Monday, November 16, 2009

Bringing Mohammed To The Courthouse

So Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 conspirators in New York's federal District Court. It will be interesting to see how this plays politically. And this will have a long New York run. I assume the process will go on for the next few years. That Eric Holder announced it on a Friday news dump (while the President was out of the country) suggests he knows this is trouble.

Mohammed will no doubt get top-notch representation, and it's expected the defense will try to make this trial about America, not Mohammed. (In fact, some think this is why Holder made the decision--as a roundabout way to put the Bush administration on trial.) That's one of the things that makes this so odd. KSM is not a normal criminal, and was not treated as such. He was not arrested and held by the police--his capture and treatment was an intelligence and military matter. Furthermore, his importance wasn't just as a captured criminal, but as a top terrorist leader who possessed valuable information. How can we go back now and act as if he's just another defendant? Furthermore, much of the information about his case may be classified--how can you have normal discovery? The time to try him, if there ever was a time, was right after his catpure.

So now we're going to have a massive political trial which Mohammed and the others can use as a soapbox. (They can if the judge lets them--who knows what will happen. Perhaps Mohammed will refuse to recognize the court's jurisdiction and simply not participate--in which case his lawyers can take over.)

Is this truly what justice is about? People think in certain categories, and may simply assume justice means a full criminal trial with Sixth Amendment protections. But maybe the question isn't about whether or not we support the Sixth Amendment, but what the Sixth Amendment applies to. Look at the Fifth Amendment--more rights for criminal defendants, but note the Founders wrote into it when it comes to mlitary situations, all bets are off.

This isn't some U.S. citizen being tried for murder, rape or burglary. We're trying a foreign enemy in a civilian court, a guy who's waged war on the U.S., is the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks (only the top item on a long rap sheet), and who's already confessed and asked to be executed. I'm not sure if justice, as we understand it, will be served here.

And what if he's acquitted?

6 Comments:

Anonymous life insurance broker Toronto said...

I agree - if the question is whether KSM should be seen as a common criminal or a war criminal, it is quite clear since the way, he was treated from the very beginning was kind of obvious and also the fact that the USA is in a war with Afghanistan stands also indisputable, even though some people like to choose not to see that. But if because such a false qualification, he and the others somehow get acquitted Obama and his administration would be facing perhaps the worst scandal in their short and insignificant history. Lorne

8:13 AM, November 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is that Lorne Michaels?

It's true though that KSM is not a regular criminal, any more than anyone else who wages war against the U.S. is.

8:56 AM, November 16, 2009  
Anonymous Lawrence King said...

Was he Mirandized?

9:59 AM, November 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did they worry about acquittals at Nuremberg? If you don't trust the system then you don't know why we're fighting.

Prosecuting this guy at some banana republic-type military tribunal in an anti-Disney land prison just gives truth to his propaganda.

10:50 AM, November 16, 2009  
Blogger LAGuy said...

"Did they worry about acquittals at Nuremberg? If you don't trust the system then you don't know why we're fighting. Prosecuting this guy at some banana republic-type military tribunal in an anti-Disney land prison just gives truth to his propaganda."

I am beyond thrilled you brought up Nuremberg. Even if your argument were relevant, please note Nuremberg was not a U.S. criminal trial. Furthermore, the procedural guarantees in the military tribunal set up for these guys by Congress (responding to the U.S. Supreme Court) guaranteed rights to the defendants far beyond what the Nuremberg defendants received.

11:10 AM, November 16, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it's certainly true that anonymous does not trust the system, and doesn't know why we're fighting.

Sigh.

SWMBCg, etc.

11:20 AM, November 16, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter