Gay Patriot Header Image

The Coming 9/11 Show Trials

It is quite possible that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may go free after masterminding the 9/11 attacks.  Why?  Because AG Holder’s decision to move KSM and the other al-Qaeda suspects out of the military courts and into the civilian courts may throw a lot of evidence out the window.  This is the ACLU’s wet dream.  So from a normal court circumstance, the acquittal of KSM and the AQs could happen.  But would President Obama allow it to happen on his watch?  Probably, hopefully, not.

So why is Holder (with Obama’s nod) doing all of this?  Not so much to put the 9/11 conspirators on trial, but to put the Bush-Cheney post-9/11 war effort on trial.

Anthony Dick at The Corner puts in words what my thoughts have been since Holder’s announcement on Friday:

They talk about due process and the rule of law, but the trials can’t possibly provide anything close to the level of objectivity that applies in an ordinary criminal-law setting.  There is no way the defendants will get an impartial jury in New York, and there is no way the government will actually release the terrorists if they are acquitted.  Thus the courtroom proceedings in Manhattan will be, in a very real sense, show trials.

They are designed purely for PR purposes, so that the Obama administration can pay lip service to the ideal of due process while implicitly rebuking the Bush administration for failing to respect the rule of law.

Meanwhile, it is the Obama administration that is truly making a sham out of the rule of law, by politicizing the trial process and pretending that these enemy combatants will be getting normal, neutral, dispassionate trials, as if the larger strategic context of the War on Terror will not affect the judge, the jury, or the actions of the government, which is sure to retain custody of the defendants in the off chance they are acquitted.

This reflects the fundamental unseriousness of the Obama administration in the face of terrorism.  We saw the same thing with the foolish announcement that Gitmo would be closed by January, which was the first iteration of the administration’s fantasy-land effort to sidestep one of the core dilemmas of the post-9/11 world:  We have a significant number of detainees whom we know with operational certainty to be dangerous terrorists, but, for various reasons, we can’t prosecute or convict them according to normal procedures.   This is another way of saying that there is no way we can prosecute the War on Terror while providing the full panoply of ordinary due-process protections to enemy combatants. And no amount of hope can change this reality.

I predict that nothing good will come to America as Holder moves forward to implement his ill-advised and shallowly political decision.

RELATED:  Obama must rethink rethinking Afghanistan – LA Times

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

69 Comments

  1. The public needs a distraction from what The O & His Dems are doing to us.

    The Left will be enthralled by the trial of the Bush/Cheney torture victims.

    Normal people, well, you never know when one of them might be convinced Bush and Cheney were evil men, a couple of guys who just luuuuved to torture people. And you never know when normal people will turn away from these trials in disgust at the show.

    Comment by Polly — November 15, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - November 15, 2009

  2. Patterico nearly agrees:

    Obama must either concede that he will release KSM if he is acquitted… or concede that KSM’s trial will be a show trial, where the outcome is either predetermined, or does not matter. [ed: because KSM can and will still be held as an enemy combatant]

    I’m trying to imagine what Obama and Holder must be thinking. If their goal is “to put the Bush-Cheney post-9/11 war effort on trial”, it will blow up in their faces as the trial forces America, in effect, to remember and re-live 9/11 – something that the DNC-media has been trying to avoid for years.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 7:10 pm - November 15, 2009

  3. (continued) And God help them, if the jury acquits, a la O.J.

    The public needs a distraction from what The O & His Dems are doing to us

    Maybe so, but what a risky, ill-chosen distraction! One that, in the end, reminds people of the Islamist threat (which is still out there) and that Republicans were/are serious about defending us.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 7:15 pm - November 15, 2009

  4. I have confidence that the American Judicial system will convict these guys. And they should. It appears they committed murder on American soil. Good luck prosecution! Unless of course there is no actual evidence to hold these guys…if so…yikes.

    However, I would have more confidence that they would be found guilty in a place like Texas. Texans seem to have such a low regard for human life that they kill potentially innocent people simply because of office hours so you would think this would be a 5 minute trial there.

    Comment by gillie — November 15, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - November 15, 2009

  5. They are only trying him because they know he’s going to get convicted. Then they can pretend they support “due process.” For terrorists who don’t even get due process, because they have even less rights than war criminals.

    If he goes free, that would be the best thing for this country, because then Obama would be guaranteed to be defeated in 012–and perhaps even impeached. Obama knows this, and he knows he has enough evidence, otherwise he wouldn’t have brought the trial. There’s a lot of evidence outside of waterboarding to convict him on, and, if theoretically he isn’t convicted, Obama will just violate his due process and throw him in prison again.

    Comment by MB — November 15, 2009 @ 7:59 pm - November 15, 2009

  6. Gillie, what the hell is the purpose of your second paragraph?

    Comment by Alex in Denver — November 15, 2009 @ 8:00 pm - November 15, 2009

  7. When did these terrorists become US citizens?

    Comment by PatriotMom — November 15, 2009 @ 8:24 pm - November 15, 2009

  8. Really this is amazing. Once again the conservatives demonstrate their utter contempt for American political values. No surprise that their last President viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be gotten around. Our Constitutional values, and the rule of law – and confidence in that system to actually deliver justice, are all foreign concepts to the petty authoritarians of the right.

    Lets examine the incoherence of Bruce’s argument. First he makes the obviously false assertion that KSM may well go free. That is patently absurd. I’ll bet my bank account that the government has sufficient evidence to convict – but even if that one in a million chance comes true, that there is an acquittal, there will remain many other charges that can be brought against him, so he will be arrested the moment any acquittal comes down.

