The Obama administration has chosen the wrong New York venue to try five co-conspirators in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Instead of a Manhattan courtroom less than a mile from the site of where the World Trade Center stood, the government should have chosen the Bronx Zoo, because a zoo is what will be created when this terrorist trial is held.
In announcing the decision to try in a civilian court these “enemy combatants,” as the Bush administration rightly described them, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “For over 200 years, our nation has relied on a faithful adherence to the rule of law to bring criminals to justice and provide accountability to victims. Once again we will ask our legal system to rise to that challenge, and I am confident it will answer the call with fairness and justice.”
I’m not.
The administration’s first mistake is to label these men “criminals,” as if a terrorist attack and the announced objective of forcibly “Islamicizing” America were the same as robbing a bank. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were an act of war, as much as if a nation-state had attacked us. Trials should not be held for war criminals until the war has been won.
House Minority Leader John Boehner correctly called civilian trials a victory for liberal special-interest groups, which put those groups’ interests “before the safety and security of the American people.” Boehner added, “The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause.”
The trial could also serve as a venue for trying the Bush administration and second-guessing decisions that kept America safe after 9/11. Secrets might be revealed that could be used by terrorists to harm us again. And if the terrorists must have a jury of their peers, does that mean fellow Muslims might be included? Could that end in a hung jury or a mistrial?
Attorney General Holder assures us that conviction of the “criminals” is a virtual certainty. Anyone who follows our quirky court system knows that innocent people are in prison and murderers walk the streets. It is anything but a foregone conclusion that these men will be convicted, but it is likely that damage will be done to the United States, which is the primary objective of the terrorists.
What do we hope to accomplish by trying these mass murderers on U.S. soil? Will it produce more troops from our NATO allies to finish the job in Afghanistan? Not likely. When the world sees how good and fair we are, will it love America more and will terrorists decide to kill us less? Only in the world of make-believe inhabited by ACLU lawyers.
This trial will be broadcast worldwide. It will show America’s enemies, not the “fairness” of our justice system, but a group of men who can stand up to “the great Satan” and shake their fists in our face. It will also serve as a recruiting video for future terrorists because it will demonstrate what, to them, is weakness. A strong nation would have tried these men in the military tribunals Congress authorized for that purpose. A weak nation imputes rights to noncitizens who want to do away with the very rights we are now going to afford them.
You don’t need an imagination to predict that crazies will show up at this trial, including Islamic terrorists in training who want to emulate the acts of the defendants. Some might be “inspired” to create another event at or near the courthouse. Cable TV will carry it all.
What if the terrorists are acquitted? Who will take the blame? It won’t be President Obama. Because of numerous motions, the trial will likely be delayed for three to five years. Obama will either be out of office or into a second term by then.
For those who believe this is a very bad decision with little upside for America, the best we might hope for is that the judge is a Jewish woman. That would be sweet revenge for these misogynist anti-Semites.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
"A weak nation imputes rights to noncitizens"
Wrong. Human rights are self-evident. They are not granted by the state, every human has them by virtue of being human beings. To suggest that a nation is "strong" only if it destroys human rights in the name of the state can only lead down a dark road. That may speak to the overpowering strength of the state, but it also speaks about the weakness of the nation if it cannot prevent the state from destroying human rights.
As for our "quirky" court system, having talked with DAs and defense attorneys, most of them have great faith in the ability of the system to provide justice.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Trying them in New York in a criminal court where the crime was committed seems like the proper jurisdiction.
Gen Hayden of the Bush/Cheney NSA headquarters allowed the 9/11/01 culprits to live but a few blocks away from NSA headquarters....for two years.
Then forbid the FBI the authority to pursue any kind of intelligence operation. Yes Gen Hayden of the National Security Agency (NSA) was aware of their presence. The FBI learned of thei culprits presence through the grape vine
instead of receiving a memo of authorization.
The fear mongers are out to convince citizens that criminals should not be tried in the New York criminal court where the crime took place.
A military courts would hide the facts about a Bush/Cheney administration that dropped the ball. Might not be good for upcoming elections among other things.
What is the fear?
There is fear that we the USA citizens might discover some facts about what took place leading up to that horrible day for thousands. Where was the National Security advisor aka Rice and what was she doing?
Why didn't Rice, Rummy or Bush provide authorization to the FBI?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
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
excerpt:
"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."
For the whole article--
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwal...
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
When I was a member of the Republican Party I never believed it was a party of cowards.
I wonder if this is what happens when a national party starts cowering to the will of a handful of ego maniacs in Washington.
A couple of decades gone by and where are all the real men. Chasing dollars I guess.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"The trial could also serve as a venue for trying the Bush administration and second-guessing decisions that kept America safe after 9/11."
Bingo! Found the pearl in the manure pile. There's no benefit to having this "trial" in civilian US court system. All radical lefties will love this idea - speed up the demise of the 'evil empire' and bring on the chaos to reveal the 'New Man'.
These scum barely deserve to be broken on the wheel, and we're going to give them a world stage to attack us yet again.
