This morning, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” and ripped President Obama for allowing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company to stand trial in New York, saying: “It is an unnecessary advantage to give to terrorists…I don’t know you’d want to give terrorists advantages and secondly it’s an unnecessary risk.”
What risk can the mayor be talking about?
Of a terrorist attack on New York? That risk is always there. Or of acquittal? In a society governed by the rule of law, acquittal is not a “risk” but an outcome. We can disagree about the method, but the attainment of a “guilty” verdict is not a convenience, but rather a requirement.
23 responses so far
1 rbottoms // Nov 15, 2009 at 10:42 pm
That the American public find out a Democratic president can be as tough as the Republicans like to think they are? Many Republicans like to think this is Jimmy Carter II, but they are sadly mistaken.
2 johnmarzan // Nov 15, 2009 at 10:55 pm
we know he’s guilty. KSM will readily admit to masterminding 9/11. we did not need to waterboard him for THAT.
but the US gov did use enhanced interrogation techniques to squeeze KSM of information on future terror attacks and al queda associates.
i’m not worried about acquittal. but i’m worried that this will become a show trial where KSM will have the biggest stage to a) put the bush admin on trial for it’s methods b) EXPLAIN why he did it.
3 johnmarzan // Nov 15, 2009 at 10:57 pm
explain why he did 9/11 to new yorkers and the media. and then plead guilty. ultimate martyrdom.
4 rbottoms // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:48 am
So the Bosnians have more guts when it comes to putting murders on trial than the United States does?
KSM isn’t already a martyr to these people?
We’ll make Al Quaeda so angry at us they’ll what, REALLY Pearl Harbor us this time, because last time they were only foolin?
5 johnmarzan // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:03 am
“So the Bosnians have more guts when it comes to putting murders on trial than the United States does?”
wars over, serbians lost. the US is still at war with islamic jihadists.
“KSM isn’t already a martyr to these people?”
he will be once he pleads guilty and is executed.
6 mymy // Nov 16, 2009 at 9:02 am
Before anyone decides a trial of KSM in New York is a god idea read Andrew McCarthys take at NRO.Mr.McCarthy was a involved in the prosecution of the “blind Sheik”.
7 sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:14 am
Golinkin:
In war, anything less than success is not acceptable.
You don’t take risks with victory, just to be “fair” to the enemy.
The goal is not to uphold the rule of law.
The goal is to win.
8 sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:16 am
rbottoms:
The trial (by an International Criminal Tribunal) of Slobodan Milosovic lasted five years, became a media circus just like the O.J. Simpson trial–and failed to produce a verdict. Milosovic died of a heart attack before any verdict had been reached.
Is THAT your lefty role model of “justice” these days??? Drag things out long enough that these terrorists die of natural causes???
9 mymy // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:23 am
What happens if KSM is found not guilty? The Obama administration has already said he won’t go free.What will that say about the American justice ?
10 Raider1 // Nov 16, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Jeb. Please tell me you write this solely for the sake of being a contrarian for contrarian’s sake. You cannot be serious about this.
mymy…if KSM gets aquitted, it will be the end of the Obama administration and perhaps the democratic party for a generation.
11 rbottoms // Nov 16, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Superman will fly around the earth and reverse time so they can try again.
12 cheves222 // Nov 16, 2009 at 2:08 pm
My friend, you seem like a bright young fellow, but you should really not venture into things about which you are completely unaware. I am a lawyer and I’ve argued constitutional law before appellate courts, and after reading extensive media coverage and researching the law, I cannot see how you could so casually dismiss concerns from people like Guiliani (a former prosecutor who knows how to try criminal cases) and other legal and national security experts.
When you blithely invoke “the rule of law,” which laws are you talking about? Are you talking about the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures accorded to us by the Fourth Amendment? Because guess what: that will require the feds to explain that KSM was apprehended with probable cause. Do you know how to prove probable cause? You bring in witnesses and evidence—from Pakistan—about the situation surrounding his capture. Will that entail sources and methods of how the military is operating over there? Yes, it most certainly will. And the feds will have to show how they got it and prove that they got it in constitutionally-blessed means. and prove up a chain of custody of the evidence from its source to NYC. Or, perhaps you’re referring to the right to confront your accusers. This will neccesitate the feds turning over lists of sources of intel. This is exactly what happened in the 90’s when the “blind sheik” was tried in NYC. Osama got his hands on the source list and instantly knew which of his men in the field were compromised. Is that what you want to happen again? Also, since you love the rule of law and know its intricasies so thoroughly, you know of Brady rights, where the government has to turn over exculpatory information—and that means anything, anything at all, that might show that the defendant is not guilty OR that someone else might be. So, say we have intel not just on KSM that he is guilty, but also Guys A, B, and C were in on the whole thing, too. KSM, because of the Brady decision, now would get to know who these guys are and what the feds know about them—all of which will be in open court. But being such a fan of the rule of law, you already knew all that.
What is the “risk we have to take”? Aside from potentially making NYC more of a terrorist target or giving a lunatic like KSM a megaphone to the world, you will almost certainly blow the cover on intel that cost millions and millions of dollars and (more importantly) lives to get. And you also risk an acquittal, because all 12 citizens have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM did everything alleged. But at least you and Pat Leahy agree on something! Hooray!
13 mymy // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Cheves Legion Thank you I was about to try and write something along the same line.You did a much better job then I would have.
14 teabag // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Cheves Ligon, See I got your name right my French ami.
Rudi, that super lawyer was all for bringing Musouri (sp)to trial in NYS and was delighted that the American legal system worked so well. Of course then is then and now is a Democratic administration.
