Are We At War Or Not?

[Sinatra]

Pat Buchanan gives us a brilliant dissertation on the contradictory nature of the Holder KSM civilian trial decision.

Excerpts...

___


Are We at War -- or Not?

By Pat Buchanan

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies -- that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

...When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

...When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?

Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?

How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?

Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?

...There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.

What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin.


RealClearPolitics - Are We at War -- or Not?

,,,

 

[tigerbob]

Exactly - how anyone could post in here the silly blogging of a 25 year old politics and food blogger is just a wee bit silly.

Not to mention it was sophomoric writing at best...

It did seem a tad naive.

Naive is the entire Obama administration's take on conducting civilian trials for these animals...

We differ slightly perhaps. I think terrorists should be tried in criminal courts as far as is possible. That said, in this case it is not possible, unless you throw out a whole chunk of the law relating to the rights of defendants. And if you do that, what the hell's the point of trying them in criminal court? The point is immediately lost.

I don't believe that terrorists should be treated like military personnel. There's a big difference between the two IMO. However, having made the decision to effectively treat them as military prisoners, they should be tried as military prisoners. Trying them as criminals is not only completely impractical given the legal requirements, it also potentially establishes a very worrying precedent.

 

[potter 58]

.There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.


wow , maybe if "W hadn't been on vacation for months, but that is only a rumor too , right a$wipe

 

[Sinatra]

It did seem a tad naive.

Naive is the entire Obama administration's take on conducting civilian trials for these animals...

We differ slightly perhaps. I think terrorists should be tried in criminal courts as far as is possible. That said, in this case it is not possible, unless you throw out a whole chunk of the law relating to the rights of defendants. And if you do that, what the hell's the point of trying them in criminal court? The point is immediately lost.

I don't believe that terrorists should be treated like military personnel. There's a big difference between the two IMO. However, having made the decision to effectively treat them as military prisoners, they should be tried as military prisoners. Trying them as criminals is not only completely impractical given the legal requirements, it also potentially establishes a very worrying precedent.

We don't necessarily disagree.

In this particular case though, given the conditions of their capture and detainment, a civilian trial will prove a legal nightmare, and for this administration to not understand that, is very-very troubling...

 

[tigerbob]

So what about his argument is wrong?

The bit I've bolded.

Terrorists would be deterred by the prospect of weeks of grandstanding in open court?

These are not doctors who are concerned about what the negative PR of a trial will do to their standing at the golf club.

Who wants to be a henchman???

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

 

[Sinatra]

The bit I've bolded.

Terrorists would be deterred by the prospect of weeks of grandstanding in open court?

These are not doctors who are concerned about what the negative PR of a trial will do to their standing at the golf club.

Who wants to be a henchman???

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

Pig in a Polk perhaps...

 

[potter 58]

How many times did "W" get slapped down in that CON Sup C, opps he couldn't get it right so once again the failure kicked the can down the road

 

[tigerbob]

Naive is the entire Obama administration's take on conducting civilian trials for these animals...

We differ slightly perhaps. I think terrorists should be tried in criminal courts as far as is possible. That said, in this case it is not possible, unless you throw out a whole chunk of the law relating to the rights of defendants. And if you do that, what the hell's the point of trying them in criminal court? The point is immediately lost.

I don't believe that terrorists should be treated like military personnel. There's a big difference between the two IMO. However, having made the decision to effectively treat them as military prisoners, they should be tried as military prisoners. Trying them as criminals is not only completely impractical given the legal requirements, it also potentially establishes a very worrying precedent.

We don't necessarily disagree.

In this particular case though, given the conditions of their capture and detainment, a civilian trial will prove a legal nightmare, and for this administration to not understand that, is very-very troubling...

I can't understand how a civilian trial, given those problems, will even get past day 1.

 

[tigerbob]

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

Pig in a Polk perhaps...

I hadn't considered that!

 

[potter 58]

No Shit Sin especially after "W" /Dickless Cheney chose too torture

 

[Sinatra]

We differ slightly perhaps. I think terrorists should be tried in criminal courts as far as is possible. That said, in this case it is not possible, unless you throw out a whole chunk of the law relating to the rights of defendants. And if you do that, what the hell's the point of trying them in criminal court? The point is immediately lost.

I don't believe that terrorists should be treated like military personnel. There's a big difference between the two IMO. However, having made the decision to effectively treat them as military prisoners, they should be tried as military prisoners. Trying them as criminals is not only completely impractical given the legal requirements, it also potentially establishes a very worrying precedent.

We don't necessarily disagree.

