The Obama administration--in all its wisdom--has decided to give an international reality show to our enemies that will drag on for years. During this "trial" it is clear that the actions of the Bush administration will likely be scrutinized as much or more than the actions of our enemies.

Why is the Obama administration right in its decision to hold the trials in question? Why would military tribunals not have sufficed?

And here's some opinion and Senate testimony concerning the issue:

The KSM Trial Will Be an Intelligence Bonanza for al Qaeda - WSJ
November 16, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/yh3yrgb

What Could Go Wrong at KSM Trial, and How to Avoid It - CBS News
November 17, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/ygah9k3

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder - Senate hearing (video)
November 18, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/y9orpxm

11/19/2009 11:22:35 AM

They could get a fair trail, we can't allow it!

11/19/2009 11:25:40 AM

Quote :

"Why would military tribunals not have sufficed?"

11/19/2009 11:31:38 AM

Because they're tribunals.

I'd rather convict someone in our civilian court system by a jury of my peers. That way there can be no question.

11/19/2009 11:33:17 AM

Why try non-citizens in our domestic courts? And how do you get a jury of THEIR peers? Put 12 other Al Queda terrorists on the jury?

Honestly, I'd say why not Jack Ruby the motherfuckers in the parking deck, but obviously these 9/11 masterminds deserve better!!

11/19/2009 11:34:22 AM

^^^^ Is that right? The enemy combatants weren't Mirandized when arrested, were they? And are enhanced interrogation techniques allowable on criminal defendants?

BTW, Obama has already convicted KSM and his cohorts:

Obama: 9/11 Mastermind Will Get the Death Penalty in NY

http://tinyurl.com/yzgwhcc

Did Obama--a constitutional lawyer--disregard the presumption of innocence? GASP!!!1

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 11:37 AM. Reason : ^ Yep.]

11/19/2009 11:36:12 AM

Quote :

"Obama: 9/11 Mastermind Will Get the Death Penalty in NY"

I wonder what McDanger thinks about this

11/19/2009 11:37:18 AM

If we don't have legitimacy and fairness, what have we become?

11/19/2009 11:38:18 AM

Quote :

"The country's top lawman said there is 'no way' Mohammed will get off"

--U.S. Attorney General Epic Failder

http://tinyurl.com/yzgwhcc

If KSM can't "get off," how is this fair or legitimate? Why is it not simply a show trial?

11/19/2009 11:41:15 AM

how is he not already guilty in everyone's eyes? this is such a bullshit waste of time and taxpayers' money.

11/19/2009 11:44:52 AM

If an illegal immigrant is in the country and kills someone, what kind of court is he tried in? A military tribunal? Military tribunals should be reserved for people that are actually a part of a foreign nation's military. Terrorists were not part of any government, nor were they participants in a war.

I'm certain that civilian courts will give these enemy combatants a proper trial and a proper punishment. Do you really think they're going to "get off"? Come on. These guys are either going to go to maximum security prison forever or get the death penalty.

^A lot of people are obviously guilty. We still go through the right process because it's what makes our justice system legitimate. I love the people that just want to discard the rule of law in favor of swift justice.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 11:47 AM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 11:45:22 AM

no my point is if everyone already feels and thinks he is guilty, then how can he ever receive a fair trial? he can't, it's impossible.

11/19/2009 11:47:39 AM

They can hear the evidence and make a decision based on that.

11/19/2009 11:48:32 AM

Quote :

"I love the people that just want to discard the rule of law in favor of swift justice."

Like our President?

11/19/2009 11:55:37 AM

Nevermind the fact that these trials are going to cost the state of NY around $100 million. that would be the same NY state gov't that is just about broke.

I'm sure they appreciate it.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM. Reason : are]

11/19/2009 11:59:25 AM

Why does it cost so much? Would it be better for the federal government to incur that cost?

11/19/2009 12:02:04 PM

Quote :

"If an illegal immigrant is in the country and kills someone, what kind of court is he tried in?"

d357r0y3r

KSM was captured in Pakistan.

