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. 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

  2. “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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. #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

  13. And once again, Tano avoids the questions.

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

  14. I don’t think he’s paid to answer our questions. 😉

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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

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

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

  19. 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.