[iltos]

steve simon presented an arguement today in support of the ny trial of khalid shaikh mohammed.

Steven Simon is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the co-author of “The Age of Sacred Terror” and “The Next Attack.”

from the council on foreign relations

Steven Simon is the Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 1994 to 1999, he served on the National Security Council in positions including Senior Director for Transnational Threats.

in his opinion piece, he makes of couple of good points, imo
this is pretty much a cut and paste .....but HE makes his points well enough, and i'm pretty certain there is something to discuss in all of them

on the concern that mohammed might go free on a technicality

Others complain that Mr. Mohammed might take advantage of quirks of the criminal justice system and go free. That’s highly unlikely. First, he has already confessed to the crime; and, given the zero acquittal rate for terrorists in New York previously, any anxiety about a “not guilty” verdict seems unwarranted.

on the argument that the material that will be revealed at trial is too sensitive to american security

John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer, argues that the trial would be an “intelligence bonanza” for our enemies. Also unlikely. Our prosecutors are certain that there is enough unclassified evidence to make their case. Moreover, the most prized intelligence is recent, specific and actionable. Al Qaeda today is most concerned with discovering when and where the next drone missile attack will take place in Pakistan, information not likely to be disclosed during a trial about a conspiracy hatched more than a decade ago.

on the argument that the trial will give mohammed a "platform for recruiting militants"

Which brings us to the idea that allowing Mr. Mohammed to take the stand will give him a soapbox. The truth is, if the trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side.....
......The Nuremberg trials were a classic case. And nothing more effectively alerted the world to the danger of genocide than Israel’s prosecution in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat who engineered the Holocaust.....highlighting the transparency in our judicial process would strengthen America’s reputation just as cracks are beginning to appear in the jihadist base. A growing number of radical Muslim clerics and theoreticians have reversed course in recent years.

For example, three of Saudi Arabia’s most influential radical clerics — Nasir bin Hamad al-Fahd, Ali al-Khudair and Ahmed al-Khalidi (once described by Osama bin Laden as “our most prominent supporter”) — have disowned Mr. bin Laden. Another, Salman al-Awda, has excoriated him, asking, “How many innocents have you killed?”

Abu Basir al-Tartusi, an influential Jordan-born cleric living in London, now uses the Islamic concept of “covenant” between Muslims and their hosts to condemn jihadist bombings in Britain. In Qatar, the high-profile televangelist Yusuf al-Qaradhawi has advanced a “jurisprudence of jihad” that forbids the killing of most civilians. And from his prison cell in Egypt, Sayyed Imam al-Sharif — the founder of the Egyptian insurgent group that produced Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri — has declared that the jihad against the West must be abandoned.

he goes on to point out that these changes in attitude don't go far enough in the eyes of many in the west....but suggests that they support his contention that they are "changing opinion" in the muslim world....the pakistani people, for example, have shown signs of actively resisting taliban manipulation and violence...he generalizes a few others

i like his closing too...speaks to me clearlly about what this struggle is really all about

But a judgment in New York, where the greatest suffering was inflicted, will remind us both of the narrow viciousness of the terrorists’ cause and of the enduring strength of our own values.

[LANMaster]

I wholly oppo0se allowing KSM access to the US criminal court system.
Obama has made a grave error, and this decision (if carried out) can only harm his presidency.
What is worse, KSM will be allowed to demand a number of Muslims on his jury.
He will have access to ALL KINDS of classified intel for his defense.
If he avoids conviction, he will be hailed as a hero to our enemies, and will be allowed to share what he has learned with all kinds of nasties.
If he is convicted, the trial will be viewed as a farce.

There is no win for ther US or even Obama by doing this. This is Obama's greatest political blunder, IMO.
Certainly not his greatest mistake, clearly his economic policies make him the worst President in US history, ever, by far, but giving KSM access to US civilian courts is definitely Obama's greatest avoidable blunder.

[poochee]

Mr. Simon's statements make sense to me. But then, I don't live in fear.

[LANMaster]

... then try living in intellect once in a while. This is a bad move, Pooch, even for Obama.

[buffoon]

What is confounding to the rest of the world (and, of course, many Americans of lesser emotional overkill) is the ambiguity in all of this.

"They" are not civilian criminals so "they" could not be tried in a criminal court so far. And for the same reason "they" could not be held in a prison for criminals of other dimensions.

"They" are also not military combatants in the conventional perception, BUT "they" can be incarcerated within a military prison.

"They" can/could even be tried by military court martial although "they" are not military.

Short of having declared martial law (which must have slipped by me, if it did happen) how does the US explain these ambiguities?

Or to beg the question: how would those that oppose trial in a "normal" court rather have it?

Best to detain them like POWs until the war is over (whenever in the far distant future that may be) but how if they're not POWs?