If this is allowed, perhaps this country doesn't deserve to continue forward.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Be afraid 75, be very afraid. It's your duty as a good republican sheep.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
L_O,
We frequently disagree, but not today.
monkeyspunk (anonymous) says…
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Apparently these words, that changed the world, mean so little to so many now...
I refuse to let Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to rule my life. I refuse to elect politicians that allow FUD to direct the course of our nation. When that happens, then perhaps this country doesn't deserve to continue forward.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Just not sure if this is the right thing to do. I do know that as a tax-paying citizen of the U.S. I'm somewhat frustrated and offended that these poor excuses for human beings will be granted the same rights and protections a full-fledged member of our society receives. Not to mention the offense of tens of millions of our tax dollars that will be proffered to defend these low-lifes and protect them with unprecedented security.
This has been accomplished in other countries, though the majority of the time the accused was an actual citizen of the country trying them. Time will tell, just can't say I'm a fan of this course at the moment.
pace (anonymous) says…
It might be cheaper and safer just to give in to the terrorists. Find out what they want and give it to them. It might be give up our system of law, to just restrict our citizens from exercising our freedoms, or to for us to cringe in cowardice at the suggestion of trying the criminals in our courts. Leave it to the troops to die in our defense, then screw our vets over. It could be remembered as the new great new American dream. Where we declare ourselves cowards and incompetent.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
Barrypenders, I'm with you. It was good enough for the first bunch that attacked the WTC in '93, it's good enough for this bunch.
Did I just agree with Barrypenders in public? Hmmmmm.
craigers (anonymous) says…
Time will certainly tell if this was a wise decision. I personally had no idea that pieces of crap had human rights.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
"Apparently these words, that changed the world, mean so little to so many now…"
Justice - a term well known to the founding fathers, seems also to be one that means little to so many now.
All men are created equal....therefore are equal before the law. When men chose to follow the path that is in opposition to the law (terrorists, criminals, etc.), do their actions not demand that justice be done in response to their acts?
The laws of the nation apply to it's citizens - something that seems to escape the simple minds of our commenting classes. These particular offenders do not fall under the laws of our citizens - and should not be tried and judged according to that system. They do not hold claim to the privileges of US citizens.
These lame interpretations of an excerpt of the Declaration is further evidence of what is truly missing in this oh-so-modern world of talking point emotionalism.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
The right wingers are wetting their pants because they know that when the Obama adminstration obtains guilty verdicts and death penalties against those responsible for 9/11, a grateful American public will appreciate the accomplishment. That accomplishment will stand in stark contrast to the actions of the prior adminstration and will take place in the next 2-3 years, not after the end of Obama's first term. The trial process in the federal court system is well established and there will be far fewer delays, as opposed to the prospect of a military commission trial, in which defense attorneys could be expected to take every issue in the trial to the US Supreme Court to flesh out unsettled legal issues. The federal courts are also the quicker path to justice and that is what really annoys the loons on the right.
Jaywalker says:
"I'm somewhat frustrated and offended that these poor excuses for human beings will be granted the same rights and protections a full-fledged member of our society receives. Not to mention the offense of tens of millions of our tax dollars that will be proffered to defend these low-lifes and protect them with unprecedented security."
Zealous advocacy protects the rights and freedoms of all of us. It is money well spent. Convictions after a fair trial will prove far more satisfactory than a secret military trial. Martyrdoom in a military trial will only inflame future terrorists. The legal system that forms the bedrock of our form of government will deliver a far superior result and will be above reproach.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
"Convictions after a fair trial will prove far more satisfactory than a secret military trial. Martyrdoom in a military trial will only inflame future terrorists"
You're onto a decent idea, scott, but you're muddlin' it up. First, "Convictions after a fair trial..."? Numero uno in our civil justice system is 'innocent 'til proven..', yet you're willing to pre-convict them? Don't get me wrong, I'm confident we got the right guys, but one of Cal's few good points is that guilty men walk in our system.
Second, you're naively assuming a civilian trial is going to matter over a military trial to extremists. And these guys are already martyrs to those that share their beliefs! They're martyrs now and they're martyrs no matter which American system of justice convicts them. Either will "...inflame future terrorists" They get 'inflamed' by women's exposed ankles and cartoons, for cryin' out loud.
You're kidding yourself if you believe any of these extremists will somehow be pacified by a civilian trial.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
The Democratic governor of New York thinks this is a bad idea.
Is he another good Republican sheep, bozo?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
His record as governor indicates he'd likely be more at home as a Republican, snap. He's certainly not getting any support from the Democratic Party in getting another term.
But I'll leave to you sheep to decide who belongs in your flock.
verity (anonymous) says…
grammaddy (Anonymous) says…
"Did I just agree with Barrypenders in public? Hmmmmm."
H--- just froze over. Must have been those large snowflakes. I actually agreed with his comment too. Did he make sense for once?
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
Wow, Invictus, you're going all out today, aren't you?
Or is it that your sad, bigoted brain has finally cracked, and you actually believe what you are saying?
Moving on. As the strongest nation in the world, we should totally cower in fear and suspend the things that made us great because of the actions of evil people abroad who do those actions pretty much exactly because they want us to become lesser because of our fear. Yep.
