“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York—New York — to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.” – Attorney General Eric Holder.
Eric Holder is mistaken. Those terrorists coming to New York for trial were brought to justice years ago. They aren't on vacation down there in Guantanamo Bay. They are prisoners of a war Al Qaeda declared against the United States in 1996. Self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in 2003. All five of the terrorists coming to New York for trial were already set to be tried before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. What Holder has done is to grant foreign warriors the full rights of American citizenship by putting them into our civilian court system. Holder is seeking the death penalty, but KSM also faced the death penalty under the military commissions system.
What is to be gained from this ?
It isn't to console the families of 9/11 victims. Hundreds of them are already protesting this decision:
“Families are furious about this,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chic Burlingame was the American Airlines pilot of one of the planes hijacked on Sept. 11. She said more than 300 family members have implored the administration not to move the trial to New York. “They know we don’t support this. We support military commissions but they are going to see a wave of fury, and I don’t think they’re prepared for it,” she said Friday after the decision became public.
Bringing the terrorists to New York and trying them only blocks away from the World Trade Center site will guarantee one thing – a media circus, perhaps unlike any we have yet seen. Won't it be fun to watch the terrorists exercise their new array of civil rights ? I know I can't wait for KSM's attorneys to say he should be freed because we didn't read him his Miranda rights. I also can't wait for his lawyers to ask for the evidence against him to be thrown out due to the enhanced interrogation techniques, aka torture. I can't wait for KSM to become the victim. I definitely look forward to KSM taking the stand to urge his followers to continue their jihad against the Great Satan, and having the media instantly spread his message across the globe. And what will happen when KSM's attorneys request access to classified intelligence materials as part of his defense ? There's a reason crimes and wars are treated differently, even if Eric Holder and Barack Obama don't know there is a difference.
Last week, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) tried to pass legislation that would have forced the administration to try 9/11 plotters in military courts. Democrats voted that legislation down by a vote of 54-45. We've spent years insuring that the military commissions pass Constitutional muster, and Obama has said he will try terrorism cases with military commissions, but then he brings the highest profile cases possible into federal court. Why ?
It's not that I think we can't try terrorists in federal court. We've done that before successfully lots of times, and in KSM's case we should be able to prevail, though how we'll get an impartial jury blocks away from the WTC site should be a circus all it's own. It's just that WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS. We could have avoided the circus.
UPDATE**
Here's President Obama from earlier this year:
"When this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again."
Obama admits KSM and company are prisoners of war who will not be released. Sooooo, why bring them into civilian court ? You know darn well that KSM will NEVER be released. That would be political suicide for Obama and the Democrats. This decision makes no sense to me.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
I don't understand the reasoning behind this, either. The times terrorists have been tried in federal court that I can recall (McVeigh), they were American citizens, not non-citizens who specifically traveled to our country to attack it. The boys at Columbine killed themselves, so there was never any need for a trial, there.
The WTC killers came to the US with the specific intent to kill as many Americans as they could. Well, that and to buy as many lap dances and nail as many hookers as they could, but I digress. They effectively declared war on our country by flying airplanes (or attempting to) into buildings that are symbolic of the greatness of this country.
Really, it's hard to know what to do with these men. We've never dealt with anything of this caliber before. I think that trying them in an open, televised courtroom is an error. That just gives them a stage for their show.
I think this opens up the risk that prosecutors and federal judges who are part of the process here become real targets for terrorist retaliation. Jurors may also have the same worries.
I'm trying really hard to find a good reason behind this decision. For the administration, which seems more concerned with perception than reality, I guess it looks to the world like we are trying extra hard to be fair. The only problem with that theory is that radical Islamic groups could care less.
Have we tried "terrorists" inside the country in the past? Yes.
Ramseh Yousef, nephew of KSM, was the first WTC bomber in 1993. He was tried, convicted, and none of it posed a threat or turned into a circus. The Blind Sheik, is another.
Obama and Holder know that they have enough evidence without relying on tortured confessions to convict these five criminals. The trials will be a good example for us and the rest of the world that America has put aside it's rogue years from 2001-2009 and once again trusts in, an upholds, it's Constitutional system of law and order.
To say we have never dealt with people like this before is incorrect.
Military commissions were an artificial and needless scapegoat-route for Bush/Cheney to avoid having their reign of torture-terror and treaty violations exposed.
What better way to demonstrate the evil that is America? The defense will paint a picutre in which it would be understandable if terrorists had commited these acts. Even if they commited the acts they are accused of they are the true victims. First the defense attempts to prove their rights were violated by the actions of the gov. In order to defend these charges the gov. will have to reveal not only their methods of operation but also expose the very people trying to protect us. The left doesnt give a shit about the defendants. This is about wanting to make this country appear to be the font of all evil and give notice to those that attempt to protect America that they risk being exposed and punished by the country they defend.
The Reverend has voiced another reason the left wants a media circus trial – to go after Bush some more. In other words, politics. That's about as poor a reason as I can imagine.
Tory, the only plus is, I don't think the television cameras are allowed inside those federal courtrooms. I certainly hope they don't change that.
"Obama and Holder know that they have enough evidence without relying on tortured confessions to convict these five criminals. The trials will be a good example for us and the rest of the world that America has put aside it's rogue years from 2001-2009 and once again trusts in, an upholds, it's Constitutional system of law and order."
I've seen this reasoning quite a bit today, Reverend. It reveals the hypocrisy of the left, the kangaroo court nature of the coming proceedings and the administration's complete lack of integrity.
