Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on prom night (AP)
As you may know, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 co-defendants will face trial in a federal civilian court in New York City rather than a military court. Prosecutors will likely seek the death penalty for all five defendants.
Mohammed is commonly referred to as the 9/11 mastermind. He himself has confessed to being the mastermind. Interestingly enough, he is the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef is serving a life sentence in a federal prison.
Many believe this is a mistake on the part of the administration to try these people in a civilian court rather than in military tribunals or even on American soil:
"Please spare us talk of the 'rule of law.' If that was the primary consideration, the U.S. already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision obliged the executive and legislative branches to approve a detailed plan to prosecute the illegal 'enemy combatants' captured since 9/11.
"Contrary to liberal myth, military tribunals aren't a break with 200-plus years of American jurisprudence. Eight Nazis who snuck into the U.S. in June 1942 were tried by a similar court and most were hanged within two months. Before the Obama Administration stopped all proceedings earlier this year pending yesterday's decision, the tribunals at Gitmo had earned a reputation for fairness and independence…"Most Americans, we suspect, can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime." --Allah Pundit
I don't have a problem with either venue. Civilian court? Fine. If it were a military tribunal, that would've been fine, too.
People can speculate until their blue in the face as to why Attorney General Eric Holder reach the decision he did but that's a waste of time because at the end of the day, regardless of venue, the five defendants will get what's coming to them.
Any controversy, I think, is simply a manufactured one because ideologues need a reason to be pissed and a reason to blame the person they're pissed at, and it's not the terrorists that they're pissed at. It's Obama. Again, another waste of time.
A lot of people are viewing this decision by Attorney General Eric Holder as some sort of special treatment for bad people, but we're not trying these people under our system of justice for their benefit. The primary reason for trying these people under our system of justice is for us, not the defendants, so that we maintain the legal tradition in which we believe.
We could do what some might like to see: We could take the five defendants into the alley and just shoot them. Of course, by doing that, we'd be lowering ourselves to their level of behavior.
And we could investigate every Islamic believer in America because they're all suspicious characters anyway and frankly, we don't like Muslims, right?
We could do that, except, well, we care about the United States Constitution.
We're better
I think it's pretty dangerous to assume or even desire that we overlook legal niceties. They're not niceties; they're the law. The people who overlook them are the ones who want to return the Middle East to the Sixth Century. We're better than that. If "foreign terrorists have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest," I say that's the best reason to try them in a civilian court of law, because they detest the values born of it. I hope they hate every minute of it. Let these people understand that we operate our judicial system according to well-defined and time-tested rules that have served us well and are part of what makes us a civilized society that lives in the 21st Century and looks forward to the next one.
They want beheadings and martyrdom? Sorry, you'll have to make do with due process, and we hope you hate every minute of it because every time we do things our way instead of theirs, it shows we're better. And we are better, so let's continue to demonstrate that with a system that's far superior to theirs.
The system works
We have a vigorous judicial process and I trust it well enough to test anything anyone can throw at it. An open criminal trial under our standard system of justice, accompanied by basic precepts of due process, announces to the world, including the Muslim world, that we have enough faith in our rules of justice to apply them equally to everyone, including to Muslim radicals accused of one of the worst crimes in American history, a crime perpetrated against American citizens. And holding the trial in New York, the place where nearly 3,000 Americans died, provides particularly compelling symbolism.
A platform for terrorists, oh my God!
Krauthammer's assertion that this will be a show trial providing terrorists with a stage to blather their propaganda is just nonsense. He makes the classic mistake of a political wonk. He thinks everything that's important to him is important to everyone else.
Here's a secret, Charles: Most people don't give a damn what you care about. And here's how this trial will unfold: Lots of hype in the days just before the trial and once the novelty wears off and the trial settles into a daily routine, people won't hear much about it until it's over. They'll get a 30-second update on news radio, or maybe a 2-minute piece of their television news, or perhaps something more in-depth from the NY Times, and that's about it. They won't care again until the jury reaches a verdict, and the trial could last for months. Krauthammer may obsess over court transcripts and vigorously consume all there is to see, hear and read about the trial, but he's in rarified air: He's a policy wonk, a political pundit. He cares about things that most Americans don't care about. Ask your neighbors about policy. Ask them if they know the difference between a civilian trial and a military tribunal. Ask them whether they care about the difference as long as the five defendants are found guilty. America doesn't live where the Charles Krauthammers or the Allah Pundits of the world live. Neither of these individuals are dumb; they're just cocooned in their passion for politics. Most Americans don't live in that neighborhood, so no one is going to pay much attention to this trial once it's underway and going through the daily motions.
Let's not forget that we successfully prosecuted both Ramzi Yousef and the blind Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and that was done in civilian court, no fuss, no muss, no show trial, no theatrics. Today, no one remembers a damn thing they said and no one who does gives a damn, not even among Muslim extremists. They're both rotting away in prison and unless you googled it, few people could tell you where they're being incarcerated.
The irony of hearing Krauthammer whine about show trials, and giving terrorists a platform is that if anyone is likely to make a show out of the trial, it'll be the pathetic lot of idiots on cable news, few of whom could find an intelligent way to report an important story if it killed them. So here's a suggestion, Charles: Recommend to Fox News that they give the trial little attention. See how far you get. I can guarantee you'll get laughed right out of the production meeting. This trial is perfect fodder for ginning up fear, anger and hatred --three key ingredients of any ratings-driven cable news network.
