KSM Trial

I see your argument in regards to the whole "why execute suicidal islamic militants?" thing. That being said, I couldn't give two shits about this guy rehabbing in prison. Becoming a Christian after spending time in jail means nothing to me.

As far as I'm concerned, give him a civilian trial, execute the guy, and move on to the next one.

While I agree with you that they likely moved it as a capitulation of sorts to one of the assholes who thinks the "rule of law" is something only pussies support, I was never a huge fan of holding the trial not only in New York City but within actual physical proximity to the site of the attack. There was no fucking way that was going to result in a fair trial and the Administration's claims that a guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion kind of gave you the idea that that was the entire point of selecting that venue.

If you're going to hold a trial where the deck is completely stacked against the defendant and he's assured an execution before he ever sets foot in court, you may as well just go along with the Bush-era military tribunal proposal. At that point, it's a trial in the American criminal justice system in appearance only.

Well, there is also the possibility that the security concerns they might legitimately have come from New Yorkers, not terrorists. On top of the inherent unfairness of the venue, it puts the guy in the middle of a city home to literally tens of thousands of people who would love five minutes alone in a room with the guy. It only takes a few of the more unhinged, committed, and resourceful people in that group getting together to make a legitimate security threat.

Then there are the domestic terror groups who would love to claim responsibility for taking out the "top raghead."

It doesn't guarantee a mistrial, it just makes everything he said after they started torturing him inadmissible. The main argument against Cheney's methods--beyond the point that everyone in the world had reached a consensus decades earlier that torture doesn't actually work--is that the only good intelligence that they got from these guys was the intelligence they gained when putting them through traditional interrogation.

An actual fair trial, with properly gathered evidence, in the fairest possible venue would be both argue forcefully for the rule of law and repudiate both Cheney's and Al Qaeda's worldview. This is why we should aim for the highest possible standard for this trial. This could be the first step towards proving we are, as a nation, better than what the last eight years would suggest.

Though I am barely brave enough to read the politics section of the forums, this hit a chord with me.

With the discussion of shutting down Guantanamo, there was some local discussion about the congressional delegation seeking to move it to a recently decommissioned prison. The state shut Brushy Mountain Penitentiary (former home of James Earl Ray, MLK's assassin) because of overcrowding issues. They built a larger prison less than a mile away. Yet the moment the issue was brought up, all hell broke loose in local politics. I don't understand this 'Not In My Back Yard' on anyone's arguments.

The area where this prison is located could use the government payroll. The local economy would see it as a boon, with the additional jobs created by the influx of the other positions. I could only chock it up to prejudice. To not advocate for taking a prison that is just standing empty, but could accommodate the prisoners there, and bring that money into the local economy is baffling.

As for having the trial in New York, I do think that it does not guarantee him any favors. Why not move his trial to some other metropolitan city?

You're wondering why they want a change of venue out of Manhattan for the criminal trial of a jihadist?

It's not so much the security concerns (of which Cuch pointed out there are plenty), so much as it is the fact that -- again -- holding the trial of a 9/11 mastermind minutes from Ground Zero kind of blows the whole notion of a "fair trial" out of the water.

Is there really any place in this country that the man could receive a truly fair trial at this point, though? Bring him to my city, and there'd be people outside the county courthouse calling for his head, misspelled tea party signs a-blazing.

Why?

Isn't this debate academic since the White House press secretary has just said we're going to execute the guy?

I think we should let KSM go.

I mean, there's no way he can have a fair trial. Several people in here alone have said so.

I say, announce we're going to release KSM to the first guys willing to sign for him. We just want him deported ASAP.

So the giddy pro-terrorists back up the Jihad Express plane right up to the JFK terminal, and off KSM goes into the wild blue yonder.

Then once the plane gets all the way overseas and is about to land, some damned bomb goes off in a stuffed duck or something. The plane spirals into the turf at 400 knots without much of an explanation.

Not much of a victory party, eh?

I don't mind them making themselves martyrs if none of our people get caught in their giddiness to die.

This whole thing is so dumb it makes my gums ache.

You're welcome. Humor is your friend. No one in here is going to have one iota of effect on this issue, so let's enjoy the banter.

Or to quote the esteemed philosopher Warren Oates, "Lighten up, Francis."

You're right! LOL.

