Looks like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed won’t be tried in New York after all. But if not New York, then where?
A former high ranking CIA official commented that for security purposes and to minimize disruption, the ideal location would be a military base. But which? Ideally, you would want a base reasonably close to major media centers in New York and Washington, easily secured, and prepared to receive large numbers of observers. What military facility would fit the bill? The official answered his own question: “How about Gitmo?”
What kind of trial?
Congressman Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) has introduced a bill that requires all detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay to be tried in military commissions there, instead of being transferred to cities like New York or Washington D.C. for civil trials. Rooney passionately points out that “it drives me crazy that we are ignoring these military tribunals now. It was good enough for George Washington, Lincoln, and FDR but somehow it is not good enough for Obama. “
John Yoo, a Department of Justice lawyer during the Bush administration and author of Crisis and Command, concurred and explained to FrumForum that in a military tribunal, “the rules are much more generous to protecting national security secrets. Military commissions have experts on the rules of warfare and how wars are fought. In this venue, the chances of acquitting KSM are far lower because with a federal jury, it only takes one person who does not want to convict.”
On the other hand, a death sentence might be harder to get in a military tribunal unless the conspiracy law of 2006 is amended by Congress. Under federal law, as long as someone in the conspiracy commits an overt act, all members are held responsible. For a military commission, the person conspired ONLY if they actually committed the overt act.
Above all the president himself has already fatally contaminated the integrity of a civilian trial by his own words. As former CIA director Michael Hayden stated in an interview with FrumForum, this administration wants “to show the world how great our American justice system is; yet, how can it be a fair trial if the President and the Attorney General already came out and said KSM was going to be found guilty, even though our system presumes KSM to be assumed innocent. Further, if he is declared innocent they made it clear that he will be kept in jail. This would seem to undercut one of the stated purposes of a civilian trial which is to showcase the American civilian justice system.”
8 responses so far
1 teabag // Feb 6, 2010 at 11:19 am
You quote John Yoo!! A thoroughly discredited Bush lackey? Please get serious.
2 teabag // Feb 6, 2010 at 11:22 am
” It was good enough for George Washington, Lincoln, and FDR but somehow it is not good enough for Obama. ”
Apparently military tribunal were not good enough for George Bush as only one person out of the thousands held has been tried and convicted by Military tribunal where as 300 International and domestic terrorists have been tried and convicted in civilian courts. 300 to 1 not a good score from your viewpoint but good for the country.
3 sinz54 // Feb 6, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Michael Hayden:
The main argument by liberals–that applying the rule of law by a civilian trial of KSM would show the world how much more “civilized” we are than those al-Qaeda barbarians–has been wrecked by the statements coming from the Obama Administration. They’re telling us that this trial is just a show trial, a mere formality prior to KSM’s execution. And what if KSM is acquitted? The Obama administration has said that he will continue to remain incarcerated anyway. So the trial is worthless.
No one in the world is going to be impressed by a show trial with a preordained outcome.
I can already see the editorials and columns in The Guardian by Human Rights First denouncing the trial.
The only thing that would impress them is a trial in which there is a real possibility of acquittal. And that they are not going to get, because the Democrats don’t want to be swept out of office in a landslide.
If KSM were acquitted like O.J. Simpson, that would be the end of the Democratic Party for a long long time.
4 teabag // Feb 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Sinz, you don’t believe in trails or tribunals remember?
Your stated position is to
Quote.
“Shoot them as quickly and as cheaply as possible”
You have no position to argue on the legitimacy or otherwise of trials as you believe in the Stalinist firing squad.
5 Reality Chick // Feb 6, 2010 at 10:42 pm
Military tribunal at Gitmo. Sounds like a capital idea!
6 sinz54 // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:48 pm
teabag:
FYI, civilian partisans fighting on behalf of the enemy, when caught, were usually shot without trial. That was true going all the way back to the Franco-Prussian War, when civilian partisans were known as “francs-tireurs” (literally: “free shooters”).
Captured civilian partisans were NEVER granted the same rights as captured soldiers. Military history is on my side in this.
But since that position is too politically incorrect for even Bush to have touched it, I am forced to consider legalistic means for dealing with KSM and other captured terrorists.
I’ll say it again: There is no benefit to giving KSM a trial in civilian court, if the outcome of the trial is preordained, if the POTUS passed judgment on it ahead of time as the Obama administration has done here.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60R7DS20100131
President Clinton didn’t pass judgment on Timothy McVeigh ahead of time. He knew better.
7 sinz54 // Feb 7, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Reality Chick:
The rules of military law being what they are,
it may be easier to convict KSM in a military tribunal–but harder to convince the judges to apply the death penalty.
Military law isn’t as strong on so-called “capital murder.” To apply the death penalty, you have to prove that the defendant directly caused those murders. Well, those 19 guys who directly caused the murders on 9/11/2001 are all dead, obviously. KSM didn’t directly murder anyone.
Of course, if we set up a special military tribunal for KSM, we can adjust those rules. How about substituting this new rule: “Any Muslim found guilty of terrorism will be executed.” That should cover it!
8 jreb // Feb 7, 2010 at 10:49 pm
Personally I think these scumbags need to be put to death, however I think the victims and the families of these victims have waited too long for justice and I can’t see waiting another possibly ten years and spending up to two billion dollars on these scumbags. I’m for the quickest and cheapest way to bring justice, if that means military tribunals, let’s get it done.
You must log in to post a comment.