KSM Trial Obamination!
BY: NCViking
Riddle me this: Why is it that the mastermind of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil in history, carried out by militant foreigners at war with us, captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan by Pakistani intelligence is getting a civilian trial in a New York court room? Could it be that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was … um … waterboarded? One of only three (Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashirito are the other two) that were given this torture method by interrogators? Show’s on!
It makes no sense whatsoever for Attorney General Eric Holder to do this. On the very same day he made this decision, he also agreed to a military tribunal for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashirito, who masterminded the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Let me get this straight – so a foreigner as a member of a militant organization at war with the United States can mastermind attacks or sneak in and kill civilians in America and get awarded a show trial in his place of carnage with full rights of our judicial system including Miranda and a lawyer; but if they hit a harder military target, they get a much harsher military tribunal. Huh? So hitting a naval vessel is somehow a war crime but killing civilians is not? So where now is the incentive? Let’s see … yeah, I feel much safer!
Holder has justified his actions by claiming that a civilian trial is one more likely to yield a conviction of KSM (on what planet?) and claimed that failure is not an option in this case. What? By introducing this monster (picked up on foreign soil who gave up information by methods Andy Sipowicz would not even dole out) into a civilian court proceeding at the place of the most notorious act in U.S. history is almost assuredly not to either get a fair trial or a conviction. Failure to put away KSM is no longer up to Holder; it is up to a jury. So, what then if he gets off? Do we release him? That is never going to happen – so what’s the point? Ah the bazillion-dollar question. $$
Eric Holder called this upcoming event “The trial of the century.” Does anybody remember the last one of these that we had? Oh yes, the O.J. Simpson trial. That went over good for the victims, aye? Not quite. Who really made out with this trial?
Has anyone ever seen this woman before?
Yes, this lovely lady is Kim Kardashian. Who really is this famous woman? Oh, that’s right … the daughter of Robert Kardashian, one of O.J. Simpson’s once rich and famous attorneys. Hell, even that bumbling cop Mark Fuhrman got rich and famous off of this circus! And … you guessed it … Holder’s crony buddies may be stumbling over themselves with this one.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, made waves Nov. 18 when he demanded that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. provide a list of all the suspected-terrorist detainee cases from which current Justice Department political appointees have had to recuse themselves. The extent of the conflicts at the department is still unclear.
Mr. Perrelli’s recusals presumably stem from the work that either he or his former firm, Jenner & Block LLP, did on behalf of detainees while Mr. Perrelli served on the firm’s management committee and on its appellate and Supreme Court practice groups. And Mr. Perrelli is just one official; a number of other Justice Department officials apparently did private-sector work on detainee cases.
Nice! A venue and spotlight for trial lawyers to get rich and famous at the expense of national security. Welcome to Obama’s America!
The War on Terror … sorry … “The Nondescript Something We May or May Not be Doing Involving People That We Misunderstand Initiative” is quite historically unique. It is not one against uniformed soldiers from a foreign power or just some criminal organization (like the war on drugs); it is one against a well-organized, equipped and funded clandestine global army of militants strategically connected in a loose, cellular manner with the sole purpose of destroying the west. It is a military, intelligence and law enforcement effort. All three combined in an unprecedented global war effort requiring very unique methods and circumstances.
Gitmo was a brilliant strategic decision by the Bush administration. It is basically a cross between a prisoner of war camp and a prison. It is not on American soil, but on a military base. These individuals, many picked up on the battlefield, do not belong on American soil and should not be afforded the American judicial system. The prison there and hybrid military tribunals that were created in this special circumstance are appropriate. The previous administration went to great lengths to figure this out for this very historic threat to America and did an excellent job of doing so — in the best interests of Americans and our security. If the Obama administration wants to prosecute those who waterboarded prisoners for torturing, then do just this. Don’t play games with our safety to play gotcha with Republicans and the previous administration or to create another show trail circus for the benefit of trial lawyers.
Eric Holder and the Obama administration are unraveling everything that was built to protect us against this grave threat in the most ignorant fashion with a warped veil of magnanimity. Obama’s decision to close Gitmo and his/Holder’s decision to “selectively” move trials to the U.S. judicial system is riddled with political motivation, and is also just plain ignorant and dangerous.
So what is next?
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
Why have trials at all?
Your opposition to NY trials (you are fine with sham trials) is because it carries risk of a defense. You worry that the outcome many not be predetermined, the evidence not selected for maximum press exposure, and any government torture revealed. Just saying Bush will be on trial says it all.
Secret military tribunals don’t go well to instill a sense of justice. Hidden, secret trials are essentially rubber stamp government trials. The world can’t tell them apart from trial like those in Argentina’s Dirty War.
Lack of access to evidence, lack of access to independent lawyers, lack of transparency, even a lack of competency. Redacted transcripts, unable to cross examine witnesses, selective emails and telephone conversations presented as “evidence”, a preselected jury – if there is one, a preselected judge panel — all useless. Military trials are show trials.
