Sponsored Links

[Jobius]

This will be interesting.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and four co-defendants will be tried in federal court in New York instead of a military commission, with prosecutors likely to seek the death penalty, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday.

The long-awaited decision, part of President Obama's quest to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sparked immediate outrage from Republican lawmakers, who said military commissions are a more secure and appropriate place to try suspected terrorists. But the announcement drew praise from civil rights advocates, who argue that the detainees' civil rights have been violated by years of detention without trial and the use of military commissions.

Question for debate:

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

[quarkhead]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

This is good. This should absolutely be a criminal trial, not a military trial. Why? Because terrorism is a crime. In a nation of laws crimes should be tried in public.

It seems there was enough to tie them to this crime to keep them locked up for this long; one can presume that the prosecution must have an open-and-shut case. A criminal trial should certainly be sufficient.

[Raptavio]

Excellent news, and the right thing to do.

Our justice system is strong enough to handle a cheap thug like KSM.

[Amlord]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

This is good. This should absolutely be a criminal trial, not a military trial. Why? Because terrorism is a crime. In a nation of laws crimes should be tried in public.

It seems there was enough to tie them to this crime to keep them locked up for this long; one can presume that the prosecution must have an open-and-shut case. A criminal trial should certainly be sufficient.

I agree that the trial should be public.

However, if this is the real reasoning behind trying KSM and associates in New York, why are other detainees, including USS Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri still being tried with military tribunals?

I wish I could see a logical rationale behind these decisions.

The real problem that a public trial presents is that it could be a stage for KSM and others to encourage other jihadis. If he stands up in open court and belittles the judge, the proceeding, the authority of the United States and is then executed, what effect will that have on the Muslim street?

This post has been edited by Amlord: Nov 13 2009, 09:22 PM

[Raptavio]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

This is good. This should absolutely be a criminal trial, not a military trial. Why? Because terrorism is a crime. In a nation of laws crimes should be tried in public.

It seems there was enough to tie them to this crime to keep them locked up for this long; one can presume that the prosecution must have an open-and-shut case. A criminal trial should certainly be sufficient.

I agree that the trial should be public.

However, if this is the real reasoning behind trying KSM and associates in New York, why are other detainees, including USS Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri still being tried with military tribunals?

I wish I could see a logical rationale behind these decisions.

The real problem that a public trial presents is that it could be a stage for KSM and others to encourage other jihadis. If he stands up in open court and belittles the judge, the proceeding, the authority of the United States and is then executed, what effect will that have on the Muslim street?

Good question. Personally, I think if he belittles the judge and then winds up with a needle in his arm, it will reveal he's nothing more than a paper tiger.

[BaphometsAdvocat...]

However, if this is the real reasoning behind trying KSM and associates in New York, why are other detainees, including USS Cole bombing mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri still being tried with military tribunals?

WTC I & II not military

USS Cole is military

[moif]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

It is, for the reasoning offered by Quarkhead. Terrorism is a criminal offence.

But... What if they fail to find him guilty?

[Paladin Elspeth]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

It is, for the reasoning offered by Quarkhead. Terrorism is a criminal offence.

But... What if they fail to find him guilty?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. I would think that the only reason that he would get off would be due to a technicality. I hope the military dotted all its i's and crossed all its t's in this case. There would be major, major outrage at anything other than a guilty verdict.

I wonder if his defense attorney will, as a matter of course, ask for a change of venue.

This post has been edited by Paladin Elspeth: Nov 13 2009, 10:17 PM

[Jobius]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

It is, for the reasoning offered by Quarkhead. Terrorism is a criminal offence.

But... What if they fail to find him guilty?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed reportedly confessed to being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. I would think that the only reason that he would get off would be due to a technicality. I hope the military dotted all its i's and crossed all its t's in this case. There would be major, major outrage at anything other than a guilty verdict.

I wonder if his defense attorney will, as a matter of course, ask for a change of venue.

I'm more worried about what the defense attorneys will ask for, and get, in discovery. KSM confessed to a lot of things that he probably didn't actually do. His attorneys are likely to ask for intelligence information that the government has about others who may have actually committed the African embassy bombings, the murder of Danny Pearl, etc. The government won't want to share anything that reveals their sources and methods of collecting that information, and the judge (who will probably have little expertise in intelligence or military matters) will have to decide what the government must disclose.

In Omar Abdel Rahman's trial back in the 90s, a list of known al Qaeda associates that the government disclosed in discovery reportedly found its way back to bin Laden in Sudan. That's the real danger of civilian trials, in my opinion.

I'm not saying this was the wrong call, but it does carry real risks.

[Sleeper]

Is it known who will be defending them when they are on trial. Will they be provided a public attorney?

[Jobius]

Is it known who will be defending them when they are on trial. Will they be provided a public attorney?

I haven't seen it yet, but I bet they'll be well represented by prominent attorneys working pro bono.

Former AG (and judge in the first WTC bombing trial) Michael Mukasey came out strongly against the decision to move the case to Federal court today. The American Spectator covered it and C-SPAN has the video.

[Julian]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

Absolutely the right thing; the mistake, if any was made, was to put him in Gitmo for seven years or so in the first place. He should have been on trial after a year or two in a Federal or New York jail, at most.

