Trying War Criminals in a Civilian Court

Loading

So the big announcement is KSM and 4 other Club Gitmo detainees are to be tried in federal court, blocks away from the scene of their (war)crime, while 5 others will see their day before military a commission.

Is this really a good idea? Is it all about keeping a political campaign promise?

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

“For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law,” Holder told a news conference at the Justice Department. “Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call.”

The plan that Holder outlined Friday is a major legal and political test of Obama’s overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama’s agenda.

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona called bringing Mohammed to New York “an unnecessary risk” that could result in the disclosure of classified information. Kyl maintained the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called “blind sheik” who was tried for a plot against some two-dozen New York City landmarks, caused “valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods” to be revealed to the al-Qaida terrorist network.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism.

“By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system a system respected around the world,” Leahy said.

The decision outraged family members of some Sept. 11 victims.

“We have a president who doesn’t know we’re at war,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, was pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She said she was sickened by “the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys,” if the trial winds up focusing on allegations that the suspects were tortured after their capture.

“I don’t think these people should get the benefit of being subjected to our system of jurisprudence,” said Bruce De Cell, whose son-in-law, Mark Petrocelli, was killed at the World Trade Center. “They are terrorists. I don’t think they should be tried in a civilian court.”

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method _ waterboarding, or simulated drowning _ was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Soon Obama will be apologizing to KSM.

This Obama is out of his mind to do this to the American people! When is this President going to act like a grown up man. This is bullshit!

By any imagination, it’s not a good idea. The decision is poorly thought through, the unusually high risks not considered.

Remember the trial of the blind sheikh Rahman in NYC? During his trial, methods and resources used by US intel agencies were revealed. And, undoubtedly studied by AQ. A federal trial of KSM and the other Gitmo detainees in NYC would be the same. The question everyone needs to ask what happens if they’re acquitted or the jury is hung. Will the Obama administration let them go, or detain them indefinitely?

Or, what happens if the clock begins to tick: AQ terrorists/sympathizers wanting to trade for KSM and his Club Gitmo co-defendants in a potential hostage scenario.

Ah.

So the same Eric Holder who talked Clinton into freeing Puerto Rican terrorists, and the same Eric Holder who defended many of the Gitmo terrorists during the Bush years (while subjugating our FBI and CIA) now wants us to believe he will successfully try non-American, and unlawful combatant KSM and friends in a civilian court 5 blocks from the 9-11 site.

Gotcha.

Anyone else feel like throwing up?

(Edit.added)
I just remembered! He’s the same idiot who spilled the beans in a puplic court that our CIA was listening in on every phonecall being made by Osama Bin Laden. That was less than 2 years before 9/11!

Do you remember the OJ Simson trial? The US Justice became a joke as a result of that. Now by bringing this Jihadist to trial, it is to recognize them and thus to make a mockery of the War on Terror and the United States. It is in the obsurdity of things that marxism wins.

This is Obama’s way to stage the show trial of the CIA he and Pelosi have wanted but that Panetta has adroitly avoided so far. Using this technique, they can scream “He Was Tortured” every time poor KSM winces.

So if evidence obtained under torture is considered inadmissable in court, do these animals walk?

I am BEYOND enraged by this.

The CIA was effectively emasculated by the Church committee. Frank Church has 9/11 blood on his hands, IMAO. He put blinders on the CIA. Clinton’s Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick carried on and added further impediments, limiting our intelligence activities. I was enraged then. Do you think for a moment that Obama or Pelosi would give a flying flip if KSM and company walk? Not as long as they get to score points in their objective to damage or dismantle the CIA.

Our Current Democrat Administration is NOT staffed by patriots who love America and her Constitution. (For that matter, most of the GOP has gone waaay beyond the principles of “small government” and “of, by, and for the people” and “protect the individual from the power of government”. But I digress…) The C.D.A. won’t be happy until our shining city on the hill looks like Juarez (or Gaza), and they certainly seem to be doing everything they can to hasten that result.

I’m afraid all this Hope ‘N’ Change is going to kill my country.

http://www.thebravest.com/neverforget

Read the letter. Click the link to sign it. Don’t let this faux-President continue to make a mockery of our country and it’s sovereignty.