Seriously, how do some of you partisan fools manage to juggle all of the cognitive dissonance your blind following of empty, fearmongering rhetoric naturally results in?
. . . . . oh right, blame it on "them." (the libs, the neocons, the gays, the ACLU, Christians, etc.)
verity (anonymous) says…
craigers (Anonymous) says…
"I personally had no idea that pieces of crap had human rights."
From former posts, I know that you proclaim yourself to be quite the Christian. WWJD?
georgeofwesternkansas (anonymous) says…
Question, if this is the proper thing to do for KSM. Why are AQ forces in Afgan not given a trial before we send in the Special Forces or Drones??
Jimo (anonymous) says…
"Trying terrorists in the U.S. is dangerous"
ROFL
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
"I believe our President and First Lady would disagree that we ever had “things that made us great.”
Well, thanks for providing good evidence for my last point.
preebo (anonymous) says…
This is not about KSM or rights for terrorists. This is about our nations highest ideals and the simple principle that which our nation was founded - the immutable rule of law, period.
Shall I remind you all of the Boston Massacre Trial, in which John Adams, an accomplished lawyer and Colonialist, defended British Soldiers, largely despised by the Colonialists, who were charged with firing upon a group of unarmed civilians, unprovoked. When later asked about his successful defense of the British Soldiers, Fmr. President Adams was quoted as saying, "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country." Unlike many skewed principles thrown around today by many, this is quantifiable.
The idea that every man is afforded a fair trial does not take a way from the might of justice, but rather strengthens the resolve of men to seek it out.
jonas_opines (anonymous) says…
So, care to discuss the ramifications of the Alien and Sedition acts for Adams' presidency, and what the end result of those acts ultimately was?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
So, these scumbags have been in limbo for how many years, now? Eating our food, enjoying our health care?
Why were they not tried in 2005? 2006? 2007?
Cal fails again, and fails hard. Every question that he has asks in this column, could be asked at any point that these men were brought to trial, executed, set free... well, **anything**, really that is different from the situation they're in now.
I agree with whoever pointed out that you don't try war criminals until after the war is over. Okay, fine... then let's start a war. A real war. Let's have a formal declaration of war--something we haven't had since 1941 or 1942.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Somebody tell me what the up-side is to having this trial in NYC? There has to be some kind of advantage gained by doing this. The Military Tribunal system we have (built by congress, approved by the supreme court) was specifically designed to handle these trials. What is the advantage gained by not using it?
There is certainly a ton of potentially bad things that could result from doing this, as have been so ably pointed-out. They must be out-weighed by some potentially very good thing. Whats is that big, compelling reason to do the trail this way? The President and Attorney General have not made that clear.
I'm assuming it is something larger than scoring some partisan domestic political points for that is a trivial reason not worth the risks involved.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
"The laws of the nation apply to it's citizens - something that seems to escape the simple minds of our commenting classes."
Something that escapes you is that the government of a nation must abide by that nation's laws. From the Fifth Amendment:
"No PERSON shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Ths is a restriction on government power, not a granting of a right. Rights are self-evident and are possessed by all humans regardless of their citizenship. The Constitution here talks about persons anyway, not citizens. Do you wish to throw away the Constitution?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
"Bingo! Found the pearl in the manure pile. There's no benefit to having this “trial” in civilian US court system. All radical lefties will love this idea - speed up the demise of the 'evil empire' and bring on the chaos to reveal the 'New Man'.
"These scum barely deserve to be broken on the wheel, and we're going to give them a world stage to attack us yet again.
"If this is allowed, perhaps this country doesn't deserve to continue forward."
__________________________________________________
Uuuhhmmm... 'New Man?' Your first paragraph begs the question: Exactly what sort of hallucinogenic have you recently ingested?
Your last sentence is all so high and mighty judgemental. Who designated you, or any of those that agree with you, as arbiter of how, when, and where 300 million people "continue forward?"
Exactly how would keeping these terrorists locked up, indefinitely, be any sort of "forward step?"
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Hate to keep bringing this guy up, but Andrew Sullivan makes some excellent points here, IMHO.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com...
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Huh, that's really interesting, unsavory. I didn't know that KSM was a member of the US military.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Which Bush/Cheney genius put New York in this position is the question?
IT's a procedure for a Repub cover up.
The more we the people know the more we can do to keep the USA a free nation. Let the chips fall where they may.
Many of the 9/11/01 families ARE NOT happy with this repub scam on the people.
Military courts seldom convict our military men of rape either abroad or within our shores.
This is the sweep it under the rug court.
Why should this case be in military court if there were not action in the works to monitor what the 9/11/01 culprits were doing. The culprits were nothing but hardened criminals who are dead ---- yep committed suicide on 9/11/01. I guess Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy had no idea they were on american soil hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Wonder why?
The CIA were following two of the culprits in Yemen not Afghanistan. The CIA lost track. These two culprits entered the USA by way of San Diego unchallenged. Yep they were on a list of questionable characters.
Why should Bush,Cheney,Rice or anyone else who did not lose family or family members. Their friends were busy ripping off USA financial institutions.
