No, Pat, you’re not. The fact that the previous Administration was allowed by Congress and the MSM to – pretend – that you were in a wartime scenario doesn’t do anything to change the fact that you’re not. Neither does the refusal of the current Administration to abandon the latitude they’re being given to slow-walk the return of constitutional norms.

Both are wrong. Now wipe up that pool of pee and try explaining just – why – you think KSM’s fellow fanatics might think it advantageous to launch another terrorist attack on New York while America is attempting to try him for murder.

It wouldn’t help his case, would it? But it might make Americans as angry and scared as they were after the last terrorist attack on New York.

Who might benefit from that, Pat?

For your last question, from the second article cited above:

“Members of al Qaeda seek to be acknowledged as soldiers, rather than denigrated as criminals. They glorify their crimes as acts of war. Putting them on trial in military commissions would reinforce their narrative, not refute it, handing al Qaeda an enormous propaganda boon. In the battle of ideas that is central to the struggle against terrorism, a military trial is a win for the terrorists.”

TomB,
“As to the former just imagine the pressure on judges to not allow people popularly regarded as heinous terrorists to get off “on a technicality,” which technicality may in fact be some significant point of law that protects us all.” As to popular opinion, it should not be a factor in any decision the judge makes. A significant point of law isn’t a technicality.

We have already “devolve[d] into the development of an entire sub rosa body of law, with different standards quietly understood to be applied to cases involving ‘terrorism’.” Except it wasn’t sub rose or quiet. It was the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Some parts were struck down, but Obama has just signed an updated version.

The least amount of damage to our criminal justice and military systems would be accomplished through federal civilian trials.

Of course how this trial goes may persuade the country to remember this distinction and I suspect that’s a good possibility. A circus second to few could well be in store.

Very possibly even worse however is that it won’t be an overt circus, so leading to the understanding that such trials are de rigueur for “terrorists” or those who are fighting against us. And then watch the corruption of both our criminal justice system as well as our war/terror-fighting system grow.

As to the former just imagine the pressure on judges to not allow people popularly regarded as heinous terrorists to get off “on a technicality,” which technicality may in fact be some significant point of law that protects us all. And perhaps watch this devolve into the development of an entire sub rosa body of law, with different standards quietly understood to be applied to cases involving “terrorism” or “extreme” politics at a time when there seem to be ever more criminal laws passed or considered and addressed to American citizens whose beliefs are thought “extreme” by the powers that be. Wasn’t it just a few months ago that the Department of Homeland Security put out some memo to police departments talking about how to spot “domestic extremists”? Too many bumper stickers on your car? Advocate something that Ms. Napolitano doesn’t like? Give to it money-wise? Well how about a separate, sub rosa body of law for you?

And as to the latter watch the effects on the military and the counter-terrorism people who now will face all the pressures the domestic police have to not contaminate cases via procedural mistakes, to even have to preserve “evidence” on the battlefield and “witnesses,” to not violate the “rights” of enemy combatants that in fact the Constitution doesn’t even give them and etc. and so forth.

Moreover the really silly thing is … what’s the need here? Where really is the political pressure to either try this guy in a domestic court or let him go? In essence it appears to be nothing so much as a show trial. Arbitrarily granted, solely for the purpose of affecting public opinion in some way, that in and of itself shows that “justice” isn’t really the point here.

As much as anyone I think us getting into these Middle East conflicts is just an absolute crime, and that indeed we are supporting and perpetrating crimes against arabs and muslims. But to the extent the country is waging war on them—and we are, with no formal declaration of war ever being thought necessary for us to engage in a war—well then at the very least it ought to be done with the minimum of damage to our criminal justice and military systems. God knows it’s done enough damage to us otherwise.

But there is a greater problem. If it IS war, he should be considered a “prisoner of war” and given everything the Geneva conventions entitle him to (unless he is found by a tribunal to not be a POW or the “war” ends).

The problem with judicial black holes is they suck everything in.

If he is a criminal, he will get no glory for being a common thug. Instead he was labeled as a brave soldier fighting for the freedom of his country against the evil empire (not the good republic?).

Of course there is a simple solution. Find one of the torture plane pilots, put KSM, and the CIA people convicted in Italy on it, and then after it is over international waters, shoot it down with a missile, since it would be justified under war, and the collateral damage will be “friendly fire” and everyone will be happy including Pat.

Pat was around during Vietnam – did we have torture centers in the USA where we would fly North Vietnamese? Oh, and they labeled every one of our soldiers “enemy combatants” and tortured them instead of giving them their proper rights under treaties. We were at least different enough from them back then to do the right thing even when our enemy didn’t. Now we have lost the moral high-ground – and it seems whatever this conflict which is not a war is called.

We denied al-Qaeda the protections of the Geneva Conventions, so we can’t treat them as war criminals. (Thanks, George!) The current military commissions are not the same things as the examples Pat gives above, they are new creations.

“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.” Well, if that is the case, it’s <a href=”http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/11/hbc-90006103″Judge Mukasey’s fault. Yes, that Mukasey. I suggest you take it up with him.

By bringing these men up on criminal charges, we imply that they are just ordinary civilians who have done something illegal (regardless of the scale of their actions or their motivations).

By bringing them before a military tribunal, we give legitimacy to their own claim to be not merely murderers, but a military or paramilitary force at war with the United States.

Our government has gone back and forth on this question enough to leave the whole issue totally confused. If they are merely criminals, they need to be treated like criminals in accordance with our laws, which affects where they are held, how they are treated, what rights they have, etc. If they are prisoners of war, other rules apply. Now which is it? Can the US government please decide this issue once and for all and act accordingly?

Well that’s a pretty good question Pat, but you don’t answer it.

Rather, you imply unwarranted support for the neocon position that wrecked the Republican Party — a position that turned a small group of non-governmental thugs better described as a cult into World War III involving huge military missions all over the Middle East to fight “Islamic Extremism,” and engage in the folly of setting up synthetic governments that somehow turn hundreds year-old conflicts (conflicts having nothing to do with the cult that attacked us) into Jeffersonian Democracy.

You have spent the last 8 years writing excellent articles describing this idiocy for what it is.

Military tribunals can still be used, but the specific people in question here made numerous statements BEFORE THEY WERE ARRESTED.

When possible, we should send a message that these rag-tags are not military warriors and should not be elevated to that level.

And I can’t for the life of me understand anybody having a problem with a trial right at the spot where the crime was committed. It’s an in your face move that should be supported.