PJB:
Are we at war—or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies—that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Since they are above Holder's paygrade, we know who made the decision to play patty-cake in New York City.
And PJB thought about that, too:
In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.
The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin
2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Regardless of our contempt for the process and your disdain for the Obama Administration and the resulting insanity, the rule of law is being followed. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others were charged under the Military Commissions Act (2006) in February 2008 (Bush Administration) as an unlawful enemy combatant. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial will undoubtedly be even more challenging for prosecutors than Moussaoui's given the fact that Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and that its all but a certainly that none of his statements elicited as a result of torture are admissible.
By the way, General Minoru Genda, the planner of Pearl Harbor who was tried as a lawful enemy combatant, became an important military figure in Japan after the war and actually test new American fighter pilots.
There are number of people within the Obama's camp who want this trial to expose intelligence gathering methods that was torture. Will this decision be a thorn in the side of the Administration? Some people within both political parties believe this horrific decision will have dire consequences, and may be the tipping point for withdrawing support of Obama. When he was a Senator he explicitly declared his support to try Gitmo detainees in military courts, but now his change of opinion appears to be an expedient way of putting Bush and Cheney alleged abuse of authority on "trial."
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial will undoubtedly be even more challenging for prosecutors than Moussaoui's was given the fact that Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times and that none of his statements elicited as a result of torture will be admissible."
the rule of law is being followed. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others were charged under the Military Commissions Act (2006) in February 2008 (Bush Administration) as an unlawful enemy combatant.
Seems to me that if he's charged under the MCA, he should NOT be tried in Federal Court.
You have a cite to demonstrate that such charges result in FedCrimCourt trials?
By the way, the asshole should just be shot. He's guilty.
But Dad, technically, we are not at war, since congress didn't declare war after 9-11. Doesn't the Constitution require that, or am I missing something?
Actually, two arguments:
1) Congress FUNDS the War on Terror, which amounts to a tacit declaration, at least.
2) Being "at war" is irrelevant in the case of non-State combatants. Trial for "murder" is not an appropriate vehicle for his crimes.
Islam declared perpetual war on all "unbelievers" over 1400-years ago, a declaration never abrogated by any Muslim authorities. We (All non-Muslims) are still at war with Islam: Even if we ignore this historical truth.
The sheik admitted to his role in 9/11. No need to get your panties in a bunch over trying him in Manhattan. So you stoke his ego a bit. It will closely resemble Saddam's circus trial with outbursts and restraining orders. It should make for great TV! All the hollering about "exposing state secrets" or "he isn't entitled to a trial like you and I" are bullshit. Like Daddio says, the end result is certain - death to jihadists!
Well, Anony:
What procedural rules will be used in Fed Crim Court to govern evidence, sentencing, argumentation?
Does Miranda apply? Facing witnesses? Which ones?
There's no reason for CourtTV crap. Holder is a malicious fool for his action.
Post a Comment