Jurors would be selected from that area, making it even more difficult to find "impartial" jurors who have not been personally affected by KSM's criminal actions*. Jurors (or even potential jurors) having previously visited the crime scene or possibly driving by or near the crime scene every day on the way to the courthouse would potentially taint the jurors. Although I imagine they would never schedule the trial in a courtroom where the windows faced Ground Zero, the prosecutor's closing argument would practically write itself in that situation. "Look out the window! HE did that!"


*alleged.

Someone should just let out the rumor that he's a doctor who specializes in performing abortions. Then the trial can't come fast enough.

That would be so W of him! The right would have to theoretically love it, wouldn't they?

By doing this what they're saying to terrorists is come to the United States, destroy one of our nation's greatest landmarks - not only culturally but financially - and we'll give you a civilian trial in which you'll get near unlimited time to spout your ideological beliefs and show the world what a dog and pony show the American justice system truly is. The man who helped engineer the destruction of the World Trade Center, along with being the catalyst for the previous administration becoming the World Police and starting two aimless wars, should not have the right to a civilian trial a few blocks from where three thousand lives were lost due to his actions and inherent malevolent hatred of us and our government. The same people who agree with the decision to try him in Manhattan because of the woefully archaic and idealistic notion that we need to "show them what our country's all about by trying them in court" are the same dummies that think the Supreme Court's decision to allow any corporation or entity to produce campaign propaganda without checks and balances is Constitutional.

Anyone arguing over whether or not this would be a "fair and balanced" trial is missing the issue entirely.

Your constitution doesn't mention the world trade center or whether or not one's rights are subject to public referendum, so . . . yes, he should.

The issue appears to be "This guy shouldn't receive a trial because 911 wah!" Have I got the crux of the problem sussed?

Haha, no.

Last time I read the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, criminals got tried in criminal courts. Criminals of all kinds, too. Crimes big and small, terrorist or not.

Granted, that was the pre-Bush version of the document, so maybe some things got changed or swiped over with a black felt-tip...

matches, putting aside that you think the nature of the crime makes this guy automatically ineligible for a trial of any sort, your argument that the nature of the criminal would expose our criminal justice system as a "dog and pony show" is kind of troubling. You realize that not trying him tacitly admits that our system of justice is incapable of dealing with him, right? That, not his crazed ravings in court, would be the ultimate propaganda victory for the terrorists.

Do you just not believe in the American justice system or do you think this psychotic fuckwad is actually that exceptional?

You're absolutely right, criminals get tried in criminal court.

But by allowing confessed war criminals the right to a civilian trial they open up legal precedent for every current, and former war criminal to appeal their status in United States civil court. September 11th was nearly a decade ago and they're still debating the logistics of how they should proceed just like we are, and that's not free to anybody. With the country in financial druthers we can't heap another pile of multi-million dollar and multi-year cases into a system that is already desperately need in reform. It just isn't a civil matter when our country is currently a war-time nation, declaratively against the people that are in custody.

Wrong. Most war criminals are representatives of nation-states. This is why they are tried by international courts, not civilian courts. A terrorist is a man without a country. This just opens up the precedent of trying terrorists in civilian courts, which was set in this country long ago during the Oklahoma City Bombing trial.

War criminals are tried in the United States during wartime by Military Tribunals, not international courts. OKC wasn't a recognized act of war, it was "domestic terrorism".

9/11 wasn't an act of war either. It was "foreign terrorism".

Yes, sometimes, they are tried in military tribunals. Again, this is because they were members of nation-states with which we were at war. Terrorism is a matter of criminal law, not the laws that guide armed conflicts between nation-states.

Also, we tried the guys who tried the blowing up the WTC building in the 1990s and that worked out. We tried the Unabomber and that worked out. We tried Richard Reid and are trying the underpants bomb guy. Why is KSM so special?

Oy, you guys win. Try him already.

Perhaps because he was captured on foreign soil, while the others were captured here in America?

I don't know, seems to me like it opens a can of worms of murky legal quagmires. Personally, I'd prefer international courts but I'm sure that would open a bigger can of worms since we've violated the geneva convention.

I say just have an American shoot him in the head, try THEM in a civilian court and let the American justice system work the way it does and have them found not guilty by reason of "KSM needed dyin".