Active Users:344 Time:07/07/2025 01:57:58 AM
We've had Mohammed in custody for over 6 years... Libby Send a noteboard - 23/11/2009 07:56:49 AM
The reality is that it is unclear if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or the others were properly given Miranda warnings and at the proper time. It is further unclear what percentage of evidence amassed against them would be inadmissible for one reason or another (allegations of torture, suggestions of unreasonable search and seizure leading to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine being employed, etc.).

The point of military tribunals is that they satisfy Constitutional demands that the Supreme Court has declared to be "universal" without forcing the case into the straightjacket of Federal criminal procedure. That Federal criminal procedure was almost certainly not followed as US military forces operate on a completely different principle than domestic US law enforcement officers.


... So tell me, why didn't President Bush move with the military tribunals of these people during that time? Oh that's right, the Bush administration tried to prosecute them in military tribunals but wasn't able to come up with a set of rules that were deemed constitutional. As a result, six years after Mohammed was apprehended, he still hasn't been convicted!

A civilian trial is the best chance of ensuring conviction and sentencing. I don't consider that a problem. I consider it progress. We are one step closer to the end of this guy's story. Remember, too, that the Republican senators who are crying loudest now about this civilian trial were the ones who precluded the use of military tribunals by insisting that they be constitutionally unfair to defendants.

While Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may be brazen enough to plead guilty just to become a martyr, we can't be certain of that and we set a precedent that could let other terrorists go free on procedural grounds. What distinguishes military action against terrorists from police action against criminals is that we don't play by the same rules (and indeed can't, if we want to fight effectively).


Studying terrorism law, I am not aware of any judge, anywhere, who is eager to pervert the law to give Mohammed or any other terrorist a break. The idea that the federal courts are soft on terrorism is unfair to the hundreds of jurists who have repeatedly endorsed government policy on terrorism, both before and after the 2001 attacks. Capital murder suspects get off on "technicalities" far less often than you see in prime time. And even if Mohammed is somehow acquitted, which isn't going to happen, the feds will then immediately pick him up and put him back in the military brig.

Yes, Mohammed might well try to turn it into political theater. But he will mostly fail. There are many rules in place to ensure that Mohammed behaves in court. There is upside here, too. It seems likely, given Mohammed's in-court conduct at Guantanamo Bay, that he will proudly declare in front of judge and jury his allegiance to al-Qaeda and his involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. If this occurs, heck, it will make it easier for jurors to convict him and for the appellate courts to endorse his sentence.

When one considers the complete waste of money that this will lead to, the ensuing media circus (whether or not cameras are permitted in the courtroom) and the delay, it is a further insult to those who have fought to rid the world of these odious individuals.


Well, trials cost money, that's a fact of life. What's important is bringing this whole thing to a close after 6 years.
Reply to message
No need to interrogate Osama bin Laden? - 20/11/2009 12:48:27 AM 1155 Views
oO uhm, what? - 20/11/2009 12:54:13 AM 640 Views
Yeah, a lot of people were fuzzy on that till this started. - 20/11/2009 09:30:39 AM 663 Views
on the other hand, we're more than willing to take them out back with a confession. - 20/11/2009 06:34:12 PM 662 Views
As it seems we will. - 24/11/2009 09:41:18 AM 639 Views
New York is now asking for $75 MILLION for the KSM trial - 20/11/2009 01:43:26 AM 592 Views
Its to salve their conscinse - 20/11/2009 01:55:08 AM 599 Views
That's exactly the problem! - 20/11/2009 01:58:37 AM 611 Views
If this trial were being held in any other country - 20/11/2009 01:56:07 AM 608 Views
It's a terrible precedent no matter how you look at it. - 20/11/2009 02:13:46 AM 634 Views
It IS a terrible precdent, hence you and others are citing it 65 years after WWII ended. - 20/11/2009 09:23:45 AM 525 Views
Spare me the bullshit. - 20/11/2009 01:57:16 PM 526 Views
I will if you will. - 20/11/2009 02:55:30 PM 627 Views
No, you won't. You never will. - 20/11/2009 06:14:30 PM 520 Views
You're putting your cart before your horse is the problem. - 23/11/2009 05:40:46 AM 610 Views
No, that's not right. You don't read very closely. - 23/11/2009 02:21:54 PM 531 Views
In this case my reading comprehension is more than adequate. - 24/11/2009 09:16:39 AM 564 Views
You don't think this is a military struggle? Wow. - 20/11/2009 02:52:26 PM 569 Views
Allow me to point out... - 20/11/2009 03:02:33 PM 559 Views
Well, Timothy McVeigh was in OUR Army. - 20/11/2009 03:55:18 PM 675 Views
That's the thing, they aren't a terrorist group - 20/11/2009 04:54:31 PM 597 Views
It would help if you would offer any argument in favour of your stance. - 20/11/2009 08:43:08 PM 535 Views
I only use the word army cause I can't think of a better one - 21/11/2009 04:32:01 AM 558 Views
Yes. "Terrorist group". - 21/11/2009 12:02:04 PM 626 Views
Yeah I guess you're right - 22/11/2009 01:34:34 AM 544 Views
Military struggles involve militaries. - 20/11/2009 03:23:14 PM 713 Views
Once again, bullshit. - 20/11/2009 06:09:31 PM 677 Views
Aaaah, I see; it's a question of who's the master, is it? - 23/11/2009 07:47:43 AM 695 Views
You're wasting your time - 23/11/2009 02:24:57 PM 572 Views
This is wrong - 20/11/2009 07:41:35 PM 575 Views
We're a long way from the shore of Tripoli. - 23/11/2009 05:59:19 AM 628 Views
Nevertheless, uniforms or a nation is not a requirement - 23/11/2009 03:09:22 PM 587 Views
Rightly or wrongly, I disagree. - 24/11/2009 08:48:25 AM 634 Views
That is bad - 21/11/2009 12:31:04 AM 567 Views
You're not going far enough, man. - 20/11/2009 11:03:08 AM 606 Views
Blah blah blah blah blah *NM* - 20/11/2009 01:57:39 PM 258 Views
I just can't imagine how they expect to get a fair trial. - 20/11/2009 03:17:28 AM 536 Views
The Code of Conduct - 20/11/2009 07:23:02 PM 648 Views
The mention of God is interesting. *NM* - 21/11/2009 05:24:14 AM 366 Views
Your little diatribe in the beginning only makes me glad... - 22/11/2009 05:32:57 AM 693 Views
I understand your "jihadist narrative" - 22/11/2009 06:36:41 PM 679 Views
And your little hyperbolic rant would make more sense if it were grounded in reality. - 22/11/2009 11:47:17 PM 542 Views
We've had Mohammed in custody for over 6 years... - 23/11/2009 07:56:49 AM 614 Views
I've already responded to your absurd statements, but let me reiterate a few here - 23/11/2009 02:59:09 PM 512 Views
And I've responded to yours - 24/11/2009 04:57:58 AM 590 Views
enemy combatants and terrorists - 23/11/2009 08:03:25 PM 643 Views
They're not different because from the Third World, but because terrorists. - 24/11/2009 08:09:13 AM 772 Views
not every soldier in history has worn a uniform - 24/11/2009 11:00:34 PM 442 Views
One example would be Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys - 25/11/2009 06:23:08 PM 616 Views
Just for fun, let's call them fundamentalist vigilantes. *NM* - 24/11/2009 11:12:09 PM 230 Views
Works for me. - 01/12/2009 09:12:29 AM 605 Views

Reply to Message