It's "We'll give you a fair trial because we know you'll be found guilty," which is a mockery of our court system. Of course, what happens next time, when a soldier forgets to read a terrorist his rights on the battlefield then the terrorist walks?
Obama and Holder don't care. They've got a Really Big Show to put on.
And they are putting New Yorkers at unnecessary risk all for the sake of a show trial. Doesn't the Presidential oath say something about protecting the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic ? Barry better hope to hell nothing goes wrong.
Rev:Military commissions were an artificial and needless scapegoat-route for Bush/Cheney to avoid having their reign of torture-terror and treaty violations exposed.
Our legal system is nothing more than a travesty, tilted to benefit those who prosper financially. I value the security of this nation, well above those who call for it's destruction. If these scumbags are put on trial to aid a partisan agenda, rather than secure convictions, I do hope New Yorkers turn their city upside-down. They'll have a right to.
Reverand is correct that we have prosecuted terrorists in the federal civil courts in the past. Beyond these historical observations, the Reverand's support for the recent decision of the Administration to try KSM in a federal court is as misguided as the actual decision. This is especially the case where Obama is keeping the Bush era military commissions so detested by the Reverand, the ACLU, and their ilk. Indeed Obama and Holder have agreed the terrorists that attacked the USS Cole will be tried before a military commission.
This points to the perverse nature of the Administration's decision. Obama is telling terrorists around the world that they will receive greater legal protections and rights if they attack civilian targets, rather than military targets. This will, of course, just create greater incentives for terrorists to attack softer civilian targets to promote terror. Remember this if another terror attack occurs on US soil.
this from ThinkProgress…….
"But last night on Fox, the network’s top legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano — who has been known to disagree with Fox’s right-wing narratives on legal issues — disputed that view, citing the constitutional right to be tried in the place where the crime has been committed. “I don’t care about the Constitution!” host Bill O’Reilly responded. The debate continued:
O’REILLY: So why is he entitled to come to New York City to be tried in the civilian criminal court if he’s arrested in Pakistan?
NAPOLITANO: Because the document you don’t want me to talk about says when the government is going to prosecute you, it must do so in the place where the alleged harm was caused."
I guess King and quidpro, like O'Rielly doesn't give a rats ass about the Constitution either
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/17/oreilly-trials-constitution/
here's the 6th Amendment for all those libertarians like King…..
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Walter,
Nice cliche about a rodent's posterior. Did you think of it yourself, or does thinkprogress.org give you your talking points? Since you apparently do believe that the Constitution is equal to the rear-end of a rat, please cite me to the Constitutional text that guarentees to prisoners of war the right to a trial in our federal courts with all of the attendent rights of due process.
After you find that text, perhaps you can then explain why the bombers of the USS Cole are not entitled to the same rights as KSM. But wouldn't that put Obama and Holder in the same company as O'Reilly and King?
prisoners of war? what prisoners of war? there are no prisoners of war…..if they were POW's then they would be covered under the Geneva Accords.
here we have a bunch of Saudis killing a bunch of Americans on American soil…….where exactly does the military gain jurisdiction?
here's a case where I have no idea why the military had jurisdiction……
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6461215.stm
walter,
The Bill Of Rights applies to CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. KSM is NOT one. He's a foreign enemy combatant, aka, prisoner of war. KSM also committed crimes against the USA all over the world, not just in NYC.
I guess ThinkProgress left that out. Did you check with Counterpunch ?
Watch out, King. I am sure that ThinkProgress or CounterPunch will come back with something about that prisoner of war thing since it is only al Qaeda that declared war. Progressives don't consider us at war and that keeps KSM from being treated as a prisoner of war. Actually they aren't wrong, in some respects, but for some reason anyone with prog as part of his self description don't understand that unless a man is wearing a uniform of a nation and fighting under the flag of that nation he doesn't have the protection of the Geneva Conventions. I have been very unhappy with that group continually talking about the Geneva Conventions when they don't apply, at all, to jihadists.
Roy,
Funny you should say that, because yesterday the Reverend was telling me there IS no war (in spite of Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq, Al Qaeda's declarations of war, numerous terrorist attacks, numerous foiled attacks, the Gitmo detainees, the war on terror, etc).
Today I expect him to tell me there is no sun or moon. That boy is in deep denial. I guess denial is all they have left.
roybot….thanks for pointing out to King and quidpro that there are no prisoners of war.
did you see the story about the college exchange student charged with murder in Italy? Since she's a U.S. citizen, are her rights the ones guarenteed under the U.S. Constitution or are her rights governed by Italian law?
just asking
walt,
If there are no prisoners of war, why do I keep hearing those crazy people on the news talking about the Afghanistan WAR and the Iraq WAR ? Are they all lying ? Those wars are a hoax, a Hollywood special effect ?
Of course, according to Janet Napolitano, KSM and company are prisoners of the Overseas Contingency Operation, but she's pretty far out there. She said yesterday that the Mexican border was secured, lol.
we got the war on drugs too but how many of those people are considered POWs?
even Bill "“I don’t care about the Constitution!” O’Reilly knows that the Constitution specifies only Congress can declare war
You never heard of the AUMF's for Iran and Afghanistan either ? Congress passed those.
King, this from CNN………."at the time that the resolution passed, there is evidence that there were those in Congress who believed that the AUMF was the best hope in AVOIDING war:
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could AVERT war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
“I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent,” said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure."
was the AUMF a Declaration of War? Absolutely not.