For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?
Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be waterboarded if he refused to talk?
And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?
There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.
If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be needed to protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a mighty blow struck against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest, the trial should be held on Governor's Island, would that not make the United States look like a nation under siege?
What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
It's all a ploy. What'll happen is, ALL of the methods, techniques, etc... of information gathering will be made public. Since the Obama administration knows it'll be political suicide to actually go after and try Bush officials and CIA operatives, they're hoping that once all this information is brought to light, those W folks will be indicited by the World Court on war crime charges, etc... That way, they get to appease the far left folks.
What's even funnier.... what if he gets off on a technicality?
This will be a bigger circus than Ringling Brothers. Not too mention, will cost us millions of dollars, because this trial is going to take forever.
I don't even listen to Rush, so whatever. But if you don't think it's at all possible, you're fooling yourself. You don't think the defense lawyers are going to have a field day with this?
This is going to be a circus, an absolute circus. Everything the Bush Administration used to catch this guy and then get information will be brought out in court.
I don't find it the least bit humorous. And if you don't think some gung-ho international lawyers would be chomping at the bit to "nail" the Bush administration when this information comes out? You're living in a fantasy world.
I guess the thing is, in getting the trial in NYC, he's not going to get acquitted. It is going to be a circus for sure, but the guy won't walk. I mean, he's not even being tried by a jury of his peers. His jury is the group of people that he harmed the most. It doesn't matter what the defense says, I set the over/under of deliberation at about 30 seconds.
"Do you swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"
"Of course I do you insufferable infidal!" *rim shot*
It could be the newest sit com .......
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: It's all a ploy. What'll happen is, ALL of the methods, techniques, etc... of information gathering will be made public. Since the Obama administration knows it'll be political suicide to actually go after and try Bush officials and CIA operatives, they're hoping that once all this information is brought to light, those W folks will be indicited by the World Court on war crime charges, etc... That way, they get to appease the far left folks.
What's even funnier.... what if he gets off on a technicality?
This will be a bigger circus than Ringling Brothers. Not too mention, will cost us millions of dollars, because this trial is going to take forever.
You might be right but if he gets off on a technicality, it will become a black cloud over the administration. The risk is greater than the potential benefit.
Quote: I guess the thing is, in getting the trial in NYC, he's not going to get acquitted. It is going to be a circus for sure, but the guy won't walk. I mean, he's not even being tried by a jury of his peers. His jury is the group of people that he harmed the most. It doesn't matter what the defense says, I set the over/under of deliberation at about 30 seconds.
The problem is with what's going to be revealed in the trial. CIA intelligence, how we got that intelligence, tracking methods, tactics, etc... It's going to expose so many government secrets.
They're going to have to go through the court process. It'll all be out on the table. How does this make us any safer? The guy isn't even a US Citizen. He's a terrorist, an enemy combatant. The mastermind behind the largest attack on US soil. But we're going to run him through the court system like he robbed a bank?
We are now back to the pre-9/11 mentality when it comes to dealing with these people. Clinton treated them like common criminals. Obama is doing the same.
"There were at war with us, we were not at war with them."
He has to have a trial. Just executing him or whatever would put such a black mark on the entire country and would make him a martyr for all the extremists. America is trying him, so he gets all the American law privileges. It's that simple. To those who think he'll get off on a technicality, I can tell you right now there's no chance of that. Look through history, war criminals get punished. This will be no different. America is the lone superpower in the world, and we must show the world that we are not savages.
Quote: Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
I lost the point of the article upon reading that. Genda wasn't brought here for trial and subsequently was test flying jet fighters here in America during the 50's and eventually (in 1962) received the highest United States honor given to foreigners: the Legion of Merit.
Perhaps one of the greatest things that this country stands for is justice for all...not just justice for those we like, or who aren't terrorists, or justice for some.
I understand that a lot of people get off, or people who don't deserve it are punished, but i think it's more amazing that injustice doesn't happen more often!
I believe he, and everyone else, deserves a fair trial. Let's let this opportunity to show the world what we believe in to really shine through.
We hate terrorists because they act like animals. Let's not act like them.
So many people point to the Pledge of Allegiance for the "under God" part. The part I like the best? "With liberty and justice for ALL."
And, as an attorney, I hope an attorney steps up and does a great job representing this guy. I certainly don't hope he "gets off", but, just as if this guy was sick, a doctor should treat him, a lawyer must make sure this guy gets his due process which is entitled to all people.
