to ensure a fair trail and to ensure that the defendant is not using self representation as a ploy to be disruptive.
As far as the circus. The judge is also within his powers to remove the defendant and have him view the proceeding through closed circuit TV and only brought back in for questioning.
Finally KSM was not captured on any battlefield and not captured by the military. He was taken by Pakistani Intelligence with an assist by the State Department Security Service which is a law enforcement division of the State Department.
I just don't understand why the oh so brave on the right are pissing in their collective pants over this. If it's really fear then you have put a win into the terrorist column.
-
-
6
I suspect the wingnuts are really just mortified at the prospect of how much evidence could be deemed inadmissible, by a real judge in a real court, due to the Cheney Crowd's appetite for torture.
I also suspect there's plenty of untainted evidence to convict KSM anyway, and that many families of the victims will welcome his conviction in an open trial a few blocks from the scene of the horror he perpetrated. His effectiveness as a recruiter (for those already so inclined) is pretty much unchanged whether he opens his yap or not.
And (although it's hard to do so) I agree with JK that, as they used to say Out West, "Hangin's too good fer him." Let him live out a long, pathetic life in a small, empty room rather than giving him a final opportunity to recruit replacements more effectively through "martyrdom." Let's see if there are many young psychopaths anxious to follow his example and permanently forfeit their access to virgins in this life and the next.
-
6.1
Ship him to Colorado's super max prison. He will be bat-sh!t insane within one year. Assuming he isn't already insane of course.
-
-
7
I don't understand why this is such a tough call. Al Qaeda isn't a government, they're an organization. Bush may have declared "war" on terrorism and they may have declared "war" on us but that's just semantic tough talk from both sides. Even Al Qaeda isn't a unified organization so they can't really surrender in mass. One sect/cell/regional unit could surrender to us and other units would still be after us elsewhere in the world.
Al Qaeda is an organized crime syndicate, nothing more. Their crime is killing innocents rather than bootlegging cigarettes or shaking down neighborhood businesses.
Other countries have clearly demonstrated that stopping terrorist attacks takes good detective work with military support and that civilian courts are more than capable of handling their trials. To believe this stupid meme that bringing them to US shores to be prosecuted endangers the local populace (NYC in RSM's case) is simply ridiculous.
-
7.1
This is really the point, Charlie. The closest comparison to Al Qaeda may be the Cosa Nostra. Al Qaeda is a criminal organization, not a nation-state.
.
I'd like to ask the conservatives here what country we should be at war with if we are, indeed, at war with al Qaeda. Of course, the Cheney administration tried to justify everything from their invasion of Iraq to the torturing of detainees by redefining the notion of what it means to be "at war with" an enemy.
.
Historically, we have been at war with nation-states and their ideologies. But note that Cheney et. al. repeatedly claimed that the U.S. - al Qaeda conflict represented a "new kind of war."
.
The definitions of terms like "enemy combatant" and "prisoners of war" al play into this. Cheney played fast and loose with these definitions (with help of people Like John Woo and Alberto Gonzales). It seems the Obama administration is attempting to rein in the excesses of Cheney and company.
.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts. I suspect there may be challenges to Holder's very notion of holding criminal trials. -
7.2
Well said.
.
Al Qaeda isn't a nation. Their thugs don't get the rights accorded to soliders of a nation. Period.
.
For all their tough talk, Republicans are the best PR people for Al Qaeda. They've inflated a bunch of thugs who live in caves to the status of a superpower, just because the Republicans so desperately need to make Americans afraid.
.
They've succeeded with rusty, of course. But the rest of us aren't going to pee ourselves in fear so easily.
-
-
8
Mr. Klein,
I believe he is a common criminal and should be tried in Federal court, as just that- a common low life murdering Thug.
I was glad that the writer Steve Simon makes a very pertinent point:
“..Federal courts do not permit TV cameras in the courtroom, so the opportunity for “real time” jihadist propagandizing won't exist.”The argument about the possibility of so called spreading of propaganda by this man in using the court as his forum, is frequently used by those who oppose the trial of this murderer in Federal court. A trial which they claim would be best served in Military court because of the sensitive nature of this matter etc. No TV's so his rants, if any can be contained assuming he is even allowed to rant in open court about his grisly acts and perverted ideology of "war" against innocents.
I strongly disagree with having a military trial for this confessed murderer and believe that criminals in general do not have the right to dictate what classification in which they belong,
when brought before the justice system.They can call themselves “Agents of love” for all we care- we look at their acts and make a definition, description and prosecution therefrom.
Further, the description of felons in the judicial system is based on the nature of crimes and in this case, I believe, the venue could not be more suited to show the callous and vicious acts committed by this murderer.