The 9/11/01 families deserve to have the case heard in USA court on their behalf.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Merrill - In KSM's case, he has pleaded guilty. What "case" would there be to hear? All that needs to be done with him is the sentencing phase of the trail.
As for the rest of them I ask again - what is the big advantage gained by having a public trail for terrorist criminals on US soil? Are you saying that this would be better for the 9/11 families? Compared to a military tribunal, what advantage do they get from a public trail in civilian court?
Take a break from the Bush-bashing. It's not only irrelevant, it makes President Obama look bad when people try to make excuses for him. This is his decision. He should tell us why it's such a good idea. So far he hasn't done that.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Uncle Joe Stalin was also a great fan of show trials. Dear Leader is following Uncle Joe's playbook page-by-page. Expect all farms to be made into collectives owned by the government before the 2012 elections. .
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
The point is that it WON'T be a show trial. It'll deal with alleged criminals the way alleged criminals are supposed to be dealt with.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
unsavoryagent (Anonymous) says…
"Hey libertyone, you forgot part of the fifth amendment."
Nope, I cited all the clauses that apply.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
“No PERSON shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Liberty_One - a nice quote, but your view presents a far greater difficulty in rationalizing application of US law. You appear to uphold a notion that the only 'law' is that found in the US civil courts.
Military tribunals are the time-tested and appropriate venue for these non-state illegal combatants. Appropriate judgments and punishments are validly and legally pronounced and applied by these judicial bodies. Your "due process of law" in action.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
So, there have been previous instances in which military tribunals were convened to try "non-state illegal combatants?" Was this in America, or in other nations?
Can anyone cite examples?
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
preebo:
Now that's the kind of take I was looking for, thank you. Well written and the kind of argument that sways me.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Trying to pump yourself up as a "reasonable" person, jaywalker?
remember_username (anonymous) says…
75x55 - "The laws of the nation apply to it's citizens - something that seems to escape the simple minds of our commenting classes. These particular offenders do not fall under the laws of our citizens - and should not be tried and judged according to that system. They do not hold claim to the privileges of US citizens."
Are you suggesting turning them over to the Hague for trial?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
The Chicago Way will be to make a pretense of a trial but not to actually gamble on the result.
Axelrod's puppet says, "Here's a loaf of bread. Here's a ticket to the circus. Now give me all your money, citizen."
75x55 (anonymous) says…
remember_username - no, not at all. I'm 'suggesting' that the best course (of many possible courses, as this question seems to present) is the use of a military tribunal/commission.
The World Court at The Hague would not be an appropriate venue - think about it, and tell us why.
tomatogrower (anonymous) says…
Oh, Cal, go hide in your bunker.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"You honestly think they'll be found innocent and released?"
Probably not. But it's up to the courts to decide their innocence or guilt, not me, and not you, unless you find yourself on the jury.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
75x55, easy there now. Are you trying to change the topic? I thought they had no rights at all under American law since they weren't citizens. Suddenly they do have due process rights and the only issue for you seems to be whether a military tribunal or a civilian court is the appropriate venue.
Since you've decided to back down from your previously overbroad statements, why exactly is a civilian court such an inappropriate venue? Are the penalties available unsatisfactory to you?
remember_username (anonymous) says…
75x55 - I agree the Hague is not a sufficient forum, I was curious as to your position. The problem with Military Tribunals (from what I understand) is that the SCOTUS ruled first against them in '06, then again in '08 after congress tried to work around the ruling by creating Military Commissions instead of Tribunals. It seems clear to me the Judicial Branch is hesitant to support tribunals or commissions and that trial in federal court may be the lesser of evils.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
So, we're just going to play a 'definitions' game, where you drop out key terms and keep the ball flying around to no real end, as you continue to try and avoid the rational option of military commissions/tribunals?
You know, little silly tricks like saying "American law", when I've clearly mentioned "civil law", as in the law pertaining to citizens, vs. non-citizen illegal combatants.
What used to appear as a principle-based argument from you seems to have devolved into something quite a bit less admirable. And you didn't tell us why the Hague (specifically the ICC) would not be an appropriate venue.
Very disappointing.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
“Probably not.”
Show trial.
------------------------
So you're saying that if someone is "probably guilty," they shouldn't get a trial? Who decides "probably," on what basis, what's the process?
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Given that there isn't much difference, historically speaking with military commission vs. tribunals (the terms have been fairly interchangeable)...
SCOTUS is a fickle beast, over the years. Major difficulty it had with German saboteurs during WWII was deciding that they had any say in the proceedings.
Is the fickle opinion of the SCOTUS the same as "the law"? Let us hope not.
Liberty_One (anonymous) says…
OK, keep dancing. Keep trying to change the subject. They went from having no rights to suddenly having rights, and now I'm supposedly ignoring something about the Hague which apparantly was part of the rules of discussion that I missed. I guess if you keep talking about what the appropriate venue is we can all forget your overbroad statements about how "the laws of the nation" don't apply to these people.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
What does it say about what it means to be an American when our constitutional protections as citizens are being applied to people who want nothing more than to destroy the very country who is providing them. The terrorists do not deserve them.