It is, for the reasoning offered by Quarkhead. Terrorism is a criminal offence.

But... What if they fail to find him guilty?

Under the law, then he's technically as innocent of 9-11 as you or I. My hunch is that he'll be found guilty, but that if he isn't, it'll be mostly because the jury isn't convinced that his confession(s) weren't obtained under duress. For which read torture. Which will then put the spotlight back onto Gitmo.

I hope he is found guilty. Assuming he did it, of course - if he didn't, I don't think he should be found guilty just to spare the authorities some embarrassment, as I suspect was the case in the Lockerbie trial (I suspect that Syrians did that, and they later became to useful to monitoring a now-hostile Saddam-era Iraq after it invaded Kuwait to be sacrificed in the name of mere principles like justice ).

[Dontreadonme]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commission, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

Definitely the correct course of action. We are not at war, and KSM is not a war criminal. Terrorism is a criminal act as defined by Federal Statute.

Holding a civilian trial will take away from the Public relations/Information Operations campaign by terror groups. It will show that the rule of law and our system of justice is superior; that we do not have to invent extra-legal, parallel systems of recourse based out of fear and power.

We have successfully tried and incarcerated terrorists in the past using our Constitutionally mandated system of justice, with the requisite oversight. I have a feeling that people upset with a civilian trial of KSM are more worried that it highlights the failures of previous administrations and their boastful claims of bringing terrorists to justice.

[quarkhead]

I wanted to add: the fact that the extensive torture of KSM may present the only real technical hurdles this trial faces is a classic case of blowback, and a further indictment of Bush administration policies.

[Lesly]

What if they fail to find him guilty?

He will be found guilty. Those Obama think have a chance of being found not guilty will be tried by military tribunal, where the odds are rigged against them. For all its reputation as a liberal bastion, NY is a good state to federal prosecutors. The DoJ will have no problem fishing for a district judge that will ignore the crime of torture committed against Mohammed.

I wish they'd throw him to the rigged tribunals instead of squandering our civilian justice system.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

It's the right venue, because there are specific agreements in international law dealing with air piracy that removes KSM's case (and that of his co-conspirators) from the laws of armed conflict and combatant immunity. So he should be tried in civilian court.

I'd argue that this isn't the case for most detained Al Qaeda members.

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Nov 15 2009, 01:20 AM

[Ted]

This will be interesting.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed -- the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- and four co-defendants will be tried in federal court in New York instead of a military commission, with prosecutors likely to seek the death penalty, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday.

The long-awaited decision, part of President Obama's quest to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, sparked immediate outrage from Republican lawmakers, who said military commissions are a more secure and appropriate place to try suspected terrorists. But the announcement drew praise from civil rights advocates, who argue that the detainees' civil rights have been violated by years of detention without trial and the use of military commissions.

Question for debate:

Is a civilian trial, rather than a military commision, the right venue to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators? Why or why not?

It would make sense if all the trials were public.

But since they are not this becomes a “show trial” and nothing more. After years of little action now we decide to give KSM a forum to speak at. Naturally he will demand access to classified information and who knows how much will be compromised before these trials are done.

Then if, as we are told is certain, they are convicted and sentenced to death they get the “automatic appeal” so that we can do it again. Then they can, as others sentenced to death, sit on death row for 10 years.

So maybe they will get what they deserve by 2020. So much for swift justice.

[Raptavio]

Swift justice - like sitting at Guantanamo without charge for six years.

No, thank you.

Our justice system is good enough to handle these thugs. Seems the right wing is too ready to cede our democracy to them - they claim our system of justice is inadequate to handle them. Cowards, the right wing, all of them.

I'm not afraid of these bums, and neither, it seems, are the people of New York.

[Ted]

Swift justice - like sitting at Guantanamo without charge for six years.

No, thank you.

Our justice system is good enough to handle these thugs. Seems the right wing is too ready to cede our democracy to them - they claim our system of justice is inadequate to handle them. Cowards, the right wing, all of them.

I'm not afraid of these bums, and neither, it seems, are the people of New York.

Why all the babbling about ‘right wing”? Why use our system of justice for some and not all?

The fact is if public trials are so damn good let’s do it for all of them.

This is show trial political nonsense just as is the closing of GITMO so we can spend millions we don’t have to put the prisoners elsewhere.

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Swift justice - like sitting at Guantanamo without charge for six years.

No, thank you.

Our justice system is good enough to handle these thugs. Seems the right wing is too ready to cede our democracy to them - they claim our system of justice is inadequate to handle them. Cowards, the right wing, all of them.

I'm not afraid of these bums, and neither, it seems, are the people of New York.

Why all the babbling about ‘right wing”? Why use our system of justice for some and not all?

The fact is if public trials are so damn good let’s do it for all of them.

This is show trial political nonsense just as is the closing of GITMO so we can spend millions we don’t have to put the prisoners elsewhere.

I'm getting confused now. Whether via military tribunal or civil court, both are "our system of justice". They're designed for different things. I don't see how we could try this person for a crime in a military court, when it happened before Congress authorized the use of military force. After that date, it's debatable...before that date I don't see how it could be debatable, particularly when there is (and was) already a system in place to deal with that type of thing.