    The real outrage in Bruce’s argument though is his assertion that Obama would not allow an acquittal to happen. I guess I should realize that I am dealing with a Republican here – someone who apparantly believes that the head of the executive branch has an obligation to corrupt the judicial system and not allow a certain verdict to happen. I firmly believe that the unwelcome verdict won’t happen, but it will not be because Obama rigs the system, but because the prosecutors will present an overwhelming case.

    The quote – which I recognize runs counter to some of Bruce’s arguments, is also off-the-wall. Apparently Dick also views the American judicial system as some sort of phony, corrupted system, that will produce a Soviet-style show trial. And you wonder why so many of us have come to understand how it is the right that are truly America-haters.

    The trial will be a “show trial’ in the very best sense of that term. We will show the world how a civilized judicial system operates. Yeah, the defendant will have his day, and an opportunity to have his say. And then the citizens will soberly decide whether or not this particular individual in front of them is the one guilty of the outrage.

    Thats the way it is supposed to work – and that is one of the core values of our nation. You conservatives have, once again, lost complete sight of what your role in life should be – to conserve the best of the American tradition.

    You piss on it, because you are afraid. You glorify politicians who pander to your fears. You have no faith in the American approach – you embrace the logic of the authoritarian.

    “…there is no way we can prosecute the War on Terror while providing the full panoply of ordinary due-process protections ”

    There you have it. That statement can be, and is, embraced wholeheartedly by every dictator, and every authoritarian in the world when asked why it is that they cannot allow their societies to live under democratic values. Just replace “war on terror” with whatever conflict, real or made up, that faces their nation at any given moment.

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - November 15, 2009

  9. The good part of the terrorists being tried in NYC is if they are acquited they can be released right there in Manhattan. They can get apts and liver right there with all the other liberals and socialists.
    They may be acquitted because they were not mariandized when caught, “arrested”. But the liberals in the Obama justice dept I guess must have some plan to get around that. hehe A dark blue city in a dark blue state can deal with the disaster afterwards.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - November 15, 2009

  10. liberals are so dumb. Our constitution is for Americans.
    The Geneva Convention was for soldiers fighting according to some basic rules of conduct.
    Terrorists don’t quality in either case. Liberal Democrats are so dumb. But it is also the reason they don’t want the guys labeled “terrorists”, but criminals. A majority of Americans have more sense. Obama and the Dems will pay in 2010.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 8:32 pm - November 15, 2009

  11. Liberals spout off about core values,
    please explain
    partial birth abortions.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 8:33 pm - November 15, 2009

  12. That statement can be, and is, embraced wholeheartedly by every dictator, and every authoritarian in the world when asked why it is that they cannot allow their societies to live under democratic values. Just replace “war on terror” with whatever conflict, real or made up, that faces their nation at any given moment.

    And yet, Talking Points Tano fully endorses and supports said argument when pushed by his Dear Leader Obama.

    So either admit your Obama is a war criminal who needs to be impeached, like you were screaming with Bush, or make it obvious you’re nothing more than a little loudmouthed hypocrite who lives by partisan double standards.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2009 @ 8:50 pm - November 15, 2009

  13. First he makes the obviously false assertion that KSM may well go free. That is patently absurd.

    So you admit that Obama will never allow KSM to go free no matter the outcome of the trial.

    Is that constitutional, Talking Points Tano?

    but even if that one in a million chance comes true, that there is an acquittal, there will remain many other charges that can be brought against him, so he will be arrested the moment any acquittal comes down

    So even if he is acquitted, Barack Obama will make up charge after charge after charge — and then try to try him in multiple other venues in order to convict him.

    Do you think that’s Constitutional, Talking Points Tano?

    So what this really boils down to is that Talking Points Tano admits that Barack Obama will rig the justice system to make sure that KSM is convicted — which makes this a show trial.

    Do you even realize how stupid your behavior is, Talking Points Tano? Your idiot Obama said before that military tribunals were perfectly fine. But now he’s flip-flopped– not coincidentally as he’s desperately looking to shore up his insane anti-Bush base like you, bigots who were orgasming themselves on 9/11 and screaming “God damn America”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2009 @ 8:57 pm - November 15, 2009

  14. NDT, isn’t the first flip-flop either…been several…

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 15, 2009 @ 9:00 pm - November 15, 2009

  15. what this really boils down to is that Talking Points Tano admits that Barack Obama will rig the justice system to make sure that KSM is convicted — which makes this a show trial

    Exactly.

    If it’s a real trial, then there has to be a real possibility that KSM will go free. Not because he didn’t do it. But because his lawyers will get to influence the jury selection and instructions, will get evidence excluded (since said evidence was collected in expectation of a different standard, etc.). O.J. was guilty as sin, too, yet he went free. That’s our system.

    Alternatively, if there is no possibility of KSM going free, then the whole thing is a cruel and unusual mockery of our civilian justice system.

    Personally, I think KSM should have been tried, convicted and executed long ago – in the military justice system.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - November 15, 2009

  16. Let’s not forget the travesty of Moussaoui’s trial.  Not only did a single juror derail the death penalty, but victim’s families from around the Tri-state area came to testify on Moussaoui’s behalf!

    No, KSM has already admitted that he did it.  All he can do is put America on trial.  And, yes, your average Manhattan jury will agree.

    Cordially,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — November 15, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - November 15, 2009

  17. Yup, I saw this post at The Corner today also and thought it hit the nail on the head.

    The left, both international and here at home, will jump all over anything that they think makes the U.S. look bad. Any rough treatment, severe questioning, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, bright lights or loud music all will be trumpeted to the heavens in an attempt to show that the U.S. in general and the Bush Administration in particular, is evil.