And there's this:

Schumer in '01: Those who attack the U.S. don't deserve same due process as Americans
Nov. 19, 2009

Quote :

"There are also those prisoners of war who we have captured and will capture in Afghanistan and other countries who will receive a trial of some sort. It is clear we need to try those suspects in a forum that achieves two primary goals—two goals, I might add, that may not conflict. First, the Government must have the power to use even the most sensitive classified evidence against these suspects without compromising national security in any way, shape, or form. In addition, those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan."

--Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), 2001

http://tinyurl.com/yldxavw

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 12:02:57 PM

It doesn't really matter where he was captured. He's not part of a foreign military, but he did have a hand in the destruction of property and the taking of lives in the state of New York.

Schumer is full of shit when it comes to most things, why would his opinion on this matter?

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 12:06:01 PM

Quote :

"Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan."

--Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), 2001

http://tinyurl.com/yldxavw

11/19/2009 12:10:54 PM

He can say it's ludicrous, but it isn't. It makes sense to put a person on trial in the place where the crime was committed.

11/19/2009 12:15:00 PM

So is the real issue you have with this the fact that they're being tried in a federal district court, or the fact that there's a trial at all?

Sometimes it's good for "this great nation" to show that we'll be the better player in this fight, and uphold some semblance of an honest process. I don't doubt that a military tribunal could be a perfectly acceptable way to try some terror suspects, but the U. S. court system is also a well-established, well-equipped set of facilities for dealing with terror cases. This has been proven with the numerous terror-related trials that have occurred over the past several years, and they didn't really result in a prolonged "reality show."

11/19/2009 12:17:25 PM

^^ They have admitted their crimes. They should be executed for the cost of some rope or a few bullets or even some death serum.

This is nothing more than a costly show trial that has the added far-left benefit of raking the Bush administration through the coals one more time. It's beyond absurd and it's unforgivable.

Not to mention that our enemies will gain intelligence info from this trial--the amount and importance of the info remains to be seen. Even those who support the trial decision admit this:

Quote :

"And even apart from any declassification scandal it's certain that Al Qaeda operatives following the trial will learn something they didn't before know. Can prosecutors limit this collateral damage? That's just one of the many challenges they'll face."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/courtwatch/entry5682421.shtml

^ How is this not a show trial? And your choice of "semblance" is telling.

And if you don't think this trial will drag on for years, you're a fool:

Quote :

"On December 11, 2001, [Zacarias] Moussaoui was indicted by a federal grand jury in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia . . . ."

Quote :

"On March 13, 2006, Brinkema recessed the death-penalty case against Moussaoui because of a breach against the rules on witnesses."

Quote :

"On May 3, 2006, the jury reached a verdict: that Moussaoui be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Trial_and_sentencing

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 12:29:18 PM

So you're actually saying there should be no trial, and we should just summarily execute KSM?

Do you even listen to yourself? Do you know what that sounds like?

11/19/2009 12:35:10 PM

Might wanna re-read the OP; specifically the last part of the 2nd paragraph

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 12:40:34 PM

Support your claim that they will gain intelligence from this trial. You, of all people, should be aware that courtrooms can be closed, documents redacted, etc. The Bush administration practically kept the Sharpie company in business for that past 8 years with all the black ink they spilled all over released documents.

11/19/2009 12:42:54 PM

^^^ Try to stop being so stupid. They have admitted there crimes.

And did you even read the OP?

Quote :

"Why would military tribunals not have sufficed?"

The New York trial is nothing more than a show. Even though a military tribunal would also have been a type of show trial, it would have satisfied the requirements of justice, been much less expensive, and certainly much less of an international spectacle.

^ I already did by posting the opinion of a legal expert--can you read?

Quote :

"And even apart from any declassification scandal it's certain that Al Qaeda operatives following the trial will learn something they didn't before know. Can prosecutors limit this collateral damage? That's just one of the many challenges they'll face."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/17/courtwatch/entry5682421.shtml

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 12:42:54 PM

i have no problems with a "show trial" as you put it, if that trial shows the rest of the world the courage that we have as a nation to follow our due process of law.

the minute we arrested these guys, they became our responsibility to try, convict and bring to justice. now we're just actually doing it.

11/19/2009 12:44:37 PM

Quote :

"Try to stop being so stupid. They have admitted there crimes."

Oh, so now we don't need trials at all? Straight to the gallows with them!

