More Republican Fear-Mongering

Remove all ads!

I cannot believe that Republicans are complaining that Obama has decided to place many of the conspirators of the 9/11 attacks (most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohommad) on trial in New York City in federal court. The arguments basically boil down to three premises.

1. That it isn't safe to bring terrorists to the mainland of America. This seems really absurd, seeing as how we already HAVE DONE THIS in the past. Both the shoe bomber and the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing (Mohammed was implicated in this attack as well) were brought up on federal charges, tried in US court, and are currently in federal supermax prisons. [sarcasm] Where they are obviously being gang raped by 300 pound men named "Bubba". [/sarcasm] According to a CNN report last night, there are currently 37 people serving time in federal prisons on charges related to terrorism. So it's not like we haven't done this before, and it's not like any of them have ever escaped. (And I think we're still supposed to eventually close down Gitmo, so we have to send them somewhere...)

2. That allowing them to defend themselves in court gives them an unfair advantage in our legal system. This argument was actually advanced by John McCain. He feels that since their actions are considered an act of war, they should go before a war tribunal, because there's actually a small chance that through legal error they are found not guilty in a federal court. This line of reasoning is shameful, IMO. Setting aside for a moment that you could try this case 1000 times with 1000 different juries, and they all are going to find these guys guilty, of course there's a small chance that they are found not guilty. In fact, that's the purpose behind a trial - if there was no chance of them being innocent we'd proceed directly to sentencing. In this particular case I think the chances of a not guilty verdict are vanishingly small, but the whole purpose of a trial is the ability to defend yourself.

3. That allowing them to defend themselves in court we will be giving them a venue to spout their hatred of America in a public forum. This isn't even an argument as far as I'm concerned. While it is probably true, they do that anyway.

I mean, really, whatever happened to the rule of law in America? I don't know whether to call this fear-mongering, partizan bickering, playing politics, or just the right's insistence to find fault with anything and everything Obama does. All of the above perhaps? What's the deal here? And for shiggles, what about health care?

 

So basically, the argument is that America's legal system is so broken that it can't be relied upon to render a just decision. Interesting. While I'm not going to necessarily argue against that (or for it, for that matter), it's an odd for a politician to imply such a thing.

 

In regard to point 2, I believe the issue is that our criminal courts have different evidenciary rules then a military court would have. If the criminal court ends up throwing out evidence that the military court would allow and they get not-guilty verdicts it would be a disaster.

I can't believe Obama would allow this to happen. If any of them do get off, he would be blamed for it.

 

I can see McCain's point. We give rights to our citizens for trials which do not readily translate to crimes committed in war zones (or as acts of war). A military tribunal will typically weigh legal procedures that were not followed 100% correct (and hold the offender to task) but will not dismiss charges because of a minor infraction during the building of a legal case. Evidence which is obtained under questionable circumstances (i.e., without a warrant) is not a reason to exclude such evidence in a tribunal.

Any of the detainees at GITMO could file for dismissal based on the extensive time between detention and trial. Such considerations are not a concern for a military tribunal.

I personally do not believe they will have a fair trial anywhere in the US. We declared the act an act of war. They should be tried in international court.

 

My perception is that the American -- and by extension North American -- courts are ridiculously weighted in favor of the defendant. It is not a level playing field. Really crucial evidence is excluded for the most pathetically paltry of reasons. That being the case, I'd rather see filth like this tried by military courts, who don't exclude evidence for frivolous reasons.

But the bottom line is, it is pretty well partisan BS looking desperately for something -- anything -- to criticize Obama about. It's pathetic, in a way.

 

1 - Bringing them onto our soil does nothing and causes nothing.

2 - Trying them in our legal system is wrong. They should definitely be facing a Military Tribunal.

3 - Well, that is just stupid. Of course they will shout against our government, they are TERRORISTS who are plotting our downfall. Anywhere they go is a venue for that rhetoric.

Only the fact that they will be tried in Federal Court is arguable. And justly so. But either way, they are going down. Who in their right mind will pass a not-guilty verdict?

 

I just have one question as quite a few respondents have indicated that a military tribunal is favorable to a federal trial: Why should we change the way we handle these cases now, when other terrorists have gone through our legal system (37 at the moment) without a hitch. Legal precedence is an important action regarding consistency in the application of law, and the legal precedence up to this point is trying them in federal court.

Yes, it's possible that something could get screwed up and these guys could walk, but like I said previously, I don't think there's a jury out there that wouldn't convict these guys. (Well maybe if the jury consisted entirely of radical Muslims who immigrated from Middle Eastern countries that plot America's downfall, but that's not going to be jury composition.)

 

I hear what you are saying on the precedence thing, Aldeth.

As for the juries, I find the whole system really flawed. A 2/3 majority should be the standard for conviction, none of this 100%, all or nothing approach. All it takes is one bleeding heart who has an overly romantic view of Islam and sees these guys as "freedom fighters out of the deserts of history" or some other such nonsense and these guys walk.

I guess that I am expressing a serious lack of confidence in the legal system. But if it's been set as a precedent, then I guess rolling the dice is one option. But new precedents can always be set . . .

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the perception of the accused. The "shoe bomber" was trying to blow up a plane, but I don't think anyone ever perceived him as an "enemy combatant". People in Afghanistan or Iraq who were not in uniform, but were firing and trying to kill U.S. troops are preceived as enemy combatants. I believe the same logic is being applied to the leaders of terrorist groups as they have "soldiers" that they are sending out to fight.

