Terrorist Trial By Peer

[Rey Reynoso]

So what say you, good idea, bad idea, don't care? Why or why not?


Article about myths.

[Marv]

I find it interesting that five out of six of his "myths" are future tense propositions, aka predictions. The truth value of these will be determined depending on whether they do or do not happen. How can you debunk a "myth" of this sort...something that hasn't happened yet. What he is really saying is that some people X,Y, and Z bad things are likely to happen, but I don't think they will. He hasn't demonstrated the untruth of anything.

The one out of six that is not a prediction is a value judgment. His point is that he doesn't agree with the value judgment. That is also not myth-busting.

However, I also might take issue with one of his so-called myths: "Six: Mohammed will turn his trial into political theater" I disagree, I suspect "media circus" will be a more apt description.

[Ray Nearhood]

Bad idea. Though I am less concerned than I probably should be. But, from a purely patriotic and what I think is probably a constitutional position: To give non-citizen terrorists the same rights and, with the media coverage, better treatment than most citizens is a mistake. Also, given the fact that the crimes being tried weren't committed in the United States (like you said in our earlier interaction, the perpetrators of the crimes in the United States are dead) also makes me think that this isn't exactly in keeping with the proper way in which trials in the United States with rights afforded to the accused are conducted.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I think the biggest problem is re-defining this as a civil matter as opposed to military/international one after the fact. Different rules apply. By changing which game is being played, you can always point to the early failure to follow the right rules from begin with. Everything from jurisdiction to Maranda to questioning techniques could be used to justify tossing the whole thing out. The Defense attorneys are obligated to bring this stuff up. And if it isn't tossed over it, then the trial will be seen as being unfair and we are right back where we started.

But we are where we are. Right or wrong, it is going to be treated like a civil complaint instead of an act of war. So, moving forward, the big question for me is whether or not the trial should be televised. I'd love to watch it. I'd be glued it. But I also don't think it would good because it would give political appointees a platform to put Cheyney and Gitmo and such on trial and KSM a pulpit to talk to his followers, give how-to lessons, and so forth. As much as I enjoyed watching the OJ trial, the cameras turned the trial into a circus. So I have mixed emotions about that.

[Michael Ballai]

The article is in the Washington Compost, so it's almost completely suspect from the Gitmo-Go. The mere fact that we don't take this toad and dip him in pig carcasses before executing him in the same style they like to do to us infidels in front of a video camera should be sufficient proof of our legal system.

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

I'm not sure that we do ourselves any favors by acting like them and proving their point about what they think of us. That being said, I have concerns about the safety of those involved in the case. My wife was on a federal jury one time. High-profile case. As soon as the verdict was read, they were spirited down an back freight-elevator so they would not be mobbed by the press. Didn't help. She was hardly home before major newspapers were calling. Luckily though, their identities were found out by people with questions and not more sinister motives. I love serving on jury duty. I'd do it full time if possible. But I'd be scared to death to serve on KSM's jury.

Daniel

[xulon]

Glen Greenwald at salon.com: "We're too afraid [or, too outraged - x] to allow trials and due process in our country" is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists".

also: It should forever shatter the pernicious myth that al-Qaeda is composed of supermen — supermen against whom America has no choice but to alter its character and most precious laws in order to confront. - Spencer Ackerman

[Rey Reynoso]

Is this all similar to Noriega or does the comparison not apply?

[xulon]

Really no comparison. Noriega was a US puppet who got too big for his britches. He was on our payroll and we were aware of his drug connections long before. Had he not defied our government he would still be in power.

[Rey Reynoso]

I mean in terms of removing the person from their position in X country and bringing them here to be tried.

[xulon]

On Fox Sunday, Jack Reed compares it with choosing to try Moussavi in our court system.

[Ray Nearhood]

Actually holding the trial in the United States and providing the foreign terrorist (that committed the crimes against the United States wholly outside of the United States and was arrested outside of the United States by a police force that isn't a U.S. police force and wasn't transferred under request of extradition) with the due process of American courts is altering the American character and most precious laws in order to confront Al Qaeda.

xulon said:

also: It should forever shatter the pernicious myth that al-Qaeda is composed of supermen — supermen against whom America has no choice but to alter its character and most precious laws in order to confront. - Spencer Ackerman

[Apolojedi (Daniel Eaton)]

Rey Reynoso said:

Is this all similar to Noriega or does the comparison not apply?

I can see some similarities. Wasn't Noriega indicted by US courts for crimes in the US? According to Wiki, "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was secretly indicted on terrorism charges in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in January 1996 for his alleged involvement in Operation Bojinka, and was subsequently placed on the October 10, 2001, initial list of the FBI's twenty-two Most Wanted Terrorists." But what is he going to be tried for? I can see that being used as an excuse to bring him here, but I think he's being tried for something totally different, an act of war as a leader in a group that declared war.