You too I see are wetting your bed over something so simple. Try them (they will plead guilty) then execute them. The end.
15 cheves222 // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Hey, Teabag, I love the obscenity that is your name. As classy as it is original; it’s almost as special as your total lack of decent syntax or puncuation.
The Moussaoui trial lasted for FOUR years and gave him all the opportunities he could ask for to spew his hate throughout the ordeal. He plead guilty for God only knows what reason. He’s now serving a life sentence without parole; he’s not facing execution, so you’re wrong factually. (Surprise!) Secondly, he was tried in the Eastern District of VA, not NYC. (Wrong again!) The trial never got to the stage where the feds would have had to let his defense attorneys crawl through the evidence. He was tried in the U.S. because he was captured in the U.S.; KSM was captured in Pakistan, which, you might remember, is not the U.S. And lastly, he was a lower-level co-conspirator; KSM was the mastermind. So, yeah, perfect analogy!
But it is I who am “wetting my bed.”
16 teabag // Nov 16, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Cheves,
You are very welcome. Teabag is a vessel for the containment of tea leaves during the brewing process. Only a Conservative Frenchman could call that innocent item of daily usage an obscenity.
17 Hung Jury - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com // Nov 16, 2009 at 5:56 pm
[...] “What risk,” asks Golinkin, “can the mayor be talking about?” Of a terrorist attack on New York? That risk is always there. Or of acquittal? In a society governed by the rule of law, acquittal is not a “risk” but an outcome. We can disagree about the method, but the attainment of a “guilty” verdict is not a convenience, but rather a requirement. [...]
18 mymy // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Cheves Ligon. Thank you again for your knowledge and sanity.
19 teabag // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:38 pm
At least you got the French elitists name right this time!
20 Socrates // Nov 17, 2009 at 2:17 am
Cheves Ligon:
Your argument sounds a lot like John Yoo’s argument in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537370665832850.html#articleTabs%3Darticle). Despite your “scholarly research” and diligence, your argument is not substantiated by facts. John Yoo is not an expert trial lawyer and the example he cited was in 1993, sixteen years ago. Nowadays, most experts would argue that we have a judicial system that is more adequate to handle intelligence matters (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/11/risk-worth-taking-civilian-trials-for.php)
As for the “security” argument, I really don’t see the problem. Are you saying that the terrorists will attack again? if that is the case, what has stopped them from attacking so far? While I am not saying that there is no risk, the “security” argument is basically a fear mongering tactic.
Many people who vehemently oppose this trial seem to have a vested interest in the case. If things go as predicted, VP Dick Chenney will be accusing Pres. Obama of being soft on the terrorists. Why are people like him and John Yoo so distrustful of the American justice system?
21 SFTor1 // Nov 17, 2009 at 2:51 am
A couple of comments:
It seems some people here think that trying criminals is optional. Mr. Mohammed and whoever else was involved in 9/11 are exactly that—criminals, because 9/11 was a crime (of massive proportions) and nothing else. I know a lot of people would opt for just putting a bullet in their necks, but it’s not in the book.
22 cheves222 // Nov 17, 2009 at 10:47 am
Socrates,
Let me follow your logic. My argument sounds like John Yoo’s; John Yoo didn’t do much trial work; therefore, I am wrong that this will be a big mistake. That totally makes sense! Thanks!
As far as “most experts” go, I’m sorry, but the fact that you can find some law professors who (surprise!) think that glorified lawyers in black robes can make national security decisions is, to say the least, unmoving. The way this would work is this: the defense requests all the information the State has—which they should do—and then the feds make a claim of national security for some, or most, of what the defense wants. The district court judge will then take the objections and decide which intelligence should not be admitted to trial/turned over because it threatens national security interests. How can anyone argue with a straight face that this is not a farce? A judge, a man or woman with a J.D. and some years as a lawyer, will now be forced to determine which bits of evidence threaten intel sources in Pakistan and Afghanistan and God knows where else. How on Earth does this seem right to you? A judge will know that Sources A, Bm but not C in Pakistan will be comprimised, even though the feds say he will, so Source C’s info must be disclosed. What training does a judge have to make such decisions? Zero. Which is why, in accordance with the Hamdan decision and the Geneva Conventions, Congress set up military commissions specifically engineered to deal with these individuals. Barack/Holder are using these commissions for other detainees—so I guess they distrust the American justice system just like John Yoo, right?
You ask: “Why are people like him and John Yoo so distrustful of the American justice system?” I don’t distrust the American justice system. I’m a lawyer, I’ve argued in criminal matters *for defendants* at the trial and appellate levels, and I think our system of justice is the best in the world. But listen very closely: it was not designed for the KSMs of the world, but for murderers, rapists, thieves, drug dealers, and white-collar criminals surveiled and apprehended by American law enforcement. It’s fantastic dealing with the criminals; we’ve spent literally 100s of years tweaking and balancing the rights of the accused and the needs of justice and security. But the system is simply not set up for prosecuting terrorists (or even wrongly-accused terrorists) captured in foreign countries by the military.
As far as the terrorist threat, I’m shocked that people would be so dismissive of these concerns. But after your flimsy defense of the KSM/Holder trial decision, I’m not surprised.
23 Independent // Nov 18, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“You are very welcome. Teabag is a vessel for the containment of tea leaves during the brewing process. Only a Conservative Frenchman could call that innocent item of daily usage an obscenity” –teabag @ 16.
you are a sly, albeit witless, troll teabag. no wonder so many people here find you abhorrent and annoying.
you picked teabag for the same reason your buddies in flame use teabagger in the democrat underground… to keep alive a sexually disgusting slur.
sir, you should be shamed; but for that, you’d need character.
You must log in to post a comment.