 

You are right about precendence and it's power in our decison making processes. I guess the question is why were they sent thru the Federal courts to begin with? Because we possibly looked upon those acts differently at those times than now? Just a thought... times change and so we must.

 

How would you get a fair and impartial jury on such a case? Peremptory challenge - is that the term?

 

It means we can execute them.

No, actually it's the reverse, at least in the opinion of some (and I share that opinion). But considering these guys, it really didn't matter much to me. Either way they are in for a Timothy Mcviegh "exit" from our system.

I agree. They don't have much credibility, regardless of what Rush says.

Republican fear mongering? I never heard of such a thing. There really are government death panels and the terrorists are going to escape into NYC where they will plot the end of the world as we know it.

 

In 2001 our definition of terrorism shifted. Before 9/11 terrorism was a criminal act punishable by a civilian court of law (federal). While our militaries were allowed to respond to terrorist attacks in order to defend our personnel abroad, we had no ongoing effort to engage the terrorist with anything other than law enforcement (there were only a few presidential orders allowing specific short-term military missions). Since then, terrorism is an act of war -- we have an ongoing military engagement of a known terrorist organization.

The scope of how we respond to international terrorism shifted back in 2001. An equivalent precedent to find would be any time we have tried an enemy soldier in our courts (we have, but it's been a long time). The shift of world politics over the past two centuries or so has made it more appropriate to hold military tribunals for crimes done during times of war. I think more recent history (at least the last fifty years or so) would indicate such tribunals should be held in international court -- the US certainly does not believe that other countries can try our soldiers for acts during war (we don't even allow international courts to do that).

 

When we execute them it will appear to most of the rest of the world that we have Due Process of Law, and followed our own Constitution. If the Republicans believed the military courts were better, then they should have used them, rather than leave the matter for the next adminstration. Their solution was to do pretty much nothing.

But Bush did put this guy on trial here. Funny, there was no Republican fear and outrage at the time.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/mous_indict.html

---------- Added 2 hours, 10 minutes and 18 seconds later... ----------

In my opinion, that's a good point, T2. While I don't always agree with your posts, I believe that they represent a thoughtfullness that is refreshing, as opposed to the typical conservative talking points heard in the "echo chamber" that seem reside in the hard right these days. It's good to know that there are conservatives who still think for themselves and know what they are talking about.

 

If they are being tried in a federal court and not a military tribunal, does that entitle them to the same rights in court as that of American citizens? If so, that is wrong.

Where they read their Miranda rights when they were apprehended? Couldn't KSM just admit that he confessed only because he was waterboarded (which this administration considers torture), and thus be considered admitting guilt under duress? What if he decides to defend himself? Doesn't that allow him to see all of the intelligence used to apprehend him and his buddies?

 

KJ - Do you think the prosecutors have already considered all those points? Those guys are toast and everyone knows it. The appointement with the hangman's noose is already a done deal.

The law already has provisions for that, despite the nonsense echoing within the Chamber.

 

Just sayin'. If OJ got off the hook, anyone can.

 

Well, no argument there.

One part proud in the integrity of our system; one part disappointed that he didn't get the axe....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34001021/ns/us_news-security/

 

You've got this one wrong, LKD. All it takes is one juror who believes that there isn't sufficient evidence for a conviction or, to put the shoe on the other foot, believes that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt while the rest of the jury is looking to acquit, to necessitate a re-trial. A hung jury isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Much as opposition to the death penalty in a capital crime, an overly romantic view of Islamic terrorism (notice my use of the term "Islamic terrorism" in lieu of "Islam") would be grounds for elimination from the jury selection process. A person who hangs his jury typically does so not because he is a bleeding heart, likes the defendant, or romanticizes the crime, but because he disagrees with his fellow jurors about whether guilt has or has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

OK, but the guys going on trial here were not trying to kill US troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. IMO, they are much more like the shoe bomber, who tried to blow up the plane or the 1993 WTC bomber; ie, terrorists operating on our soil. The WTC bomber was convicted during Clinton's administration, the shoe bomber during Bush's administration. They both used federal court, so this isn't even a Democratic versus Republican position - both parties have used the federal court system for cases like this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

OK, but the issue I have with that is many of those 37 terrorists rotting in supermax prisons were committed their crimes and were convicted after 9/11, including the shoe bomber. The shoe bomber didn't get convicted until 2003, so we already were at war with both Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think your argument that a military tribunal would be a preferable choice over federal court would hold up better if there was even an example of one suspected terrorist who didn't get a conviction. As it stands, the lightest sentence meted out by a federal court has been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Well that gets back to the whole reclassification problem that started under Bush as well. Under the Bush rules, these guys were not enemy soldiers, but rather enemy combatants. Not to rehash the whole process, but the short version is that Geneva Convention has two sets of rules for prisoners - one for civilians, one for enemy soldiers. Whether you agree with him or not, Bush's position was that enemy combatants are neither civilians nor soldiers.

Then again, all of this is moot. Khalid Sheikh Mohommad is not on trial as an enemy combatant - he is on trial for being the cheif conspirator and architect of the 9/11 attacks. Chandos brings up a great point - the criminal whose actions most closely mirror Mohommad's is Timothy McVeigh. I think McVeigh would have been given the same punishment for his crimes if he was a foreign national.