11/19/2009 12:44:39 PM

^^ So military tribunals cannot provide due process under the law? You realize that such tribunals are lawful, right?

^ Can you read?

Quote :

"Why would military tribunals not have sufficed?"

FTR, I continue to support military tribunals and summary executions.

11/19/2009 12:51:28 PM

Quote :

"I don't doubt that a military tribunal could be a perfectly acceptable way to try some terror suspects, but the U. S. court system is also a well-established, well-equipped set of facilities for dealing with terror cases. This has been proven with the numerous terror-related trials that have occurred over the past several years, and they didn't really result in a prolonged "reality show.""

And let's not forget that Moussaoui was kept in a brig for most of that 2001-2006 timeframe, without an actual trial. Most of that time was legal maneuvering. The trial process itself was fairly quick. Most of that time was spent by the Bush administration trying to decide how to structure the military commissions. So you're not really arguing apples to apples here, since his case was eventually returned to the federal court system.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:56 PM. Reason : trial]

11/19/2009 12:56:11 PM

Quote :

"Oh, so now we don't need trials at all? Straight to the gallows with them!"

if they have admitted their crimes then why the need for any type of trial/tribunal?

11/19/2009 12:56:14 PM

^ how many of them were tortured? if they were tortured, how can you be certain that their claims weren't simply coerced?

i'm maintaining that trying them in a u.s. federal court is the most straightforward and internationally-respected way to handle it. i'll wait while i'm castigated for saying anything about international interests in their cases.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 12:57:55 PM

why do you assume they were tortured?

11/19/2009 12:58:46 PM

are you saying at we've not tortured captured terrorists? do you know which ones were and weren't?

11/19/2009 1:00:35 PM

I don't know that we can assume that, but it's definitely a possibility. We know a lot of alleged combatants were tortured. What happens if one of these guys, that we thought was "obviously guilty," actually got picked up randomly and was tortured until he said what he thought the torturers wanted to hear?

11/19/2009 1:02:31 PM

^^ my question is how do you know he was tortured? simple as that. i'm not saying he was or wasn't or that any other enemy combatant was or wasn't.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ^]

11/19/2009 1:02:57 PM

Based on Holder's responses to some of the press questioning, it's fairly safe to assume that at least some of them were tortured in some form or fashion. And every lawyer that's involved with these cases is going to bring it up, regardless of if it happened or not. Judges in any system are going to have to sort through the evidence with a fine-tooth comb to determine what's admissible because of these issues.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ^ read more closely, i didn't say any of them were or were not.]

11/19/2009 1:05:08 PM

It's a fairly relevant question to ask where we plan on getting an impartial jury of their peers from, never mind a neutral venue.

11/19/2009 1:13:37 PM

Quote :

"He can say it's ludicrous, but it isn't. It makes sense to put a person on trial in the place where the crime was committed."

Exactly... and I love how every single time anyone agrees with any point that hooksaw tries to make he immediately posts a Democrat agreeing with him trying to point out that the disagreer is some kind of hypocrite because he OBVIOUSLY must be a straight line lefty.

11/19/2009 1:13:44 PM

We know that KSM, at least, was waterboarded--because it yielded valuable intelligence that saved lives. But this is all the more reason not to have a trial in a civilian court--have the standard defendants been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and not been Mirandized? The answer is self-evident.

Quote :

"Most of that time was legal maneuvering."

Optimum

So there won't be "legal maneuvering" in these cases? Not to mention that every day of delay of the inevitable will cost more and more money.

11/19/2009 1:14:20 PM

Quote :

"i have no problems with a "show trial" as you put it, if that trial shows the rest of the world the courage that we have as a nation to follow our due process of law."

Good idea, military tribunal it is then!

11/19/2009 1:19:59 PM

Quote :

"We know that KSM, at least, was waterboarded--because it yielded valuable intelligence that saved lives. But this is all the more reason not to have a trial in a civilian court--have the standard defendants been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and not been Mirandized? The answer is self-evident."

Oh for god's sake, here we go again, Mr. Cheney. What utter bullshit. Your excuse for torture is that it provides valuable intelligence, but there's no evidence that proves that point. All we have now are insinuations from the previous administration. What's the reason why torture-produced evidence isn't admissible U.S. courts?

