the second half of KSM's taunt to his captors is coming true. He is off to New York, where he will have endless opportunities to converse with his many lawyers. They will work hard to ensure that his trial is all about what he "endured" at the hands of the U.S. government, and not at all about what he inflicted on the American people. They will strive to put in the dock George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, John Yoo, the CIA, and the United States government and the American people.Is there any doubt that the trial will be a festival of Bush Derangement Syndrome and anti-American propaganda? Anton also correctly notes,
our civilian justice system is designed to do specific things, and to try non-citizen enemy combatants who make war on this country and slaughter innocent civilians is not one of them. Now that system will be used for what will likely be a months-long propaganda circus that will make a mockery of our principles and broadcast a message of weakness and pusillanimity to terrorists, their fellow travelers, and intellectual mentors around the world. Even if the U.S. government ends up winning the legal case, we all lose.
But terrorist rights supporters don't care about any of that. They are determined to degrade U.S. constitutional rights by extending them even to hostile alien terrorists. They've long been bleating about the "rule of law" and "due process," as if those concepts had anything to do with alien terrorists who declare war on the U.S. and target our civilians. For much of our history the rule of law would have labeled Mohammed an unlawful combatant, subject to summary execution. And his due process would have been a blindfold and a firing squad, or a drop from the gallows.
I've said it before and I'll repeat it again. The U.S. was fully justified in waterboarding Mohammed. Far more extreme torture would also have been justifiable. He should have received a quick summary execution after we had extracted all available intelligence, which was years ago. The idea that we have to give him the rights of a U.S. citizen, access to lawyers, and a platform to propagandize is just insane.
This indeed will be an embarrassing circus for the US. I found this comment on the story at the New York Times:
ReplyDelete"It will be interesting to see how the jury handles evidence obtained by torture. If I was a member of it, I would vote not guilty"
I don't know if my brain can take much more of this sick, twisted logic. Who is really on trial here, 9/11 murderers or the United States? The guy who made this comment should have to sit in a room watching a video of the towers falling down with a 9/11 victim family. Then he should have to repeat what he said in the comment aloud.
Yeah, it is amazing how many people subscribe to blind legalism. I'm not sure how someone gets to the point where they are so clueless that they would vote to acquit the self-confessed mastermind of 9/11. That goes far beyond just being a useful idiot for Al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteI'm reasonably confident a NY jury will convict him properly, on evidence not gleaned from torture.
ReplyDeleteFor victims of 9/11 to be denied justice because of the Bush administration's crimes would be awful.
"I'm reasonably confident a NY jury will convict him properly"
ReplyDeleteLet's hope so.
"For victims of 9/11 to be denied justice because of the Bush administration's crimes would be awful."
If the victims of 9/11 are denied justice, it will be because of blind, legalistic stupidity, not because of any imaginary "crimes" of the Bush administration.
Yeah let's forget about that whole rule of law thing, pshaw, who needs that farce when we could just round up enemies of the state and torture and kill them in the name of freedom.
ReplyDelete"Yeah let's forget about that whole rule of law thing"
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing to do with the so-called rule of law. KSM and his cohorts are foreign enemies of the U.S., not criminal suspects. Pretending that executing known U.S. enemies somehow violates the rule of law makes the term completely meaningless. Even under the Obama administration we assassinate suspected enemies. They don't get a trial, lawyers, or rights of any kind. They get a hellfire from a drone. And we kill their families and friends along with them. But somehow we have to treat the mastermind of 9/11 as if he were a U.S. citizen. As I said, blind, legalistic idiocy.
"we could just round up enemies of the state"
There's no need to round up anyone. We already have them.
We attack enemy targets, we don't assassinate, and we don't execute without trial--your pining for the heyday of summary executions notwithstanding.
ReplyDelete> "There's no need to round up [any enemy of the state]. We already have them."
So you've decided from your armchair, and I don't know anyone of consequence who seriously disagrees.
But this country dispenses justice with investigations, trials, and laws. Not torture, public opinion and M16s.
Too bad that's not good enough for you.
"We attack enemy targets, we don't assassinate, and we don't execute without tria"
ReplyDeleteWe are indeed assassinating people. The people we kill with drones are not obvious military targets. They are suspects only. In addition, we often kill the wrong people. Targeting a specific individual and firing a missile at him is an assassination. Just because it's done with airpower and not with a bullet doesn't mean it isn't still assassination.
"But this country dispenses justice with investigations, trials, and laws. Not torture, public opinion and M16s.
Too bad that's not good enough for you."
Rules for dealing with alien non-state terrorists should be far different than for civilian criminals. We are fighting enemies, not prosecuting U.S. citizens accused of murder. The rights of U.S. citizens should not be extended to foreign enemies. It devalues our rights and allows our enemies to use our own laws against us.
We fight them as well as we're able, and mentioning that drones often inadvertently kill innocents is a strange way of making the case that they're sheer assassinations.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to trials for unlawful combatants, here's how Wikipedia summarizes things:
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more states. Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal." Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial."
There are of course no rules that say unlawful combatants must be accorded all the rights of a US citizen, but they do have rights, and US and international laws govern how they may be treated by US agents. Ordering a US agent to torture an unlawful combatant clearly violates both sets of laws and is thus a criminal act, no matter your opinion.
Regarding this trial of KSM in particular, I don't think you're looking at the board correctly. Characterizing what everyone in their right mind hopes will be an indisputably fair trial as a festival of anti-American propaganda and insanity is pretty unhinged.
"mentioning that drones often inadvertently kill innocents is a strange way of making the case that they're sheer assassinations."
ReplyDeleteWhy? You don't think an assassination can kill innocent people? It depends on the weapon. Things like bombs and missiles are messy weapons of assassination.
" must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.""
That's pretty vague. And it also suggests that a trial isn't necessary.
" Ordering a US agent to torture an unlawful combatant clearly violates both sets of laws and is thus a criminal act, no matter your opinion."
Of course it doesn't. Your opinion isn't some sort of a fact. I'm hardly the only person that doesn't think the Bush adminstration committed any criminal acts in its treatment of these individuals. It's just a legal argument, and there are arguments both ways.
Also, i don't think the Geneva Convention should apply to non-state terrorists and should be interpreted in such a way that it doesn't. Otherwise it is a merely a useless constraint on the U.S. that helps protect our enemies, while gaining us no benefit.
International law isn't some sort of diktat from on high, it's a series of agreements, often flawed, which mainly bind lesser countries which can be forced to obey. More powerful countries follow international law purely because it is in their interests to do so -- because they receive reciprocal benefits. If there are no benefits in a particular case, there is no interest in adhering to the letter of international law, and the law is reinterpreted, bent, or outright ignored.
" Characterizing what everyone in their right mind hopes will be an indisputably fair trial as a festival of anti-American propaganda and insanity is pretty unhinged."
I said a festival of BDS and anti-American propaganda, and there is little doubt that it will be. There's nothing unhinged about stating the obvious. KSM is going to be given a propaganda platform, and his lawyers are going to do nothing but attack the Bush administration, claiming that poor KSM and his buddies were some sort of victims.
Btw, I'm not opposed to civilian trials for some of the detainees at Guantanamo -- the ones whose guilt is actually in doubt. I think that it would be better done by military tribunals, with different rules of evidence, but if that isn't possible then I have no objection to giving them a regular trial.
ReplyDelete