Comments on: KSM on trial in NYC: Part 2

By: The show trial won’t go on | Kyle Wingfield

The show trial won’t go on | Kyle Wingfield — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:40:32 +0000

[...] administration botched this one from the beginning, including President Obama’s telling statement that no one would be offended [...]

By: Gregg

Gregg — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:46:27 +0000

Kyle your point is taken also they attacked a military base which is a different scenario entirely. inIn this one they attacked a civilian owned building and used commercial airlines to do so. Also, we went to war with a country not a select group of indiviuals. So there is a difference.

By: Kyle Wingfield

Kyle Wingfield — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:41:40 +0000

Gregg: So Pearl Harbor wasn’t an act of war? After all, it was just the prelude to World War II…

By: Gregg

Gregg — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:28:01 +0000

Kyle, your point is well heeded however as you say “President Bush, as did the members of Congress at the time, as did the United Nations (implicitly in acknowledging, in Resolution 1368, passed Sept. 12, 2001″. This was the day after the attack. This was the prelude to the supposed “war on terrorism”. I don’t believe this guy deserves a military tribunal as he was and is a coward that attack innocent civilians.
I do not believe everything that is done is based on political agends. And as far as I am concerned AG Holder has already broken and differed in opinion with the President. I think this trial is in the right place. Then everyone here who supports terrorism should also be tried in a military tribunal?

By: Kyle Wingfield

Kyle Wingfield — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:23:16 +0000

Gregg, it all depends on whether you view 9/11 as an act of war — as did President Bush, as did the members of Congress at the time, as did the United Nations (implicitly in acknowledging, in Resolution 1368, passed Sept. 12, 2001, that the U.S. had the right to react militarily to the perpetrators of the attacks), and as did al Qaeda and KSM themselves — or as the legal and moral equivalent of any murder committed any day of the year.

If it was an act of war, and I believe it was, then of course it’s appropriate to use military tribunals. The ability of the civilian courts to “handle” the case has nothing, zero, zilch to do with whether this was the right decision.

This decision was purely political, and that is a terrible basis for a decision such as this one to be made. The administration deserves every bit of criticism it gets for politicizing justice in this case. That is my point.

By: Gregg

Gregg — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:05:07 +0000

Kyle, Mark gets your point however I do not. Please tell me what KSM has done to deserve being tried in a military tribunal? He killed civilians and hijacked four planes, neither of these crimes are covered by military tribunals! Isn’t he being tried for the attacks on 9/11 and nothing before nor after that? He was the “alledged” mastermind of this and there is doubt out courts system can handle such a case?

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:49:42 +0000

Kyle—

OK, now I think I understand your point a bit better. I can agree that this trial has very little to do about “justice” (since KSM can never be freed anyway) and has everything to do about politics. Actually, I think it was quite a clever maneuver for the Obama administration.

Days after the inauguration, Obama said that he wouldn’t hold hearings or investigate the actions of the previous administration regarding waterboarding/torture/etc. So I just see this trial as a way to expose those actions in a public forum without actually “investigating” the previous administration (as well as hopefully building up some international goodwill along the way).

The only risk is embarrassment of an acquittal (in which the administration would probably not be able to recover from). However, there is not a risk of KSM ever being released from US custody.

By: Kyle Wingfield

Kyle Wingfield — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:29:51 +0000

Mark: Either you’re not reading what I’m writing, or I’m not making myself clear. Of course the administration would never let KSM walk the streets of New York after an acquittal…that is why I asked the question, to point out that the administration isn’t really doing what it’s trying to get credit for doing.

You write: “He can still be held under the existing laws…to detain him.” And which laws are those? Civilian or military? Holder cited KSM’s enemy combatant status. Is this a civilian or military status? And does it relate to civilian or military law?

The point is that the Obama administration is trying to win the approval of its political base by approaching this differently than Bush did, but without actually risking the potential consequences that this action presents. You can’t have it both ways and then talk about “American justice” and “courage” and “fear mongering” by those who point out that Holder is making a false distinction, one that has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with politics.

That imo is what is getting “old and stale” after just 10 months.

By: Elephant Whip

Elephant Whip — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:07:53 +0000

Ward:

You’re naive if you think that some people should have a fair trial and some should not. If anything, this trial will be such a strong case that critics will be saying that is was a show trial and the terrorist was already convicted before setting foot in court.

If some people get a fair trial and some do not, who will be the arbiter of that decision and why should you trust that decision maker? And if the wrong person/administration gets that kind of power, they might decide that YOU do not deserve a fair trial.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:03:16 +0000

Why are people so scared? It is editorials like this that I have great disdain for given total disregard of the facts and the reality of the situation.

Let’s say that he is acquitted. He can still be held under the existing laws (you know the ones that our previous president said he had) to detain him.

In the nuclear option (in the extremely remote case nothing works) KSM will have to be deported. There is NOT a country in the WORLD that will process the necessary paperwork to take him. Therefore we can detain KSM indefinitely (which we are doing now anyway) given the fact that there is no country that will take him.

If the argument to not having this trial is based upon the possibility of KSM “walking the streets of NYC on acquittal” then that is not a good argument because it is just not possible.

Come up with some better talking points. The fear-mongering is getting old and stale.