IMO, it would be a bigger mistake to do what so many of us want: no trial, torture the guy, then kill him publicly. How would we be "better" than places like Afghanistan under the Taliban? "You did something we hate. Therefore, we're going to act in the same evil way toward you that you acted toward us."
Don't forget that pledge deals with American citizens. One nation ... justice for all.
This piece of crap terrorist is not an American citizen, and even the semblance that he's innocent until proven guilty or is entitled to the same rights as a US citizen is a slap in the face of everyone who died in the 911 attacks.
I don't care what people think about how we may be just like the Taliban if we kill him. Maybe if we start executing more of these terrorists they'll think twice about terrorizing our country. Just because it may seem barbaric to some, doesn't make it wrong. If this piece of crap is somehow acquitted, I hope he's shot dead in the street as soon as he walks out of the court room. That would be JUSTICE FOR ALL of those who died as a result of what he's done.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do. -Derek Jeter
A. "justice for all" is for the citizens of United States which he is not
B. He is a enemy combatant, he and any other terrorists who is captured needs to be held in a POW camp because despite what Obama says, this country is at war. If a trial will make you feel better than give him a military trial, not a civilian trial which is reserved for "civilians".
"Change ownership of the team, the true change we can believe in." - I made this in 2008
I agree he deserves a fair trial.........but not in a public court....it should be in a a military court as he is an enemy combatant and not some common criminal whose crime was against a single or several fellow citizens. This was an attack against out nation, and the workings of our government. Add to that the level of confidentiality of the information that is likely to come out in this trial...(that does NOT need to be public) and we have even greater reason to hold this in a military court.
People are confusing this issue. The issue should not be whther this person should get a fair trial. He should....the issues should be where should this trial be held. And it should NOT be held in a public forum.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Quote: Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
I lost the point of the article upon reading that. Genda wasn't brought here for trial and subsequently was test flying jet fighters here in America during the 50's and eventually (in 1962) received the highest United States honor given to foreigners: the Legion of Merit.
The war was over. We established cordial relations with Japan. He was given the Legion of Merit, "for his role in rebuilding the Japanese air force and cooperating closely with the United States".
Do you think KSM should receive the same rights as a U.S. citizen and get a trial in Federal court?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: People are confusing this issue. The issue should not be whther this person should get a fair trial. He should....the issues should be where should this trial be held. And it should NOT be held in a public forum.
Very true.
Although I don't know if I necessarily agree with the last part.
I don't really have any problem with him being tried in a public court. He's not going to get off, and the only information that could be damaging if revealed is the shady stuff we're doing behind closed doors (and unlike many, I see no reason to keep that stuff in the dark). They're not going to trot out national security secrets here, trust me.
In reality, I could care less about where he's tried. He's going to be found guilty and executed.
I'm more troubled with the way people view the situation. I really believe that if I lot of folks had their way we'd end up devolving into those who embrace public beheadings....the same folks they loathe.
Quote: IF he's found guilty, and IF he's given the death sentence, I can only hope we do like the people of Iraq. Carry it out swiftly. Within days.
He'll get his lengthy string of appeals, and lose them in due time, much like what's just happened with the D.C. sniper.
And he should get them IMO...I don't really care if he's a citizen or not...I don't think our legal system should be subject to interpretation for reasons of geography.
Like I said earlier...he will be convicted and executed after due process. There's really no need to worry.
Quote: IF he's found guilty, and IF he's given the death sentence, I can only hope we do like the people of Iraq. Carry it out swiftly. Within days.
He'll get his lengthy string of appeals, and lose them in due time, much like what's just happened with the D.C. sniper.
And he should get them IMO...I don't really care if he's a citizen or not...I don't think our legal system should be subject to interpretation for reasons of geography.
Like I said earlier...he will be convicted and executed after due process. There's really no need to worry.
I'll bet he is NOT executed. Probably life..... And Phill, I'm sure the terrorists and Taliban are all sitting around the campfire saying "Boy that America is really treating us fair.I'm gonna strive to be more like them".I'm sure our good friends the French are all for this trial. Lets be honest and call this as it is, A chance for the Dems to take a shot at Bush , the CIA and put our troops in even more danger.
Quote: Do you think KSM should receive the same rights as a U.S. citizen and get a trial in Federal court?
I don't believe that any decision of guilt or innocence should be a matter of nationality. Being that there are risk of injustices regardless of the venue, I’ll allow the prosecutors to decide where they should be tried. In either case they’ll be treated as innocent until proven guilty. From little I’ve read the main difference will be what is considered acceptable evidence, but I have no reason to believe the prosecutors don’t already have that in their pocket. If that's not the case somebody is going to pay for it.
