Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try al-Qaida strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other residents of the Guantanamo prison in American civilian courts has provoked angry criticism from all the usual sources, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the Fox News airwaves. While some of the complaints are thoughtful, many are nothing more than demagogic appeals that seek to undermine the foundations of justice in a democratic society.
When Holder’s critics say that Mohammed doesn’t "deserve" an open and adversarial trial, they are misunderstanding the spirit of our laws. The right to a trial — indeed, all the rights afforded to criminal defendants under the Constitution — is not apportioned according to what the defendants supposedly deserve. What they deserve is, in fact, precisely what a fair trial is designed to determine.
The nation’s founders despised the passions of the lynch mob and the arbitrary penalties handed down by kings and despots. They were particularly appalled by the tortures and abuse inflicted on American Revolutionary soldiers by the British oppressor — and vowed never to do the same to America’s enemies.
When Holder’s critics say that we don’t dare try a criminal like Mohammed on the soil of the United States, in a New York City federal courthouse, that is a terrible concession to the terrorists. The same is true when those critics protest against incarcerating a figure such as Mohammed in an American prison, rather than Gitmo. Essentially, those arguments exaggerate the power of al-Qaida — which conservatives usually claim has been profoundly weakened over the past several years — and underestimates the strength of the American justice system.
In fact, we have been trying dangerous terrorists in American courts for many years, and then incarcerating them in American prisons. According to a new study by the Center for Law and Security at New York University, the U.S. government has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges since 2001. Of those indictments, trials are still pending against 235 defendants — and of the remaining 539 defendants, 523 were convicted either at trial or via plea.
The single largest venue for terrorism trials is New York City, where 145 terrorism indictments have been filed. The center found in a previous study that the conviction rate in New York is higher than in the rest of the nation, and that sentencing in New York is also tougher. That is understandable — and may help to explain why the attorney general chose the Southern District of New York for the Mohammed prosecution. In the city’s federal courts, the conviction rate of individuals charged with terrorism involving a U.S. target is 100 percent.
When Mohammed is convicted (or pleads guilty, as he has previously vowed to do), the U.S. federal prison system is ideally equipped to inflict suitable punishment on him and his cohort. Better than providing him with martyrdom via execution, he should be buried in a "Supermax" prison, from which nobody has ever escaped, and left to rot.
The most basic challenge of the terror campaign waged by jihadi extremists is to preserve the differences between us and them — a challenge that the American government has failed at in far too many instances over the past eight years, through the use of torture, extrajudicial detentions, renditions to other countries, and various other violations of U.S. law and treaty obligations. Our own courts found that these acts by the previous administration were lawless and required them to be reversed.
As a nation, we should have the confidence to make the case against these murderers according to our laws and Constitution, without fear of their propaganda or violence. Every precaution should be taken to protect national security and public safety — and then our system will prevail over their perverse ideology.
Combatants are tried in military courts in lieu of civilian courts. In a case when a combatant can be tried in criminal court they are. In theory, no matter which court you should go to, the same law is applied.
1) he is not a member of the armed forces or official government of any nation.
2) There is not an official declaration of war against poverty, drugs or terrorism.
3) Therefore he is a civilian combattant and should be treated as such under the Second Geneva Convention. He should have been turned over to the civilian authorities for trial. He was not.
4) Once again, he is not a soldier in the Afghan or any other naqtion’s army, he is a civilian and should be tried in a civilian court.
5) The US Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration policy is flawed and violates US Law and the constitution. Not once but twice the conservatives on the bench ruled against him.
6) What is it about the concept of "The Rule of Law" that conservatives have such a fundamental problem with?
Alfred E. Bush is on target. Terrorism is not a war; it is a scare tactic to unleash fear in our open society. Apparently, KSM has reached this goal in your world, since the basis for these types of horrific terrorism events is for America to submit to our fears and undermine our Constitution and Rule of Law.
Mohammed commited a crime directly against the civilian population, not against our military. I really think it’s good idea to let the people try and hang the azzhole.
Because we have an idiot for a president, and he does not know any better, he is trying to do whatever to get noticed as a person of "Change". At some point he has to let go of that and do the right thing.