If there is some larger interest, some compelling national advantage to ignore how having these trials cheapens our American culture, the the President needs to explain that.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"What does it say about what it means to be an American when our constitutional protections as citizens are being applied to people who want nothing more than to destroy the very country who is providing them. The terrorists do not deserve them."
If constitutional protections meant they could somehow act with impunity, you might have a point. But that's not what constitutional protections provide.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
75x55 - Umm...what? Liberty, I think the Hague thing was for me. So, why not the Hague? 1) The crime was against Americans and I think most Americans would prefer and deserve justice in an American courtroom (specifically NY). Here American definitions of terrorism apply, American penalties apply, and Americans don't have to answer for methods of questioning. Turning these guys over to the Hague would be a public relations nightmare for either party.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Gee Tom, does that mean you'll stop complaining so much now?
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Bozo - our constitution provides certain rules for evidence, discovery rules, speedy trial rules, right to self-represent, rules against self-incrimination, rules concerning the examination of witnesses, protections against unlawful search and seizure, hear-say and second-hand evidence, classified evidence, evidence taken by coercion. The terrorists deserve none of these protections. They are not citizens of this country. They do not deserve a trial in this country. This is exactly why congress passed the military tribunal system in 2006.
But enough of the reasons why we shouldn't do this. They are plentiful. What I want to know is why we should do this. What is the big advantage of having this trial in a US civilian court? Why won't the President / AG tell us?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The terrorists deserve none of these protections. "
That you've already convicted them is a perfect illustration of why they need the same protections as humans who happen to be Americans.
" What is the big advantage of having this trial in a US civilian court?"
Because setting up and maintaining a system of courts for non-Americans creates doubts about their validity from the outset. If we don't want to try them ourselves, in the courts in which we try each other, then turn them over to an international tribunal. To do otherwise would merely add legitimacy to their crimes.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Bozo says: "Because setting up and maintaining a system of courts for non-Americans creates doubts about their validity from the outset."
You missed the point. We're not discussing the American legal system as it relates to non-Americans. Non- Americans in this country legally or not are protected by our constitution within our legal system.
The terrorists have no such standing in the eyes of our law. They are not in this country (yet) nor were they when the terrorists acts they are charged with were committed. These men are terrorists, not criminals. They perpetrated an act of war against our country.
International tribunal? You can't be serious. We should never cede American sovereignty to see justice done to those who attack our country. If you don't believe the military tribunal system we have affords these men the rights and protections they deserve, than perhaps you wouldn't object to seeing them tried under the same system they wish to impose on all of us (Sharia Law).
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
You think the US should be self-appointed Lords of the World. I disagree. Mainly because doing so, among other things, will merely encourage those you look down upon to take measures that we don't like, such as leveling skyscrapers in large US cities.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"Nope. In this case, yes, he should not get a trial. He confessed. He's guilty."
Did 183 instances of waterboarding produce that confession?
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Still not trying to conceal the fact you're a jackass, bozo?
TacoBob (anonymous) says…
Why the cherry picking here? Some get tried in civilian courts, others via a military tribunal. Why did they pick whom they did?
True ACLU-types should be all over this due to the inconsistencies. Just as the lawyer of one of the defendants is pointing out.
jumpin_catfish (anonymous) says…
This is about legal standing and KSM doesn't qualify. A military tribunal works perfectly fine for him.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Still not trying to conceal the fact you're a jackass, bozo?"
You're such a grownup.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
The Constitution doesn't mean anything if its precepts can be ignored to satisfy a blood lust. It's not about them, it's about us and what we believe in and stand for.
scott3460 (anonymous) says…
"What this “I'm scared of the criminal” BS? “They might hurt us if we put them on trial” crap?
What kind of attitude is that? That's complete BS. They commit crimes on American soil, we try them and convict them. End of story."
Actually those who control the legions of weak minded right wing loons are deathly afraid that a federal court trial will reveal that the big scary worldwide AQ terrorist threat is little more than a pitiful band of misfit losers. Will the republican base shrink to the low teens in response? Time will tell.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Bozo says: I think the US is / or I want it to be "self-appointed lords of the world."
Well Bozo, just what did I write that caused you to think that? I think what I did write conflicted you. You were prompted to reveal your true character. Tell me Bozo, are Americans inherently bad? Did we somehow deserve what happened on 9/11? Do you believe we should be cowed by those who pray for our destruction? Should we respect their point of view? Should we honor it by providing them with the sacred liberties we have bled for?
Did you miss the point where I stressed the law? Our law says what it says, If you don't like it, elect people who would change it to afford American constitutional protections to (fill in the blank) group of people you think need them. In the mean time, thank a vet.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
They didn't commit crimes Porch, they committed acts of war. They are not criminals, they are illegal enemy combatants. They are not American citizens and have done nothing whatsoever to deserve the legal protections we have a right to.
Bear in mind I'm not parsing words here. If you disagree understand it's our law and numerous international treaties that makes the difference between these terms very clear.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Tell me Bozo, are Americans inherently bad?"
Generally speaking, no single person injured or killed in a cycle of violence deserves their fate. But that doesn't excuse the perpetrators of that cycle of violence. Sadly, the US has been a very major, global player in an endless ongoing cycle for over a century.
