Topic: 9/11 Remembered
Civilian Criminal Trial for Mohammed: a Mistake The decision by the Obama Administration to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in civilian courts raises difficult questions about our involvement in Afghanistan and the admissibility of evidence in civilian courts.by Tully
(libertarian)
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Anyone who has read this blogger knows that there are few Republican bloggers who were as critical of George Bush as me. I opposed Guantanamo, waterboarding, the Patriot Act, and the wholesale trashing of the Constitution. Obama offered Americans a 'change' from those policies...it's unfortunate that this 'change' is no better, and by many measures, is far worse.
The decision to try Mohammed - who masterminded the 9/11 attacks - in the civlilan court system raises some difficult questions:
1) If Mohammed's acts are merely "criminal" and not part of an Act of War by Al Qaeda, then why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Our incursion into Afghanistan was based on the notion that the US was under attack by a foreign entity, warranting a military response to defeat the attackers. If Mohammed was an upper level operative of the attack, then he should be tried in a military tribunal. If he is simply a 'criminal,' then Obama should withdraw us from Afghanistan immediately and proclaim the incursion an unwarranted mistake. Anything short of this is illogical and hypocritical.
2) The Federal court in New York will need to deal with the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained during the 183 waterboarding sessions used with Mohammed. This is a no-win situation for the American public: if the Court rules the evidence in inadmissible, it endangers the possibility of a conviction. But if it rules that the evidence *is* admissible, it's even worse: it could establish the right of the State to use torture to obtain evidence in domestic criminal investigations, which will complete the evisceration of the Bill of Rights.
I wish I knew what Obama was thinking when this was announced....
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Tully only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Tully is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Give him a trial and let the jury decide his guilt or innocence. If the jury finds him guilty then you can hang him with my blessing. But what if he's not guilty? Do we want to hang an innocent man? After all he confessed after being water boarded. Most people would confess to anything after water boarding, just to make it stop.
Our government is using terrorism as an excuse for dismantling the constitution. In the Jose Padilla case Bush labeled the guy an enemy combatant and had him imprisoned for years. He wasn't even charged, let alone given a trial. And Padilla is an American citizen who was apprehended in the US. If they can do it to him they can do it to you or me or any American. The Padilla case blurs the lines between what can be done to enemy soldiers captured during war and what can be done to US citizens captured here. Let's not let our government get away with any infractions of our justice system lest we become the victims of it.
Not guilty? Are you serious? The evidence regarding KSM's involvement in terrorist attacks has NOTHING to do with his waterboarding. When US personnel conducted waterboarding techniques on KSM is was in regards to details about other individuals, future operations, and other information. The true question is not weather he should face the death penalty or not. It is keeping enemy combatants in military custody, not civilian custody, a system far more broken that both our failures at GITMO and Abu Gharaib.
After all these years, I still do not understand the undying and unquestioning faith Americans have in "their" justice system. It is far from efficient, not even close to perfect, and needs a major reform. Trying KSM and folks like him, picked up by intelligence or military personnel overseas, is unsuited for civilian criminal proceedings. Classified evidence will be omitted, sentences will be skewed, and housing these individuals within civilian penitentiaries is a brain dead venture. It simply elevates their status among their followers, gives the media reason to keep up the hype which keeps these individuals relevant among their followers. Keeping them detained without media coverage or even their exact whereabouts defeats these negative and unnecessary actions. Obama and Biden's "noble" decision to close military detention centers for enemy combatants will pose serious problems in the near future. Theoretical point: Usama Bin Laden is arrested next week in Pakistan and extradited. Try him in New York Federal court? Hmmmmmm. How is that a good idea?
Posted By: Thomas L. Knapp
Date: 2009-11-16 13:37:52
"Our incursion into Afghanistan was based on the notion that the US was under attack by a foreign entity, warranting a military response to defeat the attackers. If Mohammed was an upper level operative of the attack, then he should be tried in a military tribunal."
There are at least two problems with that way of looking at it.
The first is that Congress has never bothered to declare war in Afghanistan or anywhere else. There's simply no legal basis for the imposition of martial/military law on any case.
The second is that KSM was not taken on the battlefield, in Afghanistan or anywhere else. He was arrested in Pakistan and detained in various locations. He has at no point been treated as, or accorded the protections due, a prisoner of war. He's been treated as an accused criminal -- and denied even the minimal protections due that category of detainee. So even if martial/military standards could be applied in general, they can't be applied to him in particular.
The US only has painted itself into a corner that leaves it only two legal options: Try him in criminal court and hope they can get a conviction despite the fact that much evidence will have to be excluded due to the illegal methods by which it was procured ... or let him go. Any other course would affirm not KSM's guilt, but the US government's own lawlessness.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
