KSM's military trial at Gitmo

[finnbow]

I think the NYTimes got it right in this editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/op...1.html?_r=1&hp

It's shameful and gutless for Obama not to fight back against the Chicken Little's on this one.

[djv8ga]

Just shoot the POS already. God, what a debacle.

[BlueStreak]

It is just so friggin' frustrating that we have to wait a DECADE while our politicians play dominant dog over where the trial is held. I can't imagine KSM getting let off regardless of whether he's tried in Gitmo or New York. WTF, who cares? Just have the damn trial and get it over with. Maybe Obama feels the same way I do? F**k it, just try him and get it behind us. I dunno.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think the NYTimes got it right in this editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/op...1.html?_r=1&hp

It's shameful and gutless for Obama not to fight back against the Chicken Little's on this one.

this is what should have been done 4 years ago

although I support this action and always have if the "show" had come to NYC I wasn't all scared about it either like our tough guy friends on the right.

[merrylander]

What they do not seem to realize is that they elevate these bastards to the status of combatants when they are nothing but common criminals. War on terror my arse.

[piece-itpete]

More change?

Pete

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

More change?

Pete

Remember it is a government of checks and balances and Congress keeps issuing the rubber checks.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

More change?

Pete

No. More petty squabbling over a non-issue, causing unnecessary delays in the process. What difference does it really make? Do you honestly believe if they were to try him stateside that he would just be given a "slap on the wrist"? As a lot of folks on your side seem to believe. Or, is all of the fighting just another part of the game to see that Obama accomplishes nothing? (Or at least to perpetuate the perception that he is accomplishing nothing.)

Dave

[whell]

The article gets so many things wrong I don't know where to begin. First the author suggests that the rationale for the Bush Administration for pursuing military trials for this murderer is because of an assumption that the court system is "too soft to impose needed justice". The decision had nothing to do with that. The primary reasons stated for handling the cases outside of the court system has to do with the nature of the individual's actions - the individuals were treated as enemy combatants and not criminals. KSM would be allowed to "lawyer up" in the Federal Court system and be instructed by counsel not to speak to the government, which would jeopardize efforts to gain intelligence about his operations, methods and contacts. A trial in the Federal Court system might also reveal US intelligence gathering assets.

The author then tries to suggest that a trial in New York would requires KSM to "submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers". Of course, his attorney's first motion would likely be a request for a change of venue with the rationale that KSM couldn't get a fair trial in New York, with the composition of the jury and the symbolism of the site of the WTC being just a "few blocks away".

The author suggested that "Mr. Holder sounded bitter about the decision." Hell, I'd be bitter too if I came of this process looking like as much of a buffoon as Holder does right now.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

The article gets so many things wrong I don't know where to begin. First the author suggests that the rationale for the Bush Administration for pursuing military trials for this murderer is because of an assumption that the court system is "too soft to impose needed justice". The decision had nothing to do with that. The primary reasons stated for handling the cases outside of the court system has to do with the nature of the individual's actions - the individuals were treated as enemy combatants and not criminals. KSM would be allowed to "lawyer up" in the Federal Court system and be instructed by counsel not to speak to the government, which would jeopardize efforts to gain intelligence about his operations, methods and contacts. A trial in the Federal Court system might also reveal US intelligence gathering assets.

The author then tries to suggest that a trial in New York would requires KSM to "submit to the justice of a dozen chosen New Yorkers". Of course, his attorney's first motion would likely be a request for a change of venue with the rationale that KSM couldn't get a fair trial in New York, with the composition of the jury and the symbolism of the site of the WTC being just a "few blocks away".

The author suggested that "Mr. Holder sounded bitter about the decision." Hell, I'd be bitter too if I came of this process looking like as much of a buffoon as Holder does right now.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism". The administration chose to call those who it detained under the Presidential Military Orders "enemy combatants". Since then, the administration has formalized its usage of the term by using it specifically for detained alleged members and supporters of al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Accordingly, it is somewhat of a legal contrivance to describe someone who is neither a POW nor a criminal. As such, there really isn't a settled system of jurisprudence to deal with such a contrivance.

Do you want to compare the relative success of court proceedings at Gitmo and in the US Federal Courts? Here's a nice starting point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...mmission_Cases

BTW, the enemy combatants are also allowed to "lawyer up." The problem is that their lawyers keep resigning due to the "kangaroo" nature of the Gitmo commission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ary_commission

It seems you've bought into a bunch of right wing, chicken little mumbo jumbo IMHO.