You're little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad... - Edit 1
Before modification by Libby at 22/11/2009 05:34:02 AM
Holy $@#*, who put these idiots in charge of a war? Oh yeah, that's right. We did. This is complete insanity, a purely political decision, with the only factor taken into consideration being "apologizing" for the Bush administration and "setting things right", with no thought of the consequences. This decision (trying enemy combatants while AT WAR in U.S. criminal courts) is so far beyond stupid that I'm having trouble coming up with the words. This, on top of the endless agonizing about the most politically helpful move on Afghanistan and the threat of "discussions about the seriousness of possible consequences" against Iran, is causing me to severely doubt the ability of this administration to tie their own shoes, let alone execute a war.
That people who think as you do are no longer in charge of our foreign policy and domestic policy. Thank god for that. Oh by the way, don't lecture other people on foreign policy, considering how much damage your ilk has done to our country and the world in the past 8 years, your really not in a position to be doing that.
***
Now on the subject at hand let me explain to you something about the Jihadist narrative, because If you want to defeat the enemy you're going to have to understand why they think the way they do.
Their narrative is largely about justice or what radical imams and their followers perceive as injustice. In the their version of history, the West has a long history of exploiting the Muslim world. We occupy Muslim lands to steal their resources. We install corrupt lackeys as their rulers. For all our high and mighty talk about fairness and justice, we reserve these luxuries for ourselves. In this warped worldview, we deserve any atrocities that jihadist “warriors” might commit.
Many of the officials and commentators who are so upset about the decision to give Khalid Shaikh Mohammed a civilian trial were also quick to call the Fort Hood killings an act of terrorism. But if the suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, is indeed a terrorist — not just a deranged man who snapped — then his awful rampage helps demonstrate the point I’m making. Hasan reportedly considered the U.S. military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan a war against Islam, at one point arguing that Muslim soldiers should be excused from combat as conscientious objectors. In other words, he apparently bought at least part of the jihadist line.
In this context, putting Mohammed and the others on trial in a civilian proceeding on U.S. soil is not just a duty but an opportunity. It’s a way to show that we do not have one system of justice for ourselves and another for Muslims, that we give defendants their day in court, that we insist they be vigorously defended by competent counsel — that we really do practice what we preach.
Even if a military tribunal would be just as fair — and a military court might be even more offended by the fact that Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding — a trial by men and women in uniform would be seen as an extension of the “war on Islam.” Holder’s choice is not without risk. The biggest question I have is whether an impartial jury could be impaneled in New York. And while I think the chance of an acquittal is incredibly remote, if it happened, Mohammed would be kept in indefinite detention anyway.
But there’s one more huge benefit to a civilian trial: It would show the preachers of hatred and their followers that we’re not afraid of them or their poisonous ideas. It would show that they haven’t changed us or our ideals — and that they never will.
I say bring it on.