In this particular case though, given the conditions of their capture and detainment, a civilian trial will prove a legal nightmare, and for this administration to not understand that, is very-very troubling...

I can't understand how a civilian trial, given those problems, will even get past day 1.

The far left defense attorneys are licking their collective chops over this one.

Why would Obama allow such a risky trial to take place - it wasn't necessary.

The military court was in place and ready to go.

Very troubling...

 

[Polk]

The bit I've bolded.

Terrorists would be deterred by the prospect of weeks of grandstanding in open court?

These are not doctors who are concerned about what the negative PR of a trial will do to their standing at the golf club.

Who wants to be a henchman???

You really have no idea how trials work, do you? You don't just get to stand up in the middle of the room and shout whatever you'd like.

Really? Holy shit!

And there was me thinking they could stand on a table and yell for as long as they liked. Fuck me, I've learned something today. Thank God you were here. Boston Legal makes so much more sense all of a sudden.

Well, the idea that they can stand on a table and shout out all day is the only way this whole "they're just going to grandstand" crap makes any sense. Thanks for admitting you already knew your argument was bullshit.

 

[Polk]

We don't necessarily disagree.

In this particular case though, given the conditions of their capture and detainment, a civilian trial will prove a legal nightmare, and for this administration to not understand that, is very-very troubling...

I can't understand how a civilian trial, given those problems, will even get past day 1.

The far left defense attorneys are licking their collective chops over this one.

Why would Obama allow such a risky trial to take place - it wasn't necessary.

The military court was in place and ready to go.

Very troubling...

There isn't anything even remotely risky about it.

 

[Sinatra]

I can't understand how a civilian trial, given those problems, will even get past day 1.

The far left defense attorneys are licking their collective chops over this one.

Why would Obama allow such a risky trial to take place - it wasn't necessary.

The military court was in place and ready to go.

Very troubling...

There isn't anything even remotely risky about it.

 

[potter 58]

they will die at the gov hand, but those 2 dickheads made it a lot tougher, Cheney and rUMMY SHOULD BE IN PRINSON, "w" , WELL WE DON'T EXECUTE RETARDS, OPPS YES HE DID, IT WOULD BE TOO GOOD FOR THAT PRICK

 

[Sinatra]

Potter...

 

[tigerbob]

We don't necessarily disagree.

In this particular case though, given the conditions of their capture and detainment, a civilian trial will prove a legal nightmare, and for this administration to not understand that, is very-very troubling...

I can't understand how a civilian trial, given those problems, will even get past day 1.

The far left defense attorneys are licking their collective chops over this one.

Why would Obama allow such a risky trial to take place - it wasn't necessary.

The military court was in place and ready to go.

Very troubling...

Obama has a problem with gitmo, and wants to bring the whole episode to a close one way or the other. At the same time, he wants to be able to stand up and say to the world "Look, I'm really trying to be fair".

For better or worse, given as you say the circumstances of arrest and detainment, GWB left him with 3 options.

1. Execute them quietly. (He can't do that - it's too high profile now)
2. Military trial. (He won't do that - he wants to score points and a military trial is too rigid / not sufficiently visibly altruistic)
3. Cut them loose (He can't do that - he wants a second term)

He didn't like the cards he was dealt so he pulled another one out of his sleeve. He had a tough decision to make, and he's looked for a way to duck it.

 

[Polk]

I can't understand how a civilian trial, given those problems, will even get past day 1.

The far left defense attorneys are licking their collective chops over this one.

Why would Obama allow such a risky trial to take place - it wasn't necessary.

The military court was in place and ready to go.

Very troubling...

Obama has a problem with gitmo, and wants to bring the whole episode to a close one way or the other. At the same time, he wants to be able to stand up and say to the world "Look, I'm really trying to be fair".

For better or worse, given as you say the circumstances of arrest and detainment, GWB left him with 3 options.

1. Execute them quietly. (He can't do that - it's too high profile now)
2. Military trial. (He won't do that - he wants to score points and a military trial is too rigid / not sufficiently visibly altruistic)
3. Cut them loose (He can't do that - he wants a second term)

He didn't like the cards he was dealt so he pulled another one out of his sleeve. He had a tough decision to make, and he's looked for a way to duck it.

False dilemma. Those never were the only available choices.

 

[Modbert]

It's not like there isn't a precedent already set in place where plenty of terrorists have already been tried and convicted. All of them now sit in those lovely supermax prisons where NOBODY has ever escaped.

 

[potter 58]

hey SIN are you sure , the Supremes slapped Bush down 2 or 3 times, the gutless wonder just kicked the can down the road as usual, it was the story of his miserable life