The “brilliant” move by the Bush administration is to have hidden, unaccountable trials, where water boarding evidence can be hidden, nothing more. Conservatives don’t want to hear that evidence. They don’t want the last of the bumbling presidency to be revealed.
What are you going to do when you find out KSM was water boarded 200 times instead of 3, or any evidence he gave was excessive and intensive sleep deprivation? You may call it all a fun day in prison, but what will the rest of the world think? What will Middle America think?
I don’t want KSM and the like to be released. I didn’t want the evidence of KSM’s guilt to have been tainted incurably either. Nice going Bush/Chenney, anything else you destroyed while in office?
I’m all for waterboarding these clowns as many times as needed. If it extracts pertinent information without the use of barbaric methods, then I’m all in. Not all of the writers on the blog agree with my opinion, but I am nicknamed Madman for a reason.
How bout this. Forget Gitmo and the cushy surroundings they enjoy at that wonderfully designed facility. Let’s just convene some type of trial in the field. We could dole out innocence or guilt within a short amount of time. The guilty will be summarily executed, the innocent let go.
Since when are military tribunals a sham? Were the Nuremberg trials? If you believe as the Obama administration that there is no war on terror and it is simply a matter of law enforcement, your argument makes sense. But to believe this is foolish and reckless. This is not just a law enforcement issue. Holder and Obama can’t even get this thought straight since tribunals set up by your most hated Bush administration have the (selective) green light from both.
For all those that supposedly conducted horrible war-crime acts in the Bush administration, let the heavens fall. To confuse one with the other is to play politics.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/18/terrorists_should_face_military_tribunal_99202.html
To afford this murderous, piece-of-garbage combatant the same rights as U.S. citizens is a travesty. This belongs in a military tribunal. If Americans fell into his hands a few years ago, they’d get no trial at all. Only a swift, filmed beheading.
I don’t understand why Mike sympathizes with KSM. If middle America agreed with Mike, I’m afraid we’d all be doomed. Fortunately, that’s not the case…
First, Mike doesn’t sympathize with KSM. Buzz loves to jump to conclusions. He should get out more and get some real exercise.
Next, the Nuremberg trials are a perfect example of what I am talking about. Open, transparent, visible, filmed. The GWB style military tribunals are all hidden, the evidence selectively presented, no chance to cross examine witnesses — the very definition of a sham.
Many of you want to water board them all as many times as we feel we need to (maybe more), but few remember the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Should he have been water boarded? Or the case of Maher Arar. How much torture should he have received (and he did, 9 months, serious torture).
Those two individuals, accused guilty by the US, since freed as innocent.
I want the rule of law, so do most Americans. If you want to torture them as many times as necessary, then you want the rule of brutality. Torture is, by definition, a crime against humanity – as in the legal sense of a crime.
I’ve seen pictures of the Gitmo jail and they are nothing like the cushy surroundings. They don’t play baseball and have ice cream. They sit in a cell. You have got to be a bit seriously deranged if you can equate the prison at Gitmo with the “cushy” surroundings, but then again they do call you Madman.
Buzz has voted them all guilty, no need to look at the evidence. So has Madman.
Obama has disallowed the words “War on Terror,” which you have equated as the unequivocal end to WOT. No so. The mission continues. It continues as an overseas deployment. The rhetoric has been toned down, not the mission. You prefer the “war” term, as in America at war can do anything.
Obama prefers the overseas contingency, as the rule of law prevails. I support Obama. You preferred your candidate’s choice, but he didn’t deliver. Why he couldn’t deliver, and why Obama has changed the terms is key as to the future of this war. Here are some conclusions (we’ve gone over these before)
1) We should be trying to locate and arrest or kill Bin Laden, not spend all of our money building up Iraq and Afghan society
2) We cannot defeat the Taliban. They merge in and out of civilian life, in and out of Pakistan.
3) So far, pushing the Taliban out of Afghanistan has only seriously destabilized Pakistan. It is likely that Pakistan will fall in the next two years.
4) Eventually, the Taliban will be part of the government of Afghanistan. The family of the last US soldier to die there will not thank you for extending the mission. It’s Good Morning Vietnam all over again.
These are realities. How are you going to fix this? Torture KSM until this is fixed? Torture innocent Afghans until this is fixed?
Your ideas on torture are based on whom you could catch, innocent or guilty. They are not based on any objective measure.
Your ideas are alien to my vision of America’s role in the world. I heard Viking say the same.