As the saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.
Which are you, tbaker?
timetospeakup (anonymous) says…
I hate to agree with Obama on this, but he's right. We need to try these men. If/When found guitly, we need to put them to death.
Bringing them up for trial brings closure, and allows us to move forward from holding them forever into the punishment phase.
sfjayhawk (anonymous) says…
Wow, due process is still alive in America.
gccs14r (anonymous) says…
Interesting, tbaker. We invaded two countries, fought their citizens and allies, and imprisoned some of their people for a period of years without charge. We offered a bounty on "terrorists", which some people used as an opportunity to make a few bucks by falsely accusing their neighbors. There is a high probability that some of these people have done nothing wrong. We have to do something, and in the process we have to show that we are not the criminals that BushCo led the world to think we are. A civil trial helps to accomplish that.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
gccs14r - shhh! You need to remember not to include the term 'Bushco' in the same message as "civil trial" - that may tip some of the ignorant off that this really isn't about the detainees or serving the needs of due process.
Oh, and you need to try an work in the latest tactic of accusing people, with rational and reasoned opposition to this civil trial idea, as being victims of irrational fear. Sling a little of that mud around to try and foozle 'em.
You are doing well at being the leftist flack, grasshopper - continue on...
jafs (anonymous) says…
It's an interesting question whether civil or military courts are the more appropriate place to hold these trials.
However, I'm not sure that it makes a big difference either way, assuming that the courts operate fairly.
And, the whole "enemy combatant" thing was cooked up in order to justify not affording these men Geneva convention protections.
It seems to me that we can't have it both ways - if they are actors engaged in war, then they deserve the protections afforded to such.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Jafs - that would be "illegal" enemy combatant in the case of these terrorists. The definition hasn't been "cooked up." It is an important one and it has been around a very long time. The Geneva Conventions, the International Law of Land Warfare, The United Nations, US federal law and that of all the other countries who have signed these treaties all consider these men illegal enemy combatants because they attack and kill defenseless civilians. They have committed war crimes. They are not members of a uniformed military force engaged in warfare against another country on the behalf of their own. If they were they would be "legal" enemy combatants (aka POWs) and entitled to all the protections afforded such people.
Aside from the largest propaganda stage in world history, we are providing these terrorists legitimacy by telling the world they deserve the rights and privileges of our civilian court system. They are war criminals.
BrianR (anonymous) says…
It doesn't matter who started the war or whether the war is just, they committed an act of war against the US. Give them a fair trial then execute them.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
When people laugh (laughter) at their own ignorance, how can any reasonable discussion be attempted?
Sad thing to witness such public displays.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
What gets me is classifying these 5 people as "enemy combatants". That is exactly how they wish to be seen, as entities in a war against America. Even trying them as "war criminals" justifies this view. These guys are terrorists straight up and by U.S. Code defining terrorism these guys committed "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States..." (U.S.Code Title 18, 2331). They want to be seen as soldiers in a jihad against America, but they're not they are criminals who carried out the mass murder of nearly 3000 innocent people.
The problem really boils down how we define the "War on Terror". If we want to define it as a "declared war", that is fundamentally the same as our war on the Germany and Japan in World War II, then these 5 people are "unprivileged enemy combatants" (not afforded Geneva convention privileges) and could be tried by military tribunal. But if the "War on Terror" is similar to the "Cold War" or "War on Drugs", then these 5 people are not "enemy combatants", just terrorist criminals. (Myself I believe the latter definition is better suited and that the prior definition put forth by President Bush was an error.)
I agree with those who declare a concern that a federal trial affords these criminals a public forum and might give voice to al-Queda. However, consider the similar trials of Reid, Moussaoui, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, public trial simply showed these guys to be pretty whacko. After long term detention and whatever other treatment these 5 were exposed to I can't imagine they'll be any less whacko. So while there is a risk of what might be said or shown in a public trial, I believe that the victims of 9/11 and the City of New York deserve their day in court, and any risk is offset by the benefits of treating these 5 as the thugs they are.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Interesting point in last paragraph, jafs. The stickler, as I see it, is that terrorists are, by and large, "civilians." That's my reading on it--I'm sure others will disagree.
I think it's time to take a few deep breaths, step back, and do a bit of homework...
http://www.usconstitution.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_C...
[I've kinda been snickering at all the references to the "Geneva Convention." Seems like the only reference these folks have is when Colonel Hogan holds Colonel Klink's feet to the fire for one privilege or another.]
Important points, as I see 'em:
1) Were the terrorists actually trying to instigate a war of some sort? Most accepted definitions of "war" define it as something that exists between two nations. Al Qaeda is not a nation. It represents no single nation, it is not located in any single nation.
2) No formal declaration of war has been declared by the United States since June 5, 1942 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarat... )
3) "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed." ( U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 2 ) If the terrorists are being tried exclusively for the deaths, murders, homicides of people killed in the World Trade Center, then New York City is the constitutionally-valid place for that trial. If the terrorists were (also) being tried for the hijackings of the jets, then things would not be so clear.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
remember_username: Consider this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_c...