    In their stupendous naivete they’ll think that the world will love us because we have the “courage” to face up to our own (alleged) misdeeds, and give these “criminals” a “fair trial.”

    Every day brings forth a new insult to our nation from the Obama Administration. Just when I think it can’t get any worse, it does.

    Comment by Tom the Redhunter — November 15, 2009 @ 9:15 pm - November 15, 2009

  18. Texans seem to have such a low regard for human life that they kill potentially innocent people simply because of office hours so you would think this would be a 5 minute trial there.

    gillie, lad, are you talking about abortion clinics here? Abortion clinics don’t have trials, they just sentence the fetus to death when the fee is paid. Also, the fetus is not potentially innocent life in the liberal world; in the liberal world the fetus is a mass of cells of no import whatsoever …… sort of an ectoplasm omelet. Which introduces a certain curious thought ….. would you consider an aborted “mass of cells” as a gourmet treat like caviar?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 15, 2009 @ 9:17 pm - November 15, 2009

  19. ILC,

    I don’t understand your point. There IS a real possiblity, minute as it may be, that KSM will be found not guilty. The trial will be legitimate.
    But yes, there are many things that KSM has done in his life that are prosecutable – totally legitimate prosecutions – and there is, apparently, lots of evidence to back up those other charges. So yes, if he is acquitted on one set of charges, there are others – totally legitimate crimes he has committed – (hey, how about the murder of Daniel Pearl – to which he has publiclly admitted).

    “Personally, I think KSM should have been tried, convicted and executed long ago – in the military justice system.”

    I don’t really believe this, but consider this possiblity. Maybe this guy really isn’t the mastermind behind 9/11. Maybe he is just some loony hanger-on who loves to take credit for what others have done. I recognize that this is almost certainly not true – but ya know, thats what we have all this due process for. Its not even primarily for the sake of the defendant – its very much for the sake of society as well – that our evidence and thought processes be tested, by the common sense of ordinary citizens, to insure that we actually have the right guy. Because if we don’t, then not only in an innocent harmed, the society is rendered unprotected from the guilty parties who remain free.

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 9:27 pm - November 15, 2009

  20. there are many things that KSM has done in his life that are prosecutable… So yes, if he is acquitted on one set of charges, there are others…

    Ah, so multiple KSM trials is what we potentially have to look forward to? And how would the later ones be different, if, under civilian rules, KSM’s left-wing lawyers can engage in enough jury manipulation (via selection, instructions, etc.) and exclusion of evidence to get KSM off on “the big one”?

    I don’t really believe this, but consider this possiblity. Maybe this guy really isn’t the mastermind behind 9/11…

    You’re trying to have it both ways. You want a civilian trial to validate that he is the mastermind behind 9-11 – when you claim to already believe he is. You want me to consider an abstract possibility that he isn’t – while disclaiming responsibility for the suggestion, since you want me to believe that you believe its exact opposite.

    [A trial] is very much for the sake of society as well – that our evidence and thought processes be tested

    Yes – and I think a military tribunal is competent to carry out that function, in the case of terrorists captured on the battlefield. Congress agreed with me – twice I believe, in laws they passed. Obama and Holder are thwarting the will of Congress. For what? (NOT, again, for the sake of fairness and examining the evidence – since Congress found that a military tribunal was competent to do those functions.)

    This trial could easily turn out as a giant exercise in showing the world that, under Obama, we lack the basic moral clarity and will to defend ourselves.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 9:40 pm - November 15, 2009

  21. How can the Attorney General predict and guarantee a conviction? Doesn’t that spoil the jury pool? Wouldn’t the terrorists have to be tried by a “jury of their peers”? Where exactly do those 12 people come from? How many muslims how many islamo terrorists should be included? I know all 12 will have to be at least liberal Democrats but geez.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 9:53 pm - November 15, 2009

  22. The compassion of liberals. They approve of partial birthing an 8 and a half month old infant, then stabbing them in the skull and sucking our their brains. But let’s make sure we give KSM a nice constitutional trial in our comfortable American justice system.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - November 15, 2009

  23. So we’re fighting in Iraq, men and women are dying and the left wing liberals whine and say,,….no no we should be figthting the good war in Afghanistan, over there. Now when they are in charge…..oh it’s too hard. We don’t have a good partner in the govt there. Maybe we should leave. Cowards. Chickens. The Generals and Sec Def give Obama the child their best recommendations. Obama, the community organizer, child, says, oh oh I Me I don’t like the options. Go rethink it, while I go golfing and go travel to Asia. Coward. Men and women are dying while waiting for re inforcements.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 10:01 pm - November 15, 2009

  24. “You’re trying to have it both ways.”

    Ah, no. I do not want a civilian trial to validate his guilt. I want a civilian trial to determine his guilt. I may believe he is guilty, because I have read all the same media accounts that you have, but I don’t KNOW of his guilt, and neither do you. Neither of us have actually seen the evidence in context and been able to form independent judgements about it. So no, I would not bet my life in his guilt, nor would I pull the trigger if you gave me a gun and his head in front of me. I guess I am trusting in the media and the government (whoa….) that all they have said about him is true. But I do want a fair trial to settle the issue.

    ‘You want me to consider an abstract possibility that he isn’t – while disclaiming responsibility for the suggestion…”

    How is it any more abstract than out mutual belief in his guilt? As I said, neither of us KNOW all the details or even any of them. All we know is what we read in the media. Our beliefs are every bit as abstract as the possibility that those stories are all wrong. I have no reluctance to assume responsiblity for any of my suggestions.

    “…in the case of terrorists captured on the battlefield. ”

    KSM was captured at his home, in bed.