Attempting to put this problem on the shelf by ignoring it and hoping that it will thus go away on its own isn't living in intellect either IMO.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

... then try living in intellect once in a while. This is a bad move, Pooch, even for Obama.

How many terrorists were put on military trial during the Bush Admin?

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by buffoon

What is confounding to the rest of the world (and, of course, many Americans of lesser emotional overkill) is the ambiguity in all of this.

"They" are not civilian criminals so "they" could not be tried in a criminal court so far. And for the same reason "they" could not be held in a prison for criminals of other dimensions.

"They" are also not military combatants in the conventional perception, BUT "they" can be incarcerated within a military prison.

"They" can/could even be tried by military court martial although "they" are not military.

Short of having declared martial law (which must have slipped by me, if it did happen) how does the US explain these ambiguities?

Or to beg the question: how would those that oppose trial in a "normal" court rather have it?

Best to detain them like POWs until the war is over (whenever in the far distant future that may be) but how if they're not POWs?

Attempting to put this problem on the shelf by ignoring it and hoping that it will thus go away on its own isn't living in intellect either IMO.

Well expounded, El Buffo.

And within this, of course, lies the nub of the whole matter.

Or as the Bard might have quoth "Aye! Therein lies the rub!"

Are self-declared terrorists engaged in a holy war or JIhad, against whom they perceive as the enemy and infidels combatant soldiers or criminals?

Well, clearly, they are not combatant soldiers and haven't signed up to such as the Geneva Convention, for example: they do not represent a nation state which has declared war against whomsoever.

They are not, of course, common criminals; since their clear objective is to try and bring down governments and societies which they themselves - for whatever reasons - despise.

Cloaking themselves in the cloak of Allah is merely a smokescreen.

OK, then they are zealots: but highly dangerous zealots: as this species invariably are.

My personal conclusion developed over quite a few years now is that those who place themselves outside the scope and protection of extant law (And by law, I mean the canons of established law in all its boundaries: nation state law: international criminal law as defined by the International Criminal Court), should not thereafter be able to seek the protection of that law.

Then those who wish to bring down nation states and their social order are anarchists: also, however, they are nihilists, since to them objectives can only be realised by destruction of what is established now.

This simply is sedition.

Then those who seek to destroy democratic (Such as it is!) government and law and order have placed themselves outside that law's protection and compassion.

And should be treated as such with no regard for their human rights since they foreswore human rights when they acted inhumanly.

There is one problem here: The USA has repeatedly refused to accede to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.............................

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by poochee

How many terrorists were put on military trial during the Bush Admin?

50,000 Enemy Combatants were processed through Gitmo. I believe some 450 remain there. Each has gone through the military tribunal process.

What is your argument? And do you not see the obvious problem with giving these douchebags access to the US court system?

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

My personal conclusion developed over quite a few years now is that those who place themselves outside the scope and protection of extant law (And by law, I mean the canons of established law in all its boundaries: nation state law: international criminal law as defined by the International Criminal Court).

Then those who wish to bring down nation states and their social order are anarchists: also, however, they are nihilists, since to them objectives can only be realised by destruction of what is established now.

This simply is sedition.

Then those who seek to destroy democratic (Such as it is!) government and law and order have placed themselves outside that law's protection and compassion.

And should be treated as such with no regard for their human rights since they foreswore human rights when they acted inhumanly.

There is one problem here: The USA has repeatedly refused to accede to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.............................

ironic that ^^^^
i hear your personal arguement Paq.....there's a part of me that has no problem with it....but your comment about the ICC disassembles the whole statement about them being treated without regard for their human rights because......etc.....

the ICC is a court of law, with rules of procedure designed by "western civilization".....the very thing terrorism has severe issues with....it's advantage (and it's a big one, imo.....if we gringos could just get over ourselves) is that it is international......and THAT to me is the best venue for any sort of judgement against this fool.

and it's that which remains the outstanding weakness in simon's arguement, and one -perhaps unrecognized- strength in LANs rant against Holder's decision and, thus, Obama's blunder (sidebar: what's the use of having all these "czars" if obama get's blamed for it all, anyway? )

[LANMaster]

KSM Show Trial Script Has Been Written

In a fair trial, KSM would very possibly walk on a technicality — like another famous terrorist, Obama's close friend Bill Ayers. But it's hardly a fair trial when the Attorney General and the President of the USA essentially guarantee the outcome in advance. Eyebrows have been raised even at NBC:


NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

NBC: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction — I mean one of the purposes of doing — going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the world our fairness in our court system.

Obama: Well —

NBC: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

Obama: Quack quack quack backtrack quack quack obfuscate quack quack quack quack…



America may never live down this catastrophic farce of a presidency


Obama predicts conviction of professed 9/11 mastermind; Holder calls failure 'not an option'

AP Via Star Tribune

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed as Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed: "Failure is not an option."