I don’t even know what "enemy combatant" means–it’s not a legal term. Lawful and unlawful combatants are legal terms.
I hate to break it to you, but the US Supreme Court decided this before Obama was even elected:
On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, 5-4 that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system.[55][56][57] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
He is not in the military of a foreign government and never had Prisoner of War status. He committed a crime, so why shouldnt he have a criminal trial in the location crime was committed. Enemy combatant is probably some obscure classification Bush’s legal team used to prevent the guy from being treated like a POW.
He technically isn’t an "enemy combatant"….as he did not do this on behalf of any nation….he did it on the ideology of his organization. That cannot be considered "enemy combatant" as he was not accused of a crime in Afghanistan or Pakistan, although that is where he was captured, but the crime which he presumably will be tried for is 9/11….they could’ve tried pinning something to him which he did overseas, but that probably would not work.
Besides…McVeigh committed a similar act and was tried in a civilian court and was executed, and justly so. The 1993 bombers were dealt with the same way.
If you like this blog please take a second and subscribe to my rss feed
Comments: 25 comments
All the Islamic fields that are marked with REQ must be filled when searched for
SammyCal
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Because it suits the POLITICAL goals of this administration, what is good for the country be damned.
James Bong and his Donkey Kong
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Only a Liberal would dream up stup!d sh!t like this such as giving Constitutional Rights to an enemy combatant
WHY DOES ANYONE WANT TO BE A LIBERAL…IS BEYOND ME
UNFROZEN CAVEMAN
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
wrong
Always wondering!
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
No. That was Timothy McVeigh.
Lee
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
HE’S OBAMAS FRIEND
§§pecial Unicorn™
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Eric Holder has a personal stake and a long history of defending terrorists. It’s a real moneymaker for his former firm.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/18/culture-of-corruption-holder-terrorists-covington-burling/
Alfred E. Bush
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
This is the first time in history we have declared war on a tactic.
Our2js
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Because you have idiots in the WH.
azz_tarcomed
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Because the current administration is incompetent
RoseRed2
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Well I think its about putting Bush and CIA on trial.Which is stupid and dangerous.Even if Bush did wrong,do we really want the world to know?
Sky
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
He’s not.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try al-Qaida strategist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other residents of the Guantanamo prison in American civilian courts has provoked angry criticism from all the usual sources, from the Wall Street Journal editorial page to the Fox News airwaves. While some of the complaints are thoughtful, many are nothing more than demagogic appeals that seek to undermine the foundations of justice in a democratic society.
When Holder’s critics say that Mohammed doesn’t "deserve" an open and adversarial trial, they are misunderstanding the spirit of our laws. The right to a trial — indeed, all the rights afforded to criminal defendants under the Constitution — is not apportioned according to what the defendants supposedly deserve. What they deserve is, in fact, precisely what a fair trial is designed to determine.
The nation’s founders despised the passions of the lynch mob and the arbitrary penalties handed down by kings and despots. They were particularly appalled by the tortures and abuse inflicted on American Revolutionary soldiers by the British oppressor — and vowed never to do the same to America’s enemies.
When Holder’s critics say that we don’t dare try a criminal like Mohammed on the soil of the United States, in a New York City federal courthouse, that is a terrible concession to the terrorists. The same is true when those critics protest against incarcerating a figure such as Mohammed in an American prison, rather than Gitmo. Essentially, those arguments exaggerate the power of al-Qaida — which conservatives usually claim has been profoundly weakened over the past several years — and underestimates the strength of the American justice system.
In fact, we have been trying dangerous terrorists in American courts for many years, and then incarcerating them in American prisons. According to a new study by the Center for Law and Security at New York University, the U.S. government has indicted 828 defendants on terrorism-related charges since 2001. Of those indictments, trials are still pending against 235 defendants — and of the remaining 539 defendants, 523 were convicted either at trial or via plea.