    “This trial could easily turn out as a giant exercise in showing the world that, under Obama, we lack the basic moral clarity and will to defend ourselves.”

    What exactly do you think of military tribunals? Are they complete rubber stamps that will convict anyone that the government claims is guilty? Are THEY just show trials?
    Or are military tribunals FAIR? Do they adhere to certain standards? Is there the possibility – even theoretical, that KSM would be found not guilty by a military tribunal?
    If not, then they are show trials. If yes, then how are they different from a civilian trial?

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - November 15, 2009

  25. Yes – and I think a military tribunal is competent to carry out that function, in the case of terrorists captured on the battlefield. Congress agreed with me – twice I believe, in laws they passed.

    And so did Obama.

    But that was before Obama needed to appeal to the insane anti-Bush bigots that make up his base like Tano. Or perhaps Obama was simply lying all along, as quite often happens in the case of his statements.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2009 @ 10:02 pm - November 15, 2009

  26. And Talking Points Tano starts to become even more incoherent.

    Neither of us have actually seen the evidence in context and been able to form independent judgements about it. So no, I would not bet my life in his guilt, nor would I pull the trigger if you gave me a gun and his head in front of me.

    But before:

    I’ll bet my bank account that the government has sufficient evidence to convict

    Again, the hypocrisy and stupidity of Barack Obama’s arguments are becoming even more and more obvious — and Talking Points Tano, instead of being able to admit that his Messiah is wrong, beclowns himself more and more.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - November 15, 2009

  27. Scroll down to see which esteemed world leader is the moron and boob….hehe

    http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-vs-rest-of-world.html

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 15, 2009 @ 10:12 pm - November 15, 2009

  28. NDT or he needs to get the peoples minds off of other things going on in the Senate. You know this will draw attention away from those matters. You know the matters that are trying to gut the very foundation of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness right out of our American System. It’s just another silly distraction in a long line of distractions and flip-flops to those ends. Remember when they weren’t going to release the photos then they did? What was going on at the time? Ah, remember? Who was it that said that Conservatives view the Constitution as an obstacle to be gotten around? I think not but there are some in America who do.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 15, 2009 @ 10:20 pm - November 15, 2009

  29. [Yes – and I think a military tribunal is competent to carry out that function, in the case of terrorists captured on the battlefield. Congress agreed with me – twice I believe, in laws they passed.]

    And so did Obama.

    Oh yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. My own Patterico cite, up at #2, is titled “Obama in May 2009: Al Qaeda Terrorists Are “Prisoners of War”.

    KSM was captured at his home, in bed.

    …which, when you’re a terrorist, is the battlefield.

    Perhaps it’s time to review the meaning of the word “terrorist”. Terrorist is a type of combatant. One can devise many classifications for combatants. As far as I’m concerned, the two most important dimensions are:

    - Whether the combatant wears the uniform of some nation-state so the enemy can target them apart from civilians; or instead tries to blend in with civilians, using them in effect as human shields.

    - Whether the combatant does his best to target other combatants (minimizing civilian casualties where possible), or instead targets civilians on purpose.

    Two dimensions, with two answers each (yes or no), means four types, roughly like this (I may not have the terminology correct):

    - Wear a uniform, don’t target civilians as such: Honorable soldier.
    - Wear a uniform, target civilians as such: War criminal.
    - Don’t wear a uniform, don’t target civilians as such: guerilla, irregular forces, etc. Often, but incorrectly, called “terrorist” in enemy propaganda.
    - Don’t wear a uniform and deliberately target civilians as such: Real terrorists.

    It is in the nature of being a real terrorist that everything you do and everywhere you are, is “the battlefield”. Please note that, as NDT has pointed out, Lord Obama Himself was telling the America people (up until this story broke) that he agreed that KSM was a terrorist, captured on the field of battle, who should be given a military trial.

    What exactly do you think of military tribunals? Are they complete rubber stamps

    No. But I think they generally put up with a lot less nonsense and obstructionist tactics. For one thing, I’m no expert but I imagine they would not agree to jury manipulation (by selection and instructions); exclusion of relevant evidence because the evidence wasn’t collected according to civilian, police standards; etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - November 15, 2009

  30. Here is an interesting story about just the issue we were discussing – the possibility that some (many?) of those “terrorists” that we hold may not be. This is not directly about KSM, but it speaks to the larger issue of due process, and the importance – for us as a society, for our protection – that we have a thoroughly fair and complete judicial review of these cases.
    LINK

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - November 15, 2009

  31. I also expect that a military tribunal would reach a conclusion with greater efficiency (i.e., greater speed but not much less accuracy). And that its proceedings would not become a public circus; thus, America’s hand-wringing and indecision would not be advertised for weeks or months to all the world media.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 10:24 pm - November 15, 2009

  32. “Two dimensions, with two answers each (yes or no), means four types,”

    How about the fifth type. Innocent person accused of war-like activities that they did not commit. What standard should be applied to them?

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 10:30 pm - November 15, 2009

  33. “America’s hand-wringing and indecision would not be advertised for weeks or months to all the world media.”

    So is that what you think of our trial system? Prove my point for me – y’all have contempt for core American values.

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 10:32 pm - November 15, 2009

  34. Notice again how Tano refuses to stick to the topic, but starts spinning and trying to divert the conversation.

    The problem here is that Tano is not capable of answering these questions:

    – Why did Barack Obama lie before and claim that military tribunals were adequate?

    – Why did Barack Obama lie before when he claimed KSM was a terrorist and a prisoner of war?