Even if a terror trial suspect were acquitted, Holder said, he would not be released in the United States.

In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."

In interviews broadcast on NBC and CNN Wednesday, the president also said that experienced prosecutors in the case who specialize in terrorism have offered assurances that "we'll convict this person with the evidence they've got, going through our system."

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by iltos

ironic that ^^^^
i hear your personal arguement Paq.....there's a part of me that has no problem with it....but your comment about the ICC disassembles the whole statement about them being treated without regard for their human rights because......etc.....

the ICC is a court of law, with rules of procedure designed by "western civilization".....the very thing terrorism has severe issues with....it's advantage (and it's a big one, imo.....if we gringos could just get over ourselves) is that it is international......and THAT to me is the best venue for any sort of judgement against this fool.

and it's that which remains the outstanding weakness in simon's arguement, and one -perhaps unrecognized- strength in LANs rant against Holder's decision and, thus, Obama's blunder (sidebar: what's the use of having all these "czars" if obama get's blamed for it all, anyway? )

Use your head, Dude. Are you saying this guy is not innocent until proven guilty?
This means that he could get off EASILY on a technicality like .... oh .... lets say .... waterboarding?

And when he is not convicted, but still not released, what then does that say to the rest of the world about our wonderful court system.

Certainly he would have the right to demand that the Jury be stacked with Muslims of his "ilk" for a fair and impartial trial.
Oh .... and those jurists would obviously be presented with all the evidence that KSM's lawyer wishes to present in his defense. But I am sure that someone would make them "promise" not to share their discovery with anyone.

Oh .... and his lawyer? Perhaps this one will be released from jail quick enough to "help out".

Putting this idiot on trial in US civilian court is nothing short of IDIOTIC.

Dang Liberals can be awful dense at times.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Use your head, Dude. Are you saying this guy is not innocent until proven guilty?
This means that he could get off EASILY on a technicality like .... oh .... lets say .... waterboarding?

And when he is not convicted, but still not released, what then does that say to the rest of the world about our wonderful court system.

Putting this idiot on trial in US civilian court is nothing short of IDIOTIC.

does this have something to do with what i wrote?
can you 'splain it to me, please?.....'cause i keep getting splattered with spittle everytime i move in for a real close look, trying to figure out what you're saying, other that "this is a dumb idea"

and i got that in your first post

[LANMaster]

I spelled out my disagreement, but you have yet to give me a good reason for your wanting KSM tried with all of the rights and priviledges that would probably get an acquittal.

BTW, if you are reading spittle spewing from my posts, then you are reading with the wrong tone from me.
I mean no malice, and I am not shouting. I just think this is a REALLY awful idea, and has absolutely no other possible motive than getting Bush, which would not be the likely outcome anyway.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

KSM Show Trial Script Has Been Written
NBC: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

Obama: I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

NBC: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction — I mean one of the purposes of doing — going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the world our fairness in our court system.

Obama: Well —

NBC: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

Obama: Quack quack quack backtrack quack quack obfuscate quack quack quack quack…

indeed

his actual words, for those who like to follow along, and not get hung up the fineries of bias, were these

Look — what I said was people will not be offended if that's the outcome. I'm not pre-judging, I'm not going to be in that courtroom, that's the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury. What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism and have brought multiple convictions before are telling us that they will convict this person with the evidence they've got going through our system. Now one of the things I think we have to break is this fearful notion that somehow our Justice system can't handle these guys. You know we convicted hundreds of terrorists — one of the key perpetrators of 9-11 or one of the persons who didn't succeed was part of the planning of 9-11 was convicted, he's in a maximum security prison right now — you've got Richard Reid who tried to blow up a plane coming over the Atlantic , he's in a supermax prison right now, directed by the way by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - so we've done this before , now I think that it is important for the American people to have confidence in ourselves and to recognize that when people carry out venal acts like this that we are able to handle it. Military commissions have been set up because there may be circumstances where the targets are military, outside of the U.S

.

certainly nobody over there at dingbats would appear to be among those with any confidence in the american people, or the american legal system.....

if you wanna have junk like freedom and fair trials, you gotta take the risk, imo, even if you know the scumbag is guilty.

how can you stand up for religious freedom in one breath, and scoff at the idea of justice in the next?

that's why simon's ideas -and obama's- have merit to me....tho i like the idea of the icc....mohammed represents a global problem: i like the idea of a global condemnation.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

50,000 Enemy Combatants were processed through Gitmo. I believe some 450 remain there. Each has gone through the military tribunal process.

What is your argument? And do you not see the obvious problem with giving these douchebags access to the US court system?

What sentence did the 450 get?