Getting a non-biased jury
Can the court get a non-biased jury? Interesting question since we're pooling in a city where the attack happened. However, you have a pool of 8 million, and while the memory of 9/11 is still with us, the rawness has faded after eight years.
More to the point, the record has shown over the years of development of our judicial system that intelligent people of good will can make their decision based on the evidence they're presented in the courtroom, not based on extraneous feelings or beliefs. They can go into court, put aside any preconceptions they might have, examine the evidence and adjudicate methodically and deliberately. It might not be easy in this particular case but I do believe, under our system of justice, that it is eminently doable.
One of the most important things we can say to these terrorists and their fellow travelers around the world is that trials and due process are how civilized countries treat criminals, even and especially those who are accused of engaging in terrorism. We are patient and we believe in the structures we have in place to handle these kinds of cases, including hiring lawyers to vigorously press on behalf of the defendants.
What's irritating is that I suspect Mr. Krauthammer knows this about our legal system and, like many of us, he has faith in it. But he and others like him are just looking for a reason to politicize yet something else, simply because they don't like this administration. Liberals did this same crap with George Bush. The minute George Bush's name was on something, they hated it. It's the same with propagandist conservatives.
No doubt these same Obama opponents who can't resist politicizing everything strictly because they're Obama opponents will find some way to politicize the death sentences of these five terrorists when they're carried out.
It's very easy to say these are the bad guys and we're just going to execute them or just put them away somewhere and not think about them and not treat them like human beings.
The problem is, if we don't uphold our values, if we no longer have what America has always stood for, what exactly were we fighting for in Iraq? What exactly are we fighting for in Afghanistan?
Comments
The criminal judicial system is not set up for trying terrorists. In the criminal system these terrorists attorneys can argue violations of miranda rights as if they are citizens of this country and have rights. They don't. Their attorneys can enough points to SET THEM FREE. And the possibility is very good under criminal law. Under military law these terrorists can be charged as enemy combatants, assisting in terroristic acts (such as financing like some have) and be found guilty. Criminal law is totally different from Military laws. Military laws in these cases fit criminal laws don't. POTUS has completely lost his marbles and put the American people especially in NYC at risk and the terrorists at risk (they will have to be moved twice a day from prison to and from the courthouse. Can you say Oswald?
I want Bruce to be the FIRST JUROR! I want Bruce to talk face to face with the families of the Islamist slaughter of 3000 innocents.
Oh, excuse me, I can't type Islamist can I?
I guess we forgot Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman and his AMERICAN attorney? His lawyer Lynn Stewart was sentenced to 30 months in prison for smuggling letters out for of prison to deliver to the terrorist leaders on the outside. The letters call for the killing of Jew around the world, where ever they are found.
Guess who was listening to this stuff? A certain Major named Hasan. No connection right?
Just a few.
Jihad: I'd be happy to sit on such a jury. I don't fear facts, unlike you. I'm a New Yorker. I grew up watching the Twin Towers built. They were always special to me. I was on the air when the towers went down. I lost three very close friends in one of the towers. Don't think there isn't a stake in it for me. But I'm a rational human being who respects our laws. You're just a hateful crank who, I might add, has yet to show enough testicular fortitude to answer the questions I've posed to you previously.
"Lynn Stewart was sentenced to 30 months in prison"
Lynn Stewart is no the system, just a representative of it. The fact the system dealt with this accordingly is a testament to its quality.
Katt says: "The criminal judicial system is not set up for trying terrorists."
The system has already tried, convicted and sentenced terrorists. Do you really think Mr. Holder would risk trying these terrorists in civilian court if he thought there was any chance they'd be released on a technicality? C'mon.
The blindness continues.
Just like the Sheik.
And am I surprised you have now defended Stewart? No.
Jihad Watch says: "The blindness continues."
As does your broken record, and your continued failure to answer the questions I have posed to you in previous articles. Why have you failed to respond to tangible questions in concrete terms? Are you simply unable to do so?
Gotta love this bit: "Krauthammer's assertion that this will be a show trial providing terrorists with a stage to blather their propaganda is just nonsense. He makes the classic mistake of a political wonk. He thinks everything that's important to him is important to everyone else." That actually describes you Bruce. Thank God most Americans do not share your distorted views.
Hey annoyed - anything sounds good when you take it out of context. And let me know when you get done taking the U-S Census since, obviously, you know what All 305 million Americans think.
What exactly am I taking out of context? Bruce the Populist Examiner thinks "everything that's important to him is important to everyone else." Read his populist articles, written with a condescending lecturous tone, mandating that people get in line with his way of thinking or else. However, most Americans do not think like Bruce, which is obvious to anyone paying attention to anything, from politics to trends.
Charles Krauthammer can't fool me...I know Dick Dastardly (Wacky Racers) when I see him...Shaving off your handlebar mustache won't fool anyone Krauthammer!
I love the people who take offense at your opinion and then claim to know tell you what your opinion is. Here's a tip for you Annoyed: Americans don't care about politics. If you look at focus groups, you find that a big reason why is the nasty tone of the discourse, like people who stoop to name-calling as their only form of argumentation. And getting waxed up about a civilian trial vs a military one is something Beltway partisans and wonks do, not citizens. Krauthammer's faux outrage will be for naught when these five defendants are convicted in the very civilian court he's criticizing. That's when someone should ask him why he made such a fuss. No one will, because everyone will have forgotten by the time sentences are handed out.
And me? I don't care if people don't care what I think, and I don't think what I have to say is any more important than any other citizen. Apparently, you do, though, so thanks for reading and commenting, even though you didn't say much.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!