He is what he is, a common brutal killer of innocents.No matter what the declarations of Al Qaeda regarding war against the USA becomes or is at this time, I think that we should not be compelled to interpret their acts as they want us to do.
People who target and kill civilians can always be classified as common criminals despite their claims to great ideological basis for same.
They are just low life murdering scum, and should face the full force and effect of OUR criminal justice system.We will not call an peasant man who joins up with some crazy group of anti-American lunatics “a Soldier” just because he is deluded enough to kill thousands of people in furtherance of this perverted belief.
Too bad he thinks he is some soldier, he is not. He is a common criminal, a vicious murderer of innocents.
LM
-
9
I suggest a compromise w/ Republicans: Let's try KSM by military tribunal and save NYC federal court for Bush & Cheney's war crimes trial.
-
10
"Although George Bush declared "War on Terrorism," he did never did so officially, via an act of Congress."
.
How could he? Terrorism is a tactic and apparently we have trouble defining it because we want to lable every thing as terrorism.-
10.1
Yeah, this is what I was referring to above. Declaring war on terrorism is a semantic exercise that is meant to rally people behind the president but it holds no real practical meaning or legal implication. The last time we made a formal declaration of war was World War 2. Since then no President has done it, probably because it would tie his hands and make him more answerable to Congress if he did.
At any rate, it wouldn't be possible to declare war on Al Qaeda even if we wanted to because Al Qaeda isn't a monolithic entity that operates under collective leadership. Al Qaeda in Iraq could surrender and Al Qaeda in Afganistan would keep right on fighting...
-
-
11
I remember being puzzled when the prison camp was opened in Guantanamo. My main thought was, "Then what?". There was no plan, rhyme, nor reason. Just put these evil people there. Then it emerges that the purpose was to avoid the U.S. justice system on the mainland. More puzzle. We are fighting to defend the U.S. government and justice system, but don't want it to apply to everybody, citizen or not? Any attempt to apply logic to what has happened since seems to be futile.
Adding confusion is the issue of the "war on terrorism" not being a war with a soverign nation rendering further confusion as to enemy combatants vs. criminals. But, we did invade and engage in war against 2 nations, however you want to define the act. Two governments, legitimate or not, fell at our hands. Of course the confusion doesn't apply to Iraq as the matter was handled entirely differently from Afghanistan.
Throughout all the fog, my conclusion is now what it has always been. Due process is a foundation of our form of government. Render it, whether it be in the place where our invasion occured, where a crime occured, or in zippidy doo da, anywhere. Render it, openly, publicly, and Constitutionally. All the rest of the arguments about danger, forums, recruitment, la la la, are superfilious to me.
-
12
"I don't have much patience for legal niceties when thousands of innocents are being targeted and killed."
Do you consider evidence like this a "nicety", Mr. Klein?
Don't you think the "mastermind" of 9/11 should answer such evidence in open court?
-
13
Is this physical evidence also a "legal nicety", Mr. Klein?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/the-rest-is-silence/
-
14
Do you agree that the black boxes from AA11 and UA175 would constitute important physical evidence, or would proof of their concealment be merely a "legal nicety", Mr. Klein?
-
15
You know it's pointless to have this argument because most of these Conservatives are shamelessly devoid of any integrity. In their grab for power there are no moral boundaries that they won't cross, there is nothing sacred that is beyond politicization and there are no rules they are are unwilling to break if it means they might get back in power. Republicans are so afraid that people will start to ask if Obama can try these folks in a court of law and get convictions then why didn't the Bush administration follow the rules. So rather than own their failures the right has chosen to attack Obama. The worst and most shameless of course is Giuliani -- "Mr. noun a verb and 911" pretending that New Yorkers are too wounded to withstand a trial, that this is a terrible reminder of that fateful day, as if looking a hole in the ground for the last 8 years isn't reminder enough -- give me a break. New Yorkers are made of sterner stuff than that. I am a native New Yorker and the one thing I know for an absolute certainty is that any New Yorkers quaking in their boots about this trial are those who haven't gotten off the bus from their home town too long ago. Real New Yorkers fear no one including Osama and frankly, the terrorists have more to fear from our prison inmates than the other way around.
-
15.1
How do you access someone who lies to themselves all the time, like liberals do?
-
-
16
"I don't have much patience for legal niceties when thousands of innocents are being targeted and killed."
Yes, I recall that you, along with the rest of our punditocracy, had little patience for niceties back when we were going to revenge ourselves on the 9/11 perpetrators by attacking innocent Iraqis. Feeling nostalgic, Joe, for all that war fever? Aiming to reclaim a few of the hawkish credentials you racked up back then with the always hawkish guardians of Washington's conventional wisdom?