    Do you have answers for this, Talking Points Tano? Or are you just going to continue to spin and divert the conversation, demonstrating convincingly that you have no intellectual honesty or capability to discuss the contradictions and lies of your Messiah?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2009 @ 10:33 pm - November 15, 2009

  35. Tano, gillie – educate yourselves.

    Obama’s hero FDR dealt harshly with “unlawful combatants”.

    http://burkslaw.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-terrorists-were-dealt-with-by-fdr.html

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 15, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - November 15, 2009

  36. BTW: hat tip to Mark Levin who told the FDR story on Friday.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — November 15, 2009 @ 10:38 pm - November 15, 2009

  37. Its an old story SoCal. And so what? FDR dealt harshly with a couple hundred thousand innocent japanese citizens and residents as well. Does that oblige us to think we should put all Muslims in concentration camps?

    Comment by Tano — November 15, 2009 @ 10:45 pm - November 15, 2009

  38. If we ever do Tardo, it will be a “progressive” who does it, it always has been, and always will be.

    Comment by American Elephant — November 15, 2009 @ 10:54 pm - November 15, 2009

  39. How about the fifth type. Innocent person accused of war-like activities that they did not commit.

    Already answered at #19. Here it is again. I think a military tribunal is competent to evaluate KSM’s basic guilt/innocence.

    In KSM’s case, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence identified and tracked him as a terrorist; then they (or possibly Pakistani intelligence acting alone) captured him, then transferred him to U.S. control -as a combatant-, for debriefings in which KSM was made to expose real terrorist plots, saving unknown multiple thousands of lives. I’m confident that a military tribunal would be in a position to determine if he was really a terrorist.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 10:55 pm - November 15, 2009

  40. So enough of that. Again, I’m trying to imagine what Obama and Holder must be thinking. If their goal is ““to put the Bush-Cheney post-9/11 war effort on trial” in Bruce’s words, it will blow up in their faces.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 11:01 pm - November 15, 2009

  41. Except for this last bit ;-)

    [America’s hand-wringing and indecision would not be advertised for weeks or months to all the world media.]

    So is that what you think of our trial system? …y’all have contempt for core American values.

    Boo-hoo Tano, your insults crush my spirit.

    We both know you’re saying it because leftists / facists (but I repeat myself) such as yourself, do habitually Blame America First. Not to speak for people, but I’m sure we are all very impressed by your striking a pose to the contrary.

    Reminds me of that pose Obama struck in the 2008 campaign… pretended that he wanted net spending cuts, victory in Afghanistan, and stuff.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 15, 2009 @ 11:10 pm - November 15, 2009

  42. I don’t expect Tano and the other Obamabots to have anything interesting to say here, but I’ll offer up a point for NDT and the other actually smart folks.

    If KSM is to be granted a civilian trial, the U.S. government will be placed in the situation of either having to release him for Constitutional and procedural reasons (no due process, no Miranda, no access to counsel, inadequate opportunity to examine evidence, witnesses not available, ‘arrest’ by ineligable officers, massive violation of rights, confession extracted via coercion, denial of speedy trial, et cetera ad nauseum)… or claim that there is a category of defendant who is NOT due the rights of a military captive of war BUT ALSO not due the normal due process and Constitutional protections that every other civilian defendant enjoys- and that the Administration gets to choose who fits in this category.
    Anyone think this is a really good precedent?

    I knew we’d eventually regret GWB’s attempt to split the baby via his “unlawful combatant” decision. He should’ve simply quoted the Geneva Accords on ‘saboteurs and partisans’ and gone with that.

    Comment by DaveP. — November 16, 2009 @ 12:03 am - November 16, 2009

  43. Welcome back to the Ebd of the Roman Republic version 2.0!

    The Left, imitating Orwell’s INGSOC, needs an Emmanuel Goldstein — now the Left in this country doesn’t hate dictators, but American Republicans (i.e. Bush sr, Bush Jr., Palin, etc. et. al).

    The Left are happy top be playing the role of Pompey against Caeser in Gaul. But the Left forgot one thing….

    Every attack on Bush and Palin (post 1/20/09 when the Left was SUPPOSED to be governing — HA!), makes us angrier.

    And we on the Right are happier with supporting First (have you seen anyone from the Left defend the rights of Rush, Levin and beck to speak?) and Second Amendment.

    If, at the KSM trial (where the Left supports KSM) goes after Bush and Cheney, it is time we on the Right cross the Potomac with our Second Amendment friends and friends from the military.

    That is…unless the Left stops needing an American Emmanuel Goldstein.

    But it will never happen.

    The Left supports anti semite, anti Israel dictators, why should they support their own countrymen and women?

    Comment by JSF — November 16, 2009 @ 1:07 am - November 16, 2009

  44. These men are not Americans. They are not entitled to things like having their Miranda rights read to them. They are not entitled to Habeus Corpus etc.

    These men are not military in uniform therefore they are not covered by the Geneva Convention.

    Since these terrorists via Osama Bin Laden, through their actions declared war on the USA – he did that in the earlier attempt to bomb the WTC , followed by attacks on the USS Cole etc. then they should be tried in a military court.

    They were going to be tried in a military court but Obama or rather Holder stopped these trials going ahead, and instead a further stalemate ensued with them.

    The only ones that should have been allowed to go were the Uighars because they were not at war with the USA – they were learning skills to fight the Chinese govt. The remainder were at war with the USA and every other infidel in the world.

    The fact is that the libtards of the world cannot comprehend Islam, especially this militant Islam. They cannot comprehend that according to the Koran every Muslim is supposed to either convert the Kaffir (us) or kill them, or at the very least subjugate the Kaffir under Sharia law in the world wide caliphate. (I am not a conspiracy theorist but boy oh boy I am learning a lot about what Greens etc. really want – world power and domination – and they are willing to enable Muslims to get that power for themselves (watch for the double cross folks) and the Muslims or rather the Islamists also want world power and domination).

    Taking this trial to NYC is a very, very bad decision. It will backfire in a spectacular way on those who have demanded this move. Eric Holder is toast. I can see this issue as one that could lead to an impeachment in the future.

    Comment by straightAussie — November 16, 2009 @ 4:38 am - November 16, 2009

  45. JSF: you’re right on the money as far as I’m concerned. How about Holder being “confident” of “justice being served”? Did that mean he’s picking and choosing who goes to military tribunal and who doesn’t? That would mean, following logically, that only SOME terrorists should be afforded rights and others shouldn’t… he sent some of the cases to the military tribunals. What’s the logic in that. This is something nefarious, probably seen as a politically “savvy” thing to do to divert attention on what’s going on and by giving the terrorists a platform they can allow them to bash Bush, Cheney, and waterboarding. Once again they illustrate that elitists are so far out of touch with regular folks that it will probably be their undoing. We can only pray.

    Comment by Dave B — November 16, 2009 @ 4:40 am - November 16, 2009

  46. Let’s see:

    Texans seem to have such a low regard for human life that they kill potentially innocent people simply because of office hours so you would think this would be a 5 minute trial there.

    [Citation Needed]

    I think what you’re alluding to is the low tolerance Texans have for bullshit (overall). They like to get to the point instead of hemming and hawing about the perpetrator actually being the victim. Nor do they masturbate furiously while coming up with theories about how the victims deserved what they got like the liberal left tends to.

    Unless, of course, it’s all about playing political games with our justice system as in the case of Tom DeLay.

    No surprise that their last President viewed the Constitution as an obstacle to be gotten around.

    You mean like taking over private businesses and industries or taking over duties relegated to the states?

    You glorify politicians who pander to your fears

    You mean like how liberals spent 8 years trying to convince us that we were in a depression? Let’s see, what are some other examples of liberals pandering to fears? Oh yeah:

    We’re supposed to believe that millions of people die everyday without Socialist Obamacareless.

    We’re supposed to believe that 47 million Americans can’t get health care.

    Vote for Bush and he’ll reinstate the draft.

    War on poverty

    Vote for Bush and more black churches will burn.

    The left’s asinine attacks on Wal-Mart, Exxon (or any oil company, except Chavez Oil), Coca Cola, AIG etc.

    Global Warmism

    American infrastructure

    Affirmative Action

    Civil war in Iraq

    Iraq is another Vietnam

    Iraq is a quagmire

    Our soldiers are terrorists

    Bush wants to know what books you checked out of the library

    If we don’t join unions, people will actually have to work for a living

    Alar on apples

    DDT

    If people are allowed to carry guns, we’ll return to the Old West (which was more lawful than today’s America)

    Center for Food Safety tried to convince everybody that Mad Cow Disease was going to kill us all.

    Pig flu
    Bird flu
    Ebola
    Junta Virus
    SARS

    Remember when the much vaunted WH scienticians released a story with some insane numbers would die from pig flu and the CDC called bullshit?

    Placing thriving polar bears on the endangered species list

    The endangered species list

    Increasing CAFE standards to save aforementioned polar bears resulting in thousands more traffic deaths with each increase

    Demanding lighter tires on SUVs resulting in tire separation which resulted in 148 deaths and 500+ injuries

    “Liquid Candy”

    CSPI’s claim that salt kills 150,000 per year

    Acrylamide

    Shall I go on?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2009 @ 5:45 am - November 16, 2009

  47. Personally, I think KSM should have been tried, convicted and executed long ago – in the military justice system

    A trial was already underway, but Chairman Obama decided to pander to his liberal douchebag base.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 16, 2009 @ 5:47 am - November 16, 2009

  48. Agreed, there was a military trubunal. Also, it’s funny gillie saying that President Bush ignored the constitution (w/o precident) while President 0bama and his minions blatently ignore the questions when they’re raised (quick Tano, where in the constitution is the mandate we must buy health insurance?) or just plain ignore the constitution of other countries when convienent (Honduras).

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2009 @ 6:11 am - November 16, 2009

  49. Reviewing the comments on this thread, I see that further discussion has only served to expose in greater detail how profoundly ignorant Talking Points Tano is on this issue and how disingenuous his arguments are that this is all about “due process” and “America’s core values.” I just have two points to make.

    1. CIVILIAN TRIALS FOR ENEMY COMBATANTS PLACES THE BURDEN ON US SOLDIERS TO INVESTIGATE, GATHER EVIDENCE, AND ARREST SUSPECTS PURSUANT TO THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DOMESTIC POLICE AND DETECTIVES (WHILE THE SAME SUSPECTS ARE SHOOTING AT THEM AND TRYING TO BLOW THEM UP). Domestic criminal courts are a forum designed to test the integrity of the conduct of agents acting on behalf of government from the moment of “reasonable suspicion” that the defendant is involved with criminal activity or has committed a criminal act. It rigorously tests not only the evidence, but how the evidence came to the attention of those acting on behalf of the government (i.e. probable cause), how it was gathered (i.e. warrants/warrantless searches and seizures and Miranda rights), and how it was preserved for trial (chain of custody). So essentially, it will test whether the American soldiers who captured KSM and the other defendants followed all of the legal protocols and Constitutionally-mandated procedures and safeguards regularly depicted on the TV show “Law and Order” while they were being shot at and targeted by IEDs that could kill them at any moment. If they didn’t, the defendants are entitled to acquittal. And if they are acquitted, the response from the Left will be: if America wants to secure convictions then they need to comply with the Constitution, which includes not only the procedures after arrest (speedy trial; jury of one’s peers), but also the procedures leading to arrest and the arrest itself (the 4th Amendment; reasonable searches and seizures; Miranda warnings). This can only lead to two different outcomes: (a) a system in which it is impossible to obtain a conviction consistent with the Constitutional rules applicable to criminal defendants; or (b) ground soldiers who recognize that it is pointless to even attempt to take prisoners alive and therefore kill everyone on sight or in the vicinity of heated combat and be done with it.

    Consequently, Talking Points Tano, by advocating civil trials for enemy combatants, you are ensuring that the “suspects” receive no trial whatsoever, and you are forcing American soldiers to set aside the very humanity and superior judgment they have exemplified in taking prisoners in the first place. YOUR WAY compels them to just act as killing machines. Well done.

    2. NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR DISINGENUOUS STATEMENTS ABOUT “CORE AMERICAN VALUES,” FOR TALKING POINTS TANO AND THE REST OF THE LEFTIST FOOLS THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUSTICE. THIS IS ABOUT BLAMING AMERICA FOR BEING TARGETED BY RADICAL ISLAMISTS. It occurs to me that we have lost sight of the origin of this debate and we are allowing America-hating moral relativists like Talking Points Tano to slime out of being forced to prove their initial hypothesis that led to the decision to try enemy combatants in our civilian courts. This is not about “justice.” KSM and the other vile savages are headed to Manhattan because LIBERALS INSISTED ON THE CLOSURE OF GITMO. Their argument is that out treatment of the detainees was one of the REASONS for America being targeted in the first place. They have made the ridiculous argument that the Islamists will like us more if we treat them with all of the same constitutional protections enjoyed by Americans and that somehow terrorism will decline as a result. Of course, this is an unbelievably stupid argument but the Left has endorsed it because it makes it easier for them to blame America first and excuse mass-murdering terrorists as victims. Thus, we should not allow the Left to get away with this and when global terrorism and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East does not decline as a result of the closure of Gitmo, the Left should be hammered for once again being shown to be treasonous liars and idiots.

    Comment by Sean A — November 16, 2009 @ 7:26 am - November 16, 2009

  50. P.S. One more thing occurs to me–it has been mentioned that the decision to bring these animals to NY for civilian criminal trials was a political act by Obama to appease the hard left portion of his base, and that is certainly true. However, he’s going to find out (as we have already seen), attempts to make these people happy are pointless folly. Anything other than across-the-board acquittals will be condemned by the Code Pink crowd because they don’t care one way or the other whether KSM was involved with the planning and/or execution of 9/11. THEY THINK AMERICA DESERVED TO BE ATTACKED ON 9/11 AND THAT THE TERRORISTS ARE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR ACTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE “OPPRESSED” THEM AND VICTIMIZED THEM IN SOME WAY. Consequently, they believe that even if KSM is guilty of masterminding 9/11, he’s innocent anyway. These people are moral relativists and they hate this country, so they will excuse ANYTHING including mass-murder. So, the idea that this decision will pacify part of Obama’s base is as misguided as the notion that closing Gitmo will reduce terrorism.

    Comment by Sean A — November 16, 2009 @ 7:51 am - November 16, 2009

  51. P.P.S. Surprising no one, Code Pink is characterizing the shootings at Ft. Hood as a military officer’s protest against the war in Afghanistan.

    http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/424/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1695

    Like I said, the Left will excuse ANYTHING, even mass murder if it helps them condemn America.

    Comment by Sean A — November 16, 2009 @ 8:41 am - November 16, 2009

  52. “Their argument is that out treatment of the detainees was one of the REASONS for America being targeted in the first place.”

    This is just incoherent babbling. The targeting of America came first. Then came detainees. So how do you imagine anyone could argue that the latter cauesd the former?

    “They have made the ridiculous argument that the Islamists will like us more if we treat them with all of the same constitutional protections enjoyed by Americans and that somehow terrorism will decline as a result. Of course, this is an unbelievably stupid argument”

    Yes it is unbelievably stupid. Which is why no one has ever advanced such an argument. One only hears such things from rightwing pathetic liars like you who pretend that such strawman arguments are made.

    “THEY THINK AMERICA DESERVED TO BE ATTACKED ON 9/11 AND THAT THE TERRORISTS ARE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR ACTIONS”

    You are just totally insane now. The only people in the American political system who have expressed such a sentiment were Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – the spiritual leaders of modern American conservatism.

    Comment by Tano — November 16, 2009 @ 9:25 am - November 16, 2009

  53. Oh, and BTW Sean, do you remember exactly what it is about America than led these conservative leaders to believe that we deserved 9/11? That Osama was doing God’s work?
    Maybe you should think about that…

    Comment by Tano — November 16, 2009 @ 9:56 am - November 16, 2009

  54. Tano,

    Google ‘Little Eichmans’ While you’re at it, why don’t you google ‘Chickens coming home to roost’ You know, the phrase uttered by President Obama’s minister of 20+ years.

    While you’re googling the holes in your arguement, why not look at some of the arguments made about Abu Grab and maybe answer the questions posed by Dan or heliotrope.

    I know it’s different than waiting for the latest talking points to arrive via e-mail, but I’m sure you’re up to it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2009 @ 9:56 am - November 16, 2009

  55. Tano, #8 above:

    First he makes the obviously false assertion that KSM may well go free. That is patently absurd.

    Translation: This IS a show trial.

    but even if that one in a million chance comes true, that there is an acquittal, there will remain many other charges that can be brought against him, so he will be arrested the moment any acquittal comes down.

    Translation: This IS a show trial.

    “…there is no way we can prosecute the War on Terror while providing the full panoply of ordinary due-process protections ”
    There you have it. That statement can be, and is, embraced wholeheartedly by every dictator, and every authoritarian in the world when asked why it is that they cannot allow their societies to live under democratic values.

    Translation: military tribunals are undemocratic and must be abolished.

    Tano, my perky little nematode, you are attacking military tribunals. I would grant you that you have a just position, but you make no case for your opinions. You claim that the open court is one of the “core values of our nation.” You say “citizens will soberly decide whether a particular individual in front of them is one guilty of the outrage.”

    So, no more domestic relations courts or juvenile courts or closed hearings of any sort or manner, because they violate the “core values of our nation.” Furthermore, no more trials without a jury.

    I realize how stupid you think conservatives are. You made yourself loud and clear. But how will you separate your bombastic words from the day to day regimen of the courts I have drawn under your all inclusive umbrella?

    Edumacate us, we are all so very curious about the Tano court system.
    And by the by, why hasn’t Holder just moved all the Gitmo boys to Manhattan? Why do some of them get to go to tropical isles and others have to stand trial.

    Show me the light, Show-Trial-Tano.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 16, 2009 @ 10:13 am - November 16, 2009

  56. Tano, my perky little nematode, you are attacking military tribunals.

    …on cue because Lord Obama flip-flopped about KSM (who BTW is a foreigner) being a prisoner of war, an enemy combatant, etc.

    We all know that if Obama hadn’t flip-flopped on military tribunals, Tano would still be defending them. Which political arm do you think pays Tano and how much?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2009 @ 10:20 am - November 16, 2009

  57. Enough, I would imagine, to buy several families health insurance.

    Tano’s blabbering shows the priorities of the Obama Party; they pay puppets like him to spread lies on comment boards while they steal money from honest working people and businesses to give puppets like Tano free health insurance.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 16, 2009 @ 12:37 pm - November 16, 2009

  58. LOL! I’m just glad to see “nematodes” brought into the discussion!

    Bonus points for the next person to use the phrase “airy persiflage” or “argle-bargle.” ;-)

    Best wishes,
    -MFS

    Comment by MFS — November 16, 2009 @ 1:45 pm - November 16, 2009

  59. Nematodes are used a fair amount in the study of genetics because they are such simple, predictable organisms.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2009 @ 2:33 pm - November 16, 2009

  60. Tano-

    Were KSM & the AQs who will be tried in NYC given their Miranda rights as is required in a civilian court?

    No.

    Then will all of the evidence since his capture in Pakistan be thrown out?

    Possibly.

    What say you now?

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 16, 2009 @ 2:40 pm - November 16, 2009

  61. Bruce,

    I know you hate, with a passion, anyone and everyone who works in this administration, and that has a tendency to cloud judgement, but do you really think that the career lawyers in the DOJ would bring specific charges in a criminal court if they didn’t feel they had sufficient evidence – evidence that can withstand procedural challenges – in order to win their case? Like – maybe the people who do this for a living might have thought of the issues you raise?

    Comment by Tano — November 16, 2009 @ 3:14 pm - November 16, 2009

  62. #61: Oh, Talking Points Tano, you mean the career lawyers at the DOJ that dismissed default judgments against the Black Panthers that terrorized voters at a polling location on Election Day last year and have stonewalled inquiries from Congress into what their justification was for the dismissals? Yeah, we should just trust them. Kind of like your willingness to just trust the career military lawyers and judges that would have tried these animals in military courts, right?

    Comment by Sean A — November 16, 2009 @ 3:30 pm - November 16, 2009

  63. And once again, Tano avoids the questions.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 16, 2009 @ 3:53 pm - November 16, 2009

  64. I don’t think he’s paid to answer our questions. ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 16, 2009 @ 3:57 pm - November 16, 2009

  65. Tano-

    It only takes someone with a brain and a basic understanding of our Constitution and case law to understand that not getting your Miranda rights read when caught means your case is thrown out.

    Unless Holder plans to try the case outside Constitutional law, there is a big problem from the start in all of the evidence collected since KSM was captured.

    Moussaoui — the 20th hijacker — was arrested IN THE USA and given his Miranda rights.

    So Tano — stop being such an Obama lickspittle and use your own brain for a moment, please.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 16, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - November 16, 2009

  66. Also, Tano — MSM news reports say that career DOJs were AGAINST bringing KSM to NYC. It was Obama POLITICAL APPOINTEES who argued in favor.

    Why? Their only chance to have a show trial against the eeeeevil BusHitler.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 16, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - November 16, 2009

  67. So the defendants were not read their miranda rights. The troops on hand did not tag and label evidence. The chain of evidence was not secured. Why…..
    the troops were fighting a WAR you morons.
    But in a US court of law…..all these terrorists will be acquitted. I’m no Rhodes scholar but this seems pretty cut and dried to me.
    Just release them all in Manhattan. Or Tano’s home town. Where is that by the way? Maybe we could house the detainees there.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 16, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - November 16, 2009

  68. Let’s house them in Tano’s hometown.. or how about Chicago?

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 16, 2009 @ 7:49 pm - November 16, 2009

  69. http://www.911neverforget.us

    Stand Up Against the 9/11 SHOW TRIALS!

    - The Obama Administration is STILL USING Military Tribunals for OTHER Detainees

    - The US Government WILL NOT Release the defendants even if ACQUITTED

    - Don’t put NY through more unnecessary psychological suffering than they already have to live with

    This does not have to happen. Contact your Representatives in Congress Today and let them know how terrible a decision this is.

    WE THE PEOPLE WANT MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR WAR CRIMINALS

    Comment by David P Redmond — December 6, 2009 @ 6:23 pm - December 6, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.