The single largest venue for terrorism trials is New York City, where 145 terrorism indictments have been filed. The center found in a previous study that the conviction rate in New York is higher than in the rest of the nation, and that sentencing in New York is also tougher. That is understandable — and may help to explain why the attorney general chose the Southern District of New York for the Mohammed prosecution. In the city’s federal courts, the conviction rate of individuals charged with terrorism involving a U.S. target is 100 percent.
When Mohammed is convicted (or pleads guilty, as he has previously vowed to do), the U.S. federal prison system is ideally equipped to inflict suitable punishment on him and his cohort. Better than providing him with martyrdom via execution, he should be buried in a "Supermax" prison, from which nobody has ever escaped, and left to rot.
The most basic challenge of the terror campaign waged by jihadi extremists is to preserve the differences between us and them — a challenge that the American government has failed at in far too many instances over the past eight years, through the use of torture, extrajudicial detentions, renditions to other countries, and various other violations of U.S. law and treaty obligations. Our own courts found that these acts by the previous administration were lawless and required them to be reversed.
As a nation, we should have the confidence to make the case against these murderers according to our laws and Constitution, without fear of their propaganda or violence. Every precaution should be taken to protect national security and public safety — and then our system will prevail over their perverse ideology.
Datx
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Combatants are tried in military courts in lieu of civilian courts. In a case when a combatant can be tried in criminal court they are. In theory, no matter which court you should go to, the same law is applied.
Bistro
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
to make a mockery of the Bush Administration.
Stickboy
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
It’s not even a trial, it’s a circus!
Big Al
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
This fits….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huITa_MXeWc
mayna_smo_mry
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
with a bro in charge do we have to really think about it?
wunofdamoronbros
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I hope they read him his Miranda rights or they’re in trouble from the get go.
piegowdealer
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
1) he is not a member of the armed forces or official government of any nation.
2) There is not an official declaration of war against poverty, drugs or terrorism.
3) Therefore he is a civilian combattant and should be treated as such under the Second Geneva Convention. He should have been turned over to the civilian authorities for trial. He was not.
4) Once again, he is not a soldier in the Afghan or any other naqtion’s army, he is a civilian and should be tried in a civilian court.
5) The US Supreme Court ruled that the Bush Administration policy is flawed and violates US Law and the constitution. Not once but twice the conservatives on the bench ruled against him.
6) What is it about the concept of "The Rule of Law" that conservatives have such a fundamental problem with?
Laura
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Alfred E. Bush is on target. Terrorism is not a war; it is a scare tactic to unleash fear in our open society. Apparently, KSM has reached this goal in your world, since the basis for these types of horrific terrorism events is for America to submit to our fears and undermine our Constitution and Rule of Law.
homegirl
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Without a doubt the 10 points should go to Sky.
Daniel
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Mohammed commited a crime directly against the civilian population, not against our military. I really think it’s good idea to let the people try and hang the azzhole.
On the Right Side
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Because we have an idiot for a president, and he does not know any better, he is trying to do whatever to get noticed as a person of "Change". At some point he has to let go of that and do the right thing.
Greg
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
I don’t even know what "enemy combatant" means–it’s not a legal term. Lawful and unlawful combatants are legal terms.
I hate to break it to you, but the US Supreme Court decided this before Obama was even elected:
On 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, 5-4 that Guantanamo captives were entitled to access the US justice system.[55][56][57] Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:
"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."
jennifer
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
He is not in the military of a foreign government and never had Prisoner of War status. He committed a crime, so why shouldnt he have a criminal trial in the location crime was committed. Enemy combatant is probably some obscure classification Bush’s legal team used to prevent the guy from being treated like a POW.
The REAL Aryan H R1a
November 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
He technically isn’t an "enemy combatant"….as he did not do this on behalf of any nation….he did it on the ideology of his organization. That cannot be considered "enemy combatant" as he was not accused of a crime in Afghanistan or Pakistan, although that is where he was captured, but the crime which he presumably will be tried for is 9/11….they could’ve tried pinning something to him which he did overseas, but that probably would not work.
Besides…McVeigh committed a similar act and was tried in a civilian court and was executed, and justly so. The 1993 bombers were dealt with the same way.
Leave a reply