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Lastly, I think a so-called "dog & pony show" is exactly what is needed here. Show other nations how it might be done. Set an example.
Some have talked about "putting the Bush administration on trial," and I think that might be the case, but perhaps in a good way: Despite all the weaknesses, blunders, and failings of those years, I think credit can be given to President Bush for encouraging, even forcing better cooperation between law enforcement agencies. I'd be willing to wager that if Holder and his associates feel they have an airtight case against these kooks, it's the result of many years of work--much of it happening during the Bush years--and the result of lots of cooperation between the cia, fbi, dhs, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Love him or hate him, I think it is just and fair to give Bush credit for setting those wheels in motion.
Agnostick
agnosick@excite.com
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Gee, I'm sorry, bozo, didn't mean to step on your toes. Why, it was oh so mature of you to take a "puffed up" pot shot at me, unsolicited, and merely because I commended a post. What a hypocrite.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Porch - I think you're wrong here. The Geneva convention spells out clearly the definition of "enemy combatant" that can be afforded protection under the laws of war. A "enemy combatant" that doesn't fit the definition is called a "unprivileged enemy combatant" and is not afforded protection.
I believe the Bush administration made the mistake of declaring members of al-Queda as "unprivileged enemy combatants". I completely understand why it was done that way - but I think it was wrong even if it saved American lives.
remember_username (anonymous) says…
Agno - no formal declaration of war need exist - see definition of police action.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Call me a liar and spew all the baseless partisan drivel you want Porch. It does not change the fact that the aforementioned body of US and international law and treaties define the terrorists in question as illegal enemy combatants. Bush or anyone else didn't define these men so. A very large body of law did.
Prove me wrong. If they are not illegal enemy combatants, what are they? Enlighten us.
75x55 (anonymous) says…
Yah see, tbaker? It really isn't about the scum that we've captured.
It's about putting our "illegal actions" on trial, hauling in Bush admin. witnesses (ie., "the perps") for a public witch trial. In the eyes of the irrational left, THIS is what is 'good' for this country - not identifying terrorists, showing the world the evidence of their crimes and punishing them.
No, we're all going to get a never-ending freak show of supposed crimes by US officials and anyone involved in the WOT - as the uncivilized world laughs and points at the now clearly psychotic western world self-immolating in false piety.
How's the 'hope and change' working out for everyone?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Do you think Dear Leader will attend the funeral of his fellow Chicago corruptocrat who put a bullet thru his own head Monday rather than testify before a grand jury?
(putting on Thready McThreadjack hat).
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
It is amazing how many here who claim they are patriotic Americans are so quick to trash our values and freedoms and Constitution.
You are not Americans, you are traitors.
tbaker (anonymous) says…
Porch - you dodged the question. I am not divorced from reality. To the contrary, my point is based on the reality that the aforementioned body of US and international law and treaties define the terrorists in question as illegal enemy combatants.
This is a fact Porch. Like I said, Bush or anyone else didn't just dream up this definition. A very large body of national and international law did.
Look, when someone decides to use use stealth and anonymity to kill innocent, defenseless civilians so as to terrorize a given population in the name of some cause, the civilized world has decided to call these people illegal enemy combatants, aka terrorists. The world decided a long time ago that the things terrorists do are war crimes, not felonies.
There is a huge difference between a person like this, and uniformed member of a nation's armed forces engaged in warfare with another nation. When captured the later is entitled to the protections said body of law provides "LEGAL" enemy combatants, such as the "prisoner of war" status you mention.
Moral high ground? Don't you realize countries of the world always, without exception, act in their own self interest? Do you honestly believe the perceived moral standing of a country has ever influenced another country to do something that isn't in it's self interest? You've heard of Neville Chamberlain right?
tbaker (anonymous) says…
So I'm a traitor because I want our government to follow our law and the uphold it's treaty obligations? Yeah right.
You should thank a vet for the freedom you have to be so ignorant.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
remember_username (Anonymous) says…
"Agno - no formal declaration of war need exist - see definition of police action."
___________________________________________________
I suspect I could find a variety of definitions for "police action." Did you have a particular one in mind?
I try to bolster my arguments with quotes, links to supporting evidence/documentation, etc.
--Ag
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Remember Holder's role in the Marc Rich pardon scandal?
How far should we trust Holder now?
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
I just have a couple questions, because I dont know the answer obviously, so, 1-what if we bring them to NY or wherever and try them, and they are found guilty..is there even the remotest chance that AQ would go postal and hit NY again with a terror attack?
And 2-what if they are tried and found NOT guilty by a jury, then what happens to them? Where do they go? No other country wants them so what do we do with them? IS this fear monging or is this thinking ahead at all the possibilities that could happen??
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
ksdivakat, those are good questions, IMHO.
1) Al Qaeda has been postal since their inception--"postal" is damn near their middle name. Guilty, innocent, mistrial, no trial... doesn't matter, they're gonna try again. We just have to be ready. Come to think of it, knowing that there will a 500% increase in security and surveillance during the trial, ***if*** I was a terrorist, that'd be the last time I'd try anything. Why? Because that's when you're expecting it.