And more to the point, are you saying that without torture-produced evidence, the DOJ can't get a conviction? Why are we holding them at all?

Quote :

"So there won't be "legal maneuvering" in these cases? Not to mention that every day of delay of the inevitable will cost more and more money."

Of course there will be legal maneuvering, and that's going to be true in all venues, so that's hardly a reason to justify military tribunals as being somehow "better." Besides, how much money has been spent on setting up the military commissions system, that was then halted and changed? How much money has been frittered away on that massive court complex built at Guantanamo Bay? You're full of shit if you think that costs less than trying these defendants in civilian courts.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 1:20:04 PM

Quote :

"They could get a fair trail, we can't allow it!"

Obama himself has said they will be found guilty and be put to death...so its not exactly like je intends to give them a fair trial if he is so confident in the outcome.

11/19/2009 1:20:36 PM

Quote :

"It's a fairly relevant question to ask where we plan on getting an impartial jury of their peers from, never mind a neutral venue."

You could have asked that same question about that sniper. When a criminal is well known, is any jury going to be truly impartial? Maybe not, but all they can do is look at the evidence and make a decision. As long as they aren't going into the proceedings with an attitude of "I don't care what evidence there is or isn't, he's guilty," it should be fine.

Quote :

"Your excuse for torture is that it provides valuable intelligence, but there's no evidence that proves that point."

I believe it was on O'reillys talking points bulletin, which is all the evidence I need.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 1:20:48 PM

Quote :

" Why would military tribunals not have sufficed?"

Because it's not a military offense. Despite the Bush administration's claim of a "War on Terror" there is no actual declaration of war from them onto us. If there was a declaration of war then people like KSM would have been POWs in everyone's eyes and should have had the benefits of protection of the Geneva Convention.

Our government ignored all of that, so you cannot claim them as POWs. The attack was against civilians, and against civilian property. It was not a military strike, it was murder. He is being tried for planning mass murder, not for planning a tactical military maneuver.

Beyond that, you claim that their admitted guilt precludes the necessity of a trial. Personally, I find this offensive. This is a lynch mob mentality which we are supposed to have done away with in this country. He has a right, in our country, to stand in a court room and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty. He has a right, in our country, to trial by jury. He has a right, in our country, to defend himself if he so chooses. Those are among the rights that are supposed to make our country worth protecting. I'm sorry you don't believe in them.

11/19/2009 1:22:43 PM

Quote :

"Obama himself has said they will be found guilty and be put to death...so its not exactly like je intends to give them a fair trial if he is so confident in the outcome."

That's sort of like when a prosecutor does a press conference and says, "We're going to get a conviction, make no mistake!"

11/19/2009 1:22:47 PM

Quote :

"Obama himself has said they will be found guilty and be put to death...so its not exactly like je intends to give them a fair trial if he is so confident in the outcome."

Nothing more than political grandstanding. Bush said similar things, so that's not terribly relevant here.

11/19/2009 1:23:11 PM

Quote :

"I believe it was on O'reillys talking points bulletin, which is all the evidence I need."

The same O'Reilly that said that declared the Ft. Hood shooter a terrorist because he (O'Reilly) has the highest rated show on cable?

11/19/2009 1:24:22 PM

Quote :

"Obama himself has said they will be found guilty and be put to death...so its not exactly like je intends to give them a fair trial if he is so confident in the outcome."

Well you can rest easy then, because giving them a fair trial isn't Obama's call. It's the call of whatever judge winds up handling the case. Hopefully, he's competent and will ensure a fair trial all-around.

There's a reason we separate powers.

11/19/2009 1:26:48 PM

FYI:

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
April 21, 2009

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/46949

Quote :

"Because it's not a military offense."

timswar

Then why didn't we send the cops to arrest KSM and cohorts instead of the military?

Quote :

"That's sort of like when a prosecutor does a press conference and says, 'We're going to get a conviction, make no mistake!'"

God

Except that's a horrible analogy. First, Obama's not a prosecutor--separation of powers and all. And second, Obama didn't say anything that innocuous--he stated that they were going to be executed. Where's the presumption of innocence? And you dumbasses accuse me of having a "lynch mob mentality"? STFU.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 1:38:15 PM