Mr. O is pushin’ the envelope as much as possible, eh?

So, let me get this straight…we will have a criminal court trial, thereby needing a jury. Do you think there will be a problem with finding unbiased jurors in NYC? And, could you blame them? O.k., also to be considered…these same jurors will not have to be in fear of retribution in any way shape or form from giving these barbarians (aka, war criminals) the justice they deserve by Islamic nut cases living near-by, right?? Oh, I know, Mr. O’without-a-brain hasn’t thought of that yet, right??
Now, let us move on to the threat it will engender towards New York City anew. I don’t want to incite fear for the folks living there as they are strong people and been through enough already, but isn’t it at the very least a consideration since 9/11??

Well, at least Mr. O will be satisfying all his political leftist campaign contributors. (un peu de sarc).

Socal it get’s better. Napalitano says amnesty will come upo again in 2010. If you think that’s not obama’s idea I have some ocean front property here in AZ for you.

Hard Right, LOL. I’m not surprised about most anything Napolitano would try to push, or Obama. Darn, I guess that means I can’t buy any beachfront property in Arizona!? 😉

Nope. I have been able to locate a gold mine in the Superstition mountains tho. I simply don’t have the funds to mine it.
For a small price, it’s location is yours. 😉

I can say this much, the Arizonans that were paying attention are thrilled napolitano is gone-even if it took a promotion to do it. She was literally the worst thing to happen to this state in a loooong time.

I’m sure, that Holder, and his ACLU attorney have pre-selected the jury, namely most of them will be muslim. I would never put it past them!

@SoCal Chris:

There were a couple of points made yesterday, one by Karl Rove. He said that each and every one of the judges and jurists would need security throughout the trials. I’m thinking, what about their families? What about after the trials, how long will they be offered security?

Another point made, I forget who brought it up, was Holder promised that with information(classified) he’s privy to, he pretty much guaranteed conviction thus tainting the jury pool.

@ DR — you wrote —

“Remember the trial of the blind sheikh Rahman in NYC? During his trial, methods and resources used by US intel agencies were revealed.”

Care to share a link to anyone vouching for this? I heard this talking point yesterday, but the person who said it did not elaborate. So I am sure you would be happy to explain exactly what was disclosed.

@ Missy —

Karl Rove is hardly a good source of information for analysis of the US legal system; ducking indictment for lying to prosecutors does not make one a expert on how criminal trial are conducted. State and federal juries try gang members, drug lords, etc., every day. This is, in reality, no different. Add in the fact that al Queda (unlike domestic White supremicists groups) has not been known to threaten or attack judges, I would say that the “security” considerations are, in reality, minimal when compared to other threats that US and state courts deal with on a regular basis.

Nope . . . I know what conservatives REALLY fear. They don’t fear exposure of the Bush torture regime — that’s been done already and Obama has given the pro-torture functionaries a pass. And they don’t fear an Obama loss because of the torture or the lack of evidence. Nope . . . they REALLY fear an Obama win! Especially if it comes during 2012.

@Missy:
Thanks for the info, Missy. It seems we don’t have much control over this decision, but I do hope at the very least all the people involved in the trial will have good security provided.

@B-Rob:

Hey Mr. Rule of Law, better source this one.

ducking indictment for lying to prosecutors

and don’t bother to use Jason Leopold.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754.html

_______________

Gang members and drug lords are no different than al Qaeda you say. Gang members and drug lords are no different than the animals from afar that plotted and carried out the attack on our homeland, that slaughtered almost 3000 innocent people in one single morning? Wiped out the WTC and put a big gaping hole in our Pentagon? Don’t even think we don’t have operational “murder for allah” cells within this country, we’ve already busted a number of them.

Have you any idea what the security was like when Massoui was on trial? Look it up. You think that was all for nothing? Tell me, how often are sections of cities shut down for the trials of gang members and drug lords?

Now, explain why military tribunals are just fine for the terrorists that attacked the USS Cole.

I personally think your are stark raving mad. You shoot your mouth off just to hear yourself, that’s about all it could be good for.