Mike, we may agree that torture is unacceptable and being inhumane in this way to protect our Liberty is unAmerican and I believe unconservative; but we differ on the War on Terror, quite a bit. I believe allowing the Taliban to regain any power is unacceptable, being that they are culpable in an act of war that killed 3,000 innocent Americans. Your attitude is defeatist. I don’t care how long it takes. Vietnam wasn’t involved in an attack like this, apples to oranges again. I also believe the special military tribunals set up for terrorists are appropriate, you believe in affording them our judicial system as just a law enforcement issue. The tribunals are unique because the threat and war is unique. Terrorists tribunals set up are not strictly Geneva Convention, though many of the elements are there. They need to be unique because we are dealing with an army of out-of-uniform illegal combatants targeting and killing civilians on purpose for gain, and they are not afforded any rights under the GC. Some classification must be made and it has been mulled over quite a bit and the Supreme Court has already weighed in. Some (you) believe it is too much, some (Madman) believe it doesn’t go far enough. Others (Me) believe it is an appropriate compromise considering the unique situation. I am quite confused how Obama and Holder can believe a civilian court is appropriate for some terrorists, but approve of these same tribunals for others. 9/11 was some how just a crime, but bomb a military target and its an act of war? In a war where most of the targets of these militants are civilians on purpose, this is a VERY reckless and ignorant decision.
Viking,
Do not get me wrong. I do not find the Taliban-as-killers gaining power as acceptable. I just think that what we’ve been doing there for the last 8 years will lead invariably to Taliban as gaining power. The current path is wrong, and we need to change course. Both McChrystal and Eikenberry both understand this well.
Your post merges the Afghanistan War and how a counterinsurgency should be fought with what to do with elements of the AQ that we have captured.
Afghans do not care about 9/11. Our interest in Afghanistan is to rid the country of elements like the Taliban for good. The strategy we employ in securing Afghanistan has very little if anything to do with how we address Gitmo detainees at AQ.
You may argue the contrary, that we should just treat them all as enemy combatants. Taliban and AQ alike. We have been doing that for 8 years and so far the results have been less than impressive. The Taliban control parts of Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan. They can walk into any large city in either country and kill tens of people. Their reign of terror will only increase.
The alternative is to view the problems as separate, as I believe they should have been for quite a long time. Our mission, which speaks to our shared concern (your, mine, authors of these blog) over 9/11, is to seek, disrupt, apprehend, and/or kill members of AQ, hopefully before they disperse more into other countries (like the former Soviet Republics).
Let’s address Afghanistan first. To quote Burke, “those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” That is why Vietnam and other counterinsurgencies are history lessons for what works and what doesn’t. Vietnam lessons are hardly apples and oranges to our current situation.
You have quoted some revisionist (and wrong) history in the past about Vietnam and I won’t go into it here, but I will say that there are strong parallels between the Vietnam defeat and Afghanistan.
For example, what is the US Army going to do when tens of thousands of Afghans march on Kabul? That happened in Vietnam. The population was forced to raise up, march forward creating a unsustainable situation. Just read about the fall of Saigon.
Prior to the fall, The Republic of South Vietnam was thoroughly infiltrated by elements of the Viet Cong. All levels of government, intelligence and police. We may be close to that in Afghanistan today.
What is the US Army to do when they go into a village looking for the enemy? What if the population is too scared to cooperate? What if it is easier to support the Taliban (brutal as they are) than it is to help the US — which by the way it is.
Both Vietnam and Afghanistan central governments are highly corrupt, highly inefficient, and only exist because they are propped up by a foreign power. Parallels go deeper, as between Khe Sanh and Kamdesh. Look them up, but both are bases that the US could no longer defend.
The conclusion: sheer might cannot prop up corrupt regimes.
McChrystal and Eikenberry want to place an end to forever support of the current Afghan regime. I say we should intervene and remove them as needed, arrest corrupt officials, etc… They are as much a danger to America as is KSM.
Now on to Gitmo. You jump to an erroneous conclusion when you say I favor viewing the how we handle AQ as a law enforcement issue. I will say that those involved in the previous attack on the WTC had been handled in a civilian court of law, as were the USS Cole and Embassy terrorists.
My focus is that the trials need to be open and transparent. There should be accountability.
Previous administrations did not elevate AQ to an Army. It treated them as common criminals. The Bush administration called them enemy combatants but then denied them GC protocols. It is a muddled situation that was created. Enemy combatants cannot be tortured, even once.
Arguing amongst ourselves (among Americans) serves no useful purpose. We are arguing about plate settings and not the crime. Calling it ignorant is beyond the pale.
You (and your blogger buddies and I) are not a legal expert, we are certainly not experts on military law and justice, and we are not experts on the Geneva Conventions. Since everything Obama does is wrong among conservatives, I want to understand the legal details beyond the analysis that Michelle Malkin and Lush Limbaugh provide. From my point of view they have been seriously wrong about a lot lately, and are probably wrong about this as well.
I will say that Holder probably knows more about what they want to accomplish than does Malkin.
BTW: Giuliani has argued for trial in court by the 20th Hijacker, and for all terrorists between 2001 and 2007. Now he is all over this trial.
I’ll post a funny video about it below.
Giuliani double talk, support trials
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3933955
enjoy
Trackbacks
Green Cream Level 6 Trial Size Sample .13 oz | Echelon-Us
New prostate cancer cure in trial | Echelon-Us
Ksm Trial Obamination! | the Great Illuminator « The Growing Fast Food Problem
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 42 minutes, 27 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags