Do you guys think KSM should be tried in Federal court or military tribunal?

[ohiodemocratic]

What's your choice and the reasoning behind it? Or are you undecided?

[pleah]

1. Federal Court. There is no good reason not to. n/t

[babylonsister]

2. Federal court; better results.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12soufan.html

Ali H. Soufan was an F.B.I. special agent from 1997 to 2005. (Me: he knows what he's talking about)

snip//


Of the three terrorists tried under military commissions since 9/11, two are now free. David Hicks, an Australian who joined Al Qaeda, was sent back to his native country after a plea bargain. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver and confidante, is a free man in Yemen after all but a few months of his five-and-a-half-year sentence were wiped out by time spent in custody. (The third terrorist, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a former Qaeda propaganda chief, was sentenced to life in prison.)

In contrast, almost 200 terrorists have been convicted in federal courts since 9/11. These include not only high-profile terrorists like Zacharias Moussaoui, who was convicted of conspiracy to kill United States citizens as part of the 9/11 attacks, but also many people much lower on the Qaeda pecking order than Mr. Hamdan.

[timeforpeace]

3. Nothing but the best for KSM. He's earned it.

[babylonsister]

10. No opinion, just a stupid remark. Quelle surprise. nt

[MadMaddie]

4. Federal Court!

The U.S has tried and convicted 201 terrorist and they are all currently rotting in jail.

If the U.S supposedly has the finest judicial system in the world then it can withstand prosecuting more terrorist.

Further more I submit that by prosecuting these (terrorist- I use the term loosly) in a military tribunal it only legitimizes them to something they are not. They are criminals, they are not the scary boogy-man that the Repuglicans have pushed year after year. It is time to deflate these criminals and the lore that follows them around.

I think that the Repuglicans want to go through the tribunals because if found guilty they are assured of a death sentence. I also believe that many don't want to prosecute in Federal Court because the extent of the torture will be revealed.

Just my two cents on the subject....

[ohiodemocratic]

5. what about a new form of military tribunal with more rights for detainees?

Would that work? I don't think it's far-fetched to think that will be the solution reached by the WH.

[LeftyAndProud60]

8. I'm for that. And keep the media as far away as possible. What is the point of it

being in a federal court, if you aren't going to set them free no matter what?

[MadMaddie]

23. That could be feasable

they would have to evalaute all aspects of how the tribunal would function.

[Staph]

6. Federal Court.

If he's tried by a military tribunal, then he's a soldier, a patriot for his cause.

If he's tried in federal court, then he's just another common criminal.

[LeftyAndProud60]

7. Honestly, I don't care. There's a reason Bush didn't put all of them in Military trials. It must not

be as easy as some think. And a conservative supreme court seemed to question the legality of tribunals, so that should be a concern. I don't think $200mil should be wasted on these trials. Whatever the cheapest way is, that should be looked at. I don't believe in show trials. Nor do I care a whole lot about terrorist. I don't know where in this country KSM or any other terrorist will find a jury of their peers. There isn't going to be a such thing as a fair trial no matter where they are. So why is it so crucial for them to be in federal court?


If it has to be in a fed court, I'm sure it's some federal court in DC, so why not just move it there? Holder really screwed this up. He seemed to have no plan. And I think it's a bad idea for Obama politically to put Gitmo detainees in Illinois. Say a terrorist act occurs in Chicago, they will never forgive Obama. Build a prison in Haiti, and start some kind of partnership with them that helps them rebuild.

[jwirr]

9. Federal Court. This is a case of terrorism against specific persons

who acted alone and not another nation. I want this in Federal Courts for the same reason I wanted it to be a criminal offense and not a military action. These groups are not nations they are groups. If the KKK were to commit a crime in another country should that country start a war with the US and try them as if they represented all of us?

[Colobo]

11. I don't care as long as he gets what he deserves.

[lib_n_proud7650]

12. Federal Court

[ChicagoSuz219]

13. Federal Court...

...& the underwear bomber, too!

[grantcart]

14. I think that the Attorney General should make the decision without any regard

to any political consideration of any kind.

This is what the law requires.

This is what a professional law enforcement prosecutor should do.

This is what it looks like when you have a President and an Attorney General that follow the law.

[timeforpeace]

15. Sorry, the White House today said they would not rule out using a military court to try KSM:

"Administration may abandon civilian 9/11 trial" http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_sept11_trial

[fujiyama]

16. Easier said than done

The federal government needs cooperation from local and state governments to hold these trials. They're incredibly expensive, and the logistics for security are a nightmare in a place like NYC.

[timeforpeace]

26. Hey, we're trying to be emotional about this. What's with the rationality?

[ohiodemocratic]

32. What's your solution?

And wouldn't an opponent of military tribunals have a much stronger case of saying "easier said than done," in light of the failure that the tribunals have been?

What do you think should be done?

[ProgressOnTheMove]

17. It can't really be military court that should only really apply for court mashall. A system of ...

justice was developed to avoid kangaroo courts that can have slanted political bias or base decisions on pure emotion over facts. I'm sure military courts are run well but they're ultimately not the law. They say it all the time, it's nation of laws not of men. Well, just about, depending on how bad things get may just leave them to their dystopia.

[rasputin1952]

18. Federal Court...

These people have committed crimes, treat them as criminals. They are not a part of a "military" regardless of what they are fighting for, they are civilians that are, in many cases, committing crimes against other civilians.

I do not claim to be an expert on Middle Eastern societies, but I do know something of the culture. With that in mind, treating these individuals as criminals has a stigma attached to it that is hard to shake off; whereas considering them as a form of military entity, (and particularly if the DP is applied if convicted), the stage is set for martyrdom and an increase in passion to join the "cause". Even a baseline understanding of the culture shows that the individuals we are in conflict now, shows us that martyrdom and sacrifice are high in the "system of honor", criminal behavior is seen as despicable.

How many people have heard about "the Blind Sheik", since his permanent incarceration? The others are also seen in a much less favorable light as well. Bottom line, civilian trials have results, and those results are felt by many. military tribunals have the distinct attribute of placing these individuals into "war" footing, since this is combat, but not a war per se, the activities should be seen as criminal acts.

I think that the individuals should be tried in NYC as well, for a number of reasons; but the most obvious is that the initial act in NYC is what brought all of this about. The psychological point that would be made should not be taken lightly. NYer's are a resilient bunch, (I was born and raised in NYC), by having the trials in NYC, there would be a "cleansing" of sort, and a closure as well. Some of the finest Federal Prosecutors are based out of NYC and Justice would prevail. We cannot allow fear to dictate how we deal with these things, we need to show we are a nation of Law, there must be legitimacy involved in every part of this process, and having the trials held in NYC would add greatly to the legitimacy of the process. Having a civilian jury hear these cases ensures that we have taken the proper steps to in the process.

The RW has tossed fear into the equation, (it's all they have), we should not kow-tow to these people, they are not looking for Justice, they are looking for retribution.

[spanone]

19. federal court...here's why

of the three terrorists tried under military commissions since 9/11, two are now free

SINCE Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York announced that he no longer favored trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, in a Manhattan federal court because of logistical concerns, the Obama administration has come under increasing attack from those who claim that military commissions are more suitable for prosecuting terrorists. These critics are misguided.

As someone who has helped prosecute terrorists in both civilian and military courts — I was a witness for the government in two of the three military commissions convened so far — I think that civilian courts are often the more effective venue. In fact, the argument that our criminal justice system is more than able to handle terrorist cases was bolstered just last week by revelations that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the so-called Christmas bomber, is cooperating with the authorities.

Of the three terrorists tried under military commissions since 9/11, two are now free. David Hicks, an Australian who joined Al Qaeda, was sent back to his native country after a plea bargain. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver and confidante, is a free man in Yemen after all but a few months of his five-and-a-half-year sentence were wiped out by time spent in custody. (The third terrorist, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul, a former Qaeda propaganda chief, was sentenced to life in prison.)

In contrast, almost 200 terrorists have been convicted in federal courts since 9/11. These include not only high-profile terrorists like Zacharias Moussaoui, who was convicted of conspiracy to kill United States citizens as part of the 9/11 attacks, but also many people much lower on the Qaeda pecking order than Mr. Hamdan.

The federal court system has proved well equipped to handle these trials. It has been the venue for international terrorism cases since President Ronald Reagan authorized them in the 1980s, and for other terrorist cases long before that. Prosecutors have at their disposal numerous statutes with clear sentencing guidelines. Providing material support, for example, can result in a 15-year sentence or even the death penalty if Americans are killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/opinion/12soufan.html...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. Here is an informative article in the New Yorker that addresses this

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer

A Reporter at Large
The Trial
Eric Holder and the battle over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
by Jane Mayer
February 15

skip

Holder told me that he was frustrated by much of the criticism over the handling of Abdulmutallab. “What we did is totally consistent with what has happened in every similar case” since 9/11, he said. “There’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.” Without exception, he noted, every previous terrorist suspect apprehended inside the country had been handled as a civilian criminal. Even so, critics such as Krauthammer were denouncing Holder for failing to send Abdulmutallab directly to Guantánamo. As a senior national-security official in the White House put it, “It’s a fantasy! Under what alternative legal system can Special Operations Forces fly into Detroit, and take someone away without court oversight?”

According to Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, in Washington, the military can’t simply grab suspects inside the U.S. and hold them without charge or a hearing. “It violates the Constitution, which extends to everyone inside the U.S.,” she said. “You can’t be seized without probable cause. You have the right to due process, and to a trial by a jury of your peers—which a military commission is not.” Confusion on this point may derive from the Bush Administration’s controversial handling of two suspected terrorists, José Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. Both men were arrested in the U.S. by law-enforcement officials, and indicted on criminal charges. But Bush declared Padilla and Marri to be “enemy combatants,” which, he argued, meant that they could be transferred to military custody, for interrogation and detention without trial. (Neither suspect provided useful intelligence.) The cases provoked legal challenges, and in both instances appeals courts ruled that Bush had overstepped his power. The Administration, not willing to risk a Supreme Court defeat, returned the suspects to the civilian system.

For all the tough rhetoric of the Bush Administration, it prosecuted many more terror suspects as criminals than as enemy combatants. According to statistics compiled by New York University’s Center on Law and Security, since 2001 the criminal courts have convicted some hundred and fifty suspects on terrorism charges. Only three detainees—all of whom were apprehended abroad—were convicted in military commissions at Guantánamo. The makeshift military-commission system set up by Bush to handle terrorism cases has never tried a murder case, let alone one as complex, or notorious, as that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will face the death penalty for the murder of nearly three thousand people.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/02/15/100215fa_fact_mayer

Well worth the time to read. Lots of hypocrisy and pandering and altering the past as usual by the right.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

21. Federal Court

He's a criminal. Trying him in a military court elevates a common terrorist to the same level as members of the armed forces of a sovereign nation.

More to the point, it makes a common terrorist the legal and moral equivalent of a United States soldier.

Fuck that.

[Vinca]

22. Federal court. There was a person on MSNBC this morning -

I forget his name, but he's an expert - who said KSM's nephew's wife was just convicted in federal court in New York last week and it wasn't even a blurb in the media. Apparently she knew everything and was a big fish. The whole civilian/military court controversy is a manufactured Republican talking point to try to scare the sheep.

[sandnsea]

25. Thank you

My husband said it was his mother and I was like, what?? This makes a little more sense, lol. But the point is the same, trial went off without so much as a whimper. Which says any number of things about this country, not the least of which is how truly manipulated by the media we are.

[annabanana]

35. +1. . . .n/t

[golfguru]

24. Whichever is cheaper & quicker....n/t

[Peacetrain]

27. Where have they tried nearly all the terrorists.. I mean there have been hundreds of trials

already.. seems to me that would be the way to go..Just what we have been doing.

[Phx_Dem]

28. Federal court.

[Kltpzyxm]

29. Federal Court

Otherwise it is just a show trial with unfair evidence rules that will make the world hate us more.

[COLGATE4]

30. You're absolutely right

Federal law is our system for trying criminal defendants such as KSM. Our record in Federal Court for convictions is stellar, and it's done with no sacrifice of our core values. Plus, by taking away the military commission route you take away their right to insist that they are formal combatants,

[tledford]

31. Yes. eom

[DailyGrind51]

33. By Simon Cowell!

[annabanana]

34. Federal Court, and yes.. here in the City where the crime was done.

I hope they find him innocent and just let him out the door to walk down any NYC street. I wouldn't take odds on his getting to the nearest "Don't Walk" sign.

[timeforpeace]

36. Yes. Even if the majority of the country disagrees.