I'm reading through this thread and to be sure... folks that are both for and against KSM being tried in court are bringing up good points for their position, etc. For the record, I'm against it because I don't think it would be appropriate to give the defendants and their attorneys a platform for ranting against the US and the Great Satan of the West, etc. But I can't help but wonder about those that are still out there plotting against the US to inflict man-made disasters ("terrorism" apparently isn't politically correct any more). If they could see how much effort we put into debating the issue as to whether KSM will be treated fairly or not they would probably just laugh their *** off. I wonder if they also debate the fairness issues in their meetings when they plan the man-made disasters.
I'm really surprised that so many people believe the world is comprised only of those that love the US and those that hate the US and that, by this thinking, it hardly matters what we do because these people are pre-disposed one way or the other. I have to suspect that there are millions around the world -- people that we would like to influence, because it is in our best interests to do so -- that are open to evaluation. (Anecdotally, I happen to know a number of Iranians who fall into that category.) There are lots of people that are open to being convinced that we live up to our principles regardless of what our enemies are up to, and therefore we are more worthy of support. Hell, just look at some of the progress made in Iraq in that regard. There is a reason that military leaders like General Petraeus make relationship building a central part of our strategy against the enemy. It works. If we take the attitude that we should just focus on killing enemies by any means available, apart from our loss of national integrity, we lose the support of such people and, by extension, become further removed from success.
Anybody who thinks this board has a progressive bent is not paying attention. Buchanan is wrong, btw: The Right's Textbook 'Surrender to Terrorists' "We're too scared to have real trials in our country" is a level of cowardice unmatched in the world. by Glenn Greenwald Understanding and Combatting Terrorism, USMC Major S.M. Grass, 1989: Terrorism is a psychological weapon and is directed to create a general climate of fear. As one definition cogently notes, "terror is a natural phenomenon, terrorism is the conscious exploitation of it." Terrorism utilizes violence to coerce governments and their people by inducing fear. William Josiger, Fear Factor: The Impact of Terrorism on Public Opinion in the United States and Great Britain, 2006: At its heart terrorism is about fear. While terrorist attacks destroy, maim and kill, the intended audience for these attacks is almost always the whole body politic and the terrorist's goal is to strike fear into their hearts. The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. This is literally true: the Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right. People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes. It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant, theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets
Leaders like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts So who is deciding which rights KSM will have and which he will not? If he has the full rights of an American citizen then he skates pretty quickly.
Satch: nice post, do it more often. As for those who claim our criminal justice system is a failure, what do you propose? Should we have summary trials followed by executions for criminally accused or just turn them loose? The system is deemed failed why? Because of OJ? Or the number of defendants on death row who have been cleared by DNA? This case is not one that depends on undependable eye witnesses or racist cops; it is not one in which the trial judge is some doofus like Ito. The judge will be a federal district judge in NY's southern district and they are very good and not inclined to put up with bs from the defendants. The government has plenty of evidence that was not gained by enhanced interrogation techniques/torture/frat boy hazing. So the nasty way the nice terrorists were treated after their capture and the water sports activities associated with the confessions will not be relevant. This trial of KSM is going to be fascinating and a tribute to anglo saxon jurisprudence, which has been shaped over the centuries by the best minds of the legal profession. Sit back and enjoy the show; and be patient, a good trial is slow but good art.
"Holder is not a dumbass. He knows the risks here" On NewsHour: Lehrer: Did you run [the decision] by President Obama? Holder: Just informed him of the decision…. Lehrer: So you just told him what your decision was; you didn’t say, “What do you think about it, Mr. President?” Holder: Nope. Told him last night, or had relayed to him what I was going to do last night while he was on Air Force One on his way to Asia. Lehrer: Did you talk to anybody outside the government? Holder: I talked to my wife -- Lehrer: Yes? Okay. Holder: -- about what she thought. And I actually talked to my brother, who’s a Port Authority police officer who served -- Lehrer: Oh, is that right? Yes. Holder: -- in New York, New Jersey, and who lost friends and colleagues on 9/11 in the towers. And I talked to them about what -- was it appropriate to bring it in New York, the symbolic significance of it, the possibility of getting a good and fair, detached jury. Of course he understands the risks - he ran it by his wife and brother. No need to bother the President, National Security Adviser, or Secretary of Defense.
The name calling never gets old. Your adversary does not have a different view, he is a liar! As for Holder consulting with the NSA or Obama, why? It's mostly a legal issue. Unlike Alberto, Holder apparently does not feel compelled to take political guidance. That's not a bad thing. As for the statements that KSM will not be released in any event, this is not a recognition that the trial will be a show trial, but rather that a) KSM represents a great danger apart from his 9/11 involvement and b) KSM has confessed to his involvement in 9/11 such that a conviction is not an inappropriate rush to judgment. And, in this instance, a confession does not nullify the benefits (discussed above) of a federal trial in NY. The prosecution will still proffer admissible evidence of guilt, and, unless they botch things on an epic level (a small risk), we will demonstrate our judicial process and the compelling evidence of mass murder to the world (including those Muslims who claim 9/11 is a product of US and Israeli scheming) and there will be some closure for those of the victims' families that feel a conviction would be beneficial to their healing process.