I still don’t know what point the writer of the article was trying to make about Genda? Is it that perhaps one day in the future that these terrorists too will be worthy of us honoring?
I understand the Geneva Convention allows us to treat non-uniformed enemy combatants a certain way. My issue comes when I start to think more deeply about the situation. We are taught that the rights bestowed to us under the Bill of Rights contained within the Consitution are inalienable rights bestowed upon us by a higher power. That being the case, does the higher power really care where you are from, or if you believe in him? Therefore, if the Constitution delineates inalienable rights, why would some argue that those rights are only bestowed upon American Citizens?
Remember too, I am a Conservative by nature. I simply try to think through my stances so that I do not contradict myself with my beliefs whenever possible.
Quote: I'll bet he is NOT executed. Probably life.....
How much you wanna wager?
Quote: And Phill, I'm sure the terrorists and Taliban are all sitting around the campfire saying "Boy that America is really treating us fair.I'm gonna strive to be more like them".
I could really care less what they think. My concern is on my own country's actions.
Quote: A chance for the Dems to take a shot at Bush , the CIA and put our troops in even more danger.
The best thing that could happen for the Democrats in this current situation is to have the guy convicted and sentenced while Obama is sitting in office.
On second thought, maybe you're right. Maybe the Democrats are huddled in a smoky conference room somewhere right now...pacing and going "we've got to figure out a way to use this trial to put the troops in even more danger. Ideas?"
I understand the Geneva Convention allows us to treat non-uniformed enemy combatants a certain way. My issue comes when I start to think more deeply about the situation. We are taught that the rights bestowed to us under the Bill of Rights contained within the Consitution are inalienable rights bestowed upon us by a higher power. That being the case, does the higher power really care where you are from, or if you believe in him? Therefore, if the Constitution delineates inalienable rights, why would some argue that those rights are only bestowed upon American Citizens?
Remember too, I am a Conservative by nature. I simply try to think through my stances so that I do not contradict myself with my beliefs whenever possible.
Good take.
It's not an easy issue...and like I said earlier, I could really care less where is is tried, so long as the trial is documented.
As I also said earlier...what bothers me about this issue more than anything is the public outcry. And not only here, where it's inherently political...but other avenues -- this current serial killer, McVeigh, etc.
People don't blink at the thought of disregarding our highly evolved justice system. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's taken time to get where we are, and I really believe there's a lot of people out there for whom a trial would be a formality -- they're ready to set the son of a gun on fire in the street.
There's a reason that we abandoned this as a society is because it's a really bad impulse to jump upon.
I understand the Geneva Convention allows us to treat non-uniformed enemy combatants a certain way. My issue comes when I start to think more deeply about the situation. We are taught that the rights bestowed to us under the Bill of Rights contained within the Consitution are inalienable rights bestowed upon us by a higher power. That being the case, does the higher power really care where you are from, or if you believe in him? Therefore, if the Constitution delineates inalienable rights, why would some argue that those rights are only bestowed upon American Citizens?
Remember too, I am a Conservative by nature. I simply try to think through my stances so that I do not contradict myself with my beliefs whenever possible.
The U.S. constitution applies to U.S. citizens. Not people from other countries........otherwise they would be following our constitution.
Guy deserves a fair trial. It should not be in our public court system though. He is not a u.s. citizen.
It amazes me.......so many people go to lenghts to defend this guys rights. Look what he designed and carried out against the u.s.
It amazes me that our own gov'.t is saying "don't cal hasan a terrorist" (the ft. hood shooter)
Screw that. Hasan was a terrorist. So is this KSM guy.
For heaven's sake, all it takes for a u.s. citizen to be jailed in "some" other countries is stepping foot onto their soil.
Reverse things. Say a u.s. citizen planned an attack on, say Iran, Iraq, N. Korea.....and they arrested the person. You think they sit in jail for years? You think they'd get a fair trial? You think they'd spend more years awaiting the death penalty? Hell no. They'd be arrested, and if not killed immediately, they'd have some kangaroo court find them guilty. Then they would be hanged within days.
Screw this "the U.S. is better than other countries" crap. It's gotten us into more crap than you can imagine. We are not better. Different perhaps, but not better.
They, the bad guys, want to kill us. I guess some people don't get that.
![[Linked Image from ps3gc.com]](http://www.ps3gc.com/pics/Bigswoll61.png)
![[Linked Image from thumb0.webshots.net]](http://thumb0.webshots.net/t/34/34/0/73/58/2594073580091396520Miskbz_th.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