2) Hard to say here. At the very least, deportation of some sort. Fly low over the Persian Gulf, drop 'em in the water, see where they swim first! :p
jafs (anonymous) says…
The claim that it's ok to torture and mistreat suspected terrorists because they are "illegal" enemy combatants strikes me as unfounded.
First, we have to prove they are in fact terrorists before we can justly punish them in any way.
The Bush administration played all kinds of word games to justify mistreatment of people not tried/convicted of any crimes at all.
That's what many Americans are upset about, including Bruce Springsteen, by the way.
If they're not soldiers, then why should they be tried in a military court?
Claiming they have committed "war crimes" when there was no war makes no sense.
The problem is the nature of Al-Quaeda - it's a movement, not a country.
However we choose to try them, it should be a fair trial - any evidence obtained by torture should be disallowed, rules of evidence should obtain, etc.
Why do people think a military court would be a better venue?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Okay, this is kinda interesting...
Common Article 3
This article states that the certain minimum rules of war also apply to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. The applicability of this article rests on the interpretation of the term armed conflict.[7] For example it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war but that are carried out within the confines of a single country. A handful of individuals attacking a police station would not be considered an armed conflict subject to this article, but only subject to the laws of the country in question.
The provisions of the entire Geneva Convention are not applicable in this situation, but only a limited list of provisions contained within the language of Article 3,[7] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is that many articles would otherwise conflict with the rights of a Sovereign State. In summary:
* Persons taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely (including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention).
* The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_C...
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Ok Ag..thank you for answering me, but let me get a littel deeper into your answers, if I may.....
If 1 is hte case and no matter how we cut it, AQ will strike...why would we, as a nation, risk the lives of even one of our citizens, when the Government cant seem to make up their mind as to how they even want to try them?
And 2-seriously, there is no way that people will allow us to drop them off at some fly over, although I like that answer!
Here is what I am trying to do, I am trying to educate myself and form an opinion on this without any fearmonging, but first I must establish if I have allowed that to influence me.
jaywalker (anonymous) says…
Not for nothing, but it occurred to me today that if we are going to process them through our civil court system of justice....and please check me if I'm wrong......but aren't they guaranteed to walk right off the bat because they were never mirandized? Sincerely hope I'm wrong, but such minor details should give those pause who think treating them like one of us (the irony there is thick) is the unquestionable way to go.
tbaker,
Attempting to have a discussion with porch? I thought I'd told ya before, but you'd get more out of watching a bridge rust.
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
Wow...sorry about all those typos..its late and im ready to go home! LOL
remember_username (anonymous) says…
agno - I'm pressed for time here, but I did get a chuckle out of your 1:50 -
* remember_username (Anonymous) says…
* “Agno - no formal declaration of war need exist - see definition of police action.”
* I suspect I could find a variety of definitions for “police action.” Did you have a particular one in mind?
* I try to bolster my arguments with quotes, links to supporting evidence/documentation, etc.
My short comment was in response to your 10:45 comment. Here in it's entirety -
* remember_username: Consider this…
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_c…
I wasn't even sure what your argument was, you just put up a link. I assumed you were arguing that there must be a declaration of war, thus my comment. Sorry if I assumed wrong but really - "Consider this...Link" - what am I a mind reader?
remember_username (anonymous) says…
TomShewmon - When you said "I'm going to ride this storm out–—that's what it means. I'll always complain–-you guys would expect nothing less, wouldn't you?", you were being true to form.
You have contributed nothing to this forum but hate and discontent. I disagree with much 75x55, tbaker, satirical, godot, or liberty_one post, heck I'm a Social Democrat, we're bound to disagree on nearly everything. However, I have learn things from them I didn't know. From Liberty and tbaker I've gotten a much better understanding of arguments supporting both strong personal and economic freedoms. From satirical I've learned that gun owners have a real fear of federal intrusion on firearm ownership that I don't understand but I can now see it as a tangible problem. 75x55's short comment on mandatory service made me rethink my position on the topic. Even godot has me hopping around the web learning about why little villages in Alaska deserve million dollar airports.
But you have done little but attack without constructive comment. You are right about one thing - if you were in a dark alley cornered by hostile gang members...you'd be on your own.
From you a person can learn nothing.
benanhalt (anonymous) says…
«They're not people you want to get cornered in a dark alley by gang members with…….you'd be on your own.»
In my experience, the people who complain about their friends not backing them up in dark alleys are usually the people who stupidly get all their friends into street fights in the first place.
jafs (anonymous) says…
I usually ignore TS, but...
How you can call me a "terrorist sympathizer" from what I've written is beyond me.
suspected terrorists are people who have not even been tried, not to mention convicted, of anything.
Torture is a notoriously ineffective means of obtaining accurate information, as well as being something that many Americans feel is wrong.
We cannot claim to be morally superior to other nations that torture people without justification if we do the same thing.
jafs (anonymous) says…
It is understandable, of course, that many Americans are afraid of terrorist attacks.
It is also understandable that that fear may lead them to justify actions that would otherwise seem wrong (or even unimaginable).
However, it is not a good idea to do so.