.
Feeling impatient when atrocities are committed is entirely human and appropriate. Still, it is precisely when people have no patience for legal niceties that the legal niceties become doubly important. That
is why bragging about your impatience, and elevating it to a principle, is less admirable than feeling the impatience in the first place. It tends to place you in the company of every self righteous lynch mob in history.
.
Someone who has no patience for - or appreciation of - these facts lacks patience with and appreciation for the root values of the American system. -
17
I am sure that I've probably gotten something wrong in the paragraph above. I don't have much patience for legal niceties when thousands of innocents are being targeted and killed.
Hahahaha.
The pre-emptive version of the Hoekstra defense.
-
18
Never mind how much or our intelligence procedures and tactics will be exposed in court for A.Q. and any like minded group to learn from so they can better prepare themselves for said tactics. They study our tactics and plan how best to exploit them. Read up on how they would instruct their minions to say they were abused, had their Korans destroyed, and all the other bad things they claim happend at G.B. Many of you fell for those stories hook, line, and sinker. More of the same will be on the way.
-
18.1
Destroying Korans is a crime punishable by death to liberals. Putting a crucifix in urine is big fun and "art" paid with taxpayer money.
You just don;t have the nuance to understand the superior liberal mind.
-
18.2
So, freeinpa is a spoof, right? No one can genuinely be that stupid, right?
-
-
19
Well come on, we've also declared wars on poverty, drugs and obesity, we going to use military tribunals for poor, drug addicted chubby criminals?
-
20
I don't have much patience for legal niceties when thousands of innocents are being targeted and killed.
Shorter Joe Klein:
Me Joe Klein No Like Bad Men! Bad Men Very Bad. Bad Men Hurt Joe. Bad Men Scare Joe. Me Want Throw Bad Men In Box! Right Now! No Key! Nasty, Nasty Bad Men!
Me No Want Listen To Bad Men. Make Bad Men Pay. Army Man Punish Bad Man. Policeman Punish Bad Men. Me No Care Which. Now! Now!
Joe Klein is like a toddler with linguistic savant syndrome. He expresses the thoughts and feelings of a two-year-old with the sophistication of an English professor.
-
21
I don't have much patience for legal niceties when thousands of innocents are being targeted and killed.
We've always loved that about you Joe. Unfortunately legal niceties are the only thing that stands between civilization and chaos. Lets pretend for arguments sake that a rogue group of true believing neocons, started engaging in terrorist-like activities like perhaps sending Anthrax spores to people in the mail. Let's further assume that a prominent lobbying group with foreign connections was found to be involved.
Certainly the nature of the threat would dictate that waterboarding would be an appropriate tool for investigation and that failing that, preemptively arresting and permanently detaining the members of that lobbying organization would be AOK. And of course providing 'material support' for that organization in the form of monthly donation checks would itself be a prosecutable offense.
They might even come after YOU!
-
22
The question of whether to try the 9/11 perpetrators in federal court or a military tribunal is not an easy one.
What's not easy about taking a bunch of murderers to trial for committing a bunch of murders?
I don't have much patience for legal niceties
No, you don't, unless it's your peeps who are under the gun.
I'm opposed to the death penalty.
Well hooray for you! Everything's still all about you, isn't it, Joke Line?
-
23
Wow. This has turned as ugly as a back room full of drunken born again republican homosexuals. I am surprised to learn that Klein was a cheerleader for the criminal Iraq attack. If that is true, shows how tuned in I have been. Say it ain't so, Joe.
-
24
Give the media what they want. A televised trial, obligatory death sentence, and then auction the rights for a regular "live from death row" talk show with celebrity guests like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld. How much would Fox pay for that. Of course, if the ratings dropped, then that would be the time to fry the guy and make one last buck out of the whole thing.
-
25
This whole thing about this New York Trial for these Terrorists is that this trial is really going to be about the Bush Administration and the CIA. Why would you try some of the terrorist in a New York court and others in a military court? Eric Holder and Obama just want to use this trial to make us think that the CIA and Bush Adminstration were the real criminals here. All these crazy Islamic animals should have tried a long time ago(in a military court) and put to dealth! The Bush Administration and CIA did nothing wrong. Has there been another attack like 9-11, here in the usa? No. We have to thank the Bush Administration for that.
- TIME Are the bible stories true? Evidence from archaeology | http://su.pr/2ekoPX - 1 hour ago
- TIME Why is NBC pretending Conan never existed? | http://su.pr/4Pbjbh - 2 hours ago
- TIME A wedding in the town named Al-Qaeda | http://su.pr/1O95Hk - 3 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- In The Spotlight, Paul Ryan Faces A Purity Test
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
Quotes of the Day »
RSS