PDA

View Full Version : Poll: How should 9/11 terrorists be tried?



Ian Murray
20-11-2009, 10:24 AM
I want to start a poll but can't find instructions - Mod help requested [poll added - mod]

The question is:

Should those charged with complicity in the 9/11 attacks be tried -
- in a civil court under criminal/anti-terrorism law
- in a military court under military law
- in an international court under war crimes law
- undecided

Desmond
20-11-2009, 11:05 AM
- trial by guillotine (survive it 3 times and you go free)

ER
20-11-2009, 11:17 AM
- trial by guillotine (survive it 3 times and you go free)

hmmm I 'd be more generous here! Make it five?

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2009, 02:31 PM
- trial by guillotine (survive it 3 times and you go free)
Reminds me a Russian joke (substitute whatever characters you want):
- An Englishman, Frenchman and Russian captured by the tribe after the ship wreck. The chieftain told them are going to be executed, but have a choice:
electric chair (very advanced tribe!!) or guillotine.
Frenchman, being a patriot, chose a guillotine. However, it turned out to be jammed. Chieftain said:
- According to our law, you can now walk out free.
On exit he whispered to Englishman: "Guillotine does not work".
Englishman chose guillotine and worked free as well. He also whispered to Russian: "Guillotine does not work".
Russian then walks in front of the Chieftain who asked:
- What exectuion do you choose?
- What the hell you are talking about choice? Guillotine does not work!!

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2009, 02:41 PM
On a serious note War on terror reminds me war on poverty, war on drugs, etc.
Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a dangerous weapon employed by the enemies.
If terrorists are harboured by another state that either supports them or complacent in prosecuting them, it's a casus belli and we should be free to employ any means against them, including the war (as US did in Afghanistan and in Iraq).
If terrorists are caught, our (or American in this case) legal system is sufficient to convict them. If police, various secret services and prosecutors can't prove their guilt, they are lazy incompetent bums (or went after wrong guys).
IMO, the right for speedy and proper trial is a fundamental liberty and one of the main check against government tyranny.

Ian Murray
20-11-2009, 04:11 PM
If terrorists are caught, our (or American in this case) legal system is sufficient to convict them. If police, various secret services and prosecutors can't prove their guilt, they are lazy incompetent bums (or went after wrong guys).
IMO, the right for speedy and proper trial is a fundamental liberty and one of the main check against government tyranny.
Absolutely. In fact 9/11 was clearly a crime committed on US soil and so a matter for the FBI and NYPD - the military had no jurisdiction.

Capablanca-Fan
20-11-2009, 05:12 PM
The whole point of the Geneva convention was to protect uniformed soldiers who obeyed the rules of war. If soldiers would be protected regardless of their own conduct, then there is no point in abiding by the rules. This used to be clearly understood. E.g. during the Battle of the Bulge, Kraut soldiers infiltrated American lines wearing American uniforms. After being captured, they were put up against a wall and shot. Neither side regarded this as a war crime.

Trying 11-9 terrorists would force prosecutors to reveal methods used to track and catch terrorists, thus aiding the enemy. These vermin committed an act of war against America, so should be tried by the military. This moronic decision actually encourages terrorists to attack civilians rather than military targets, and gives them more rights than US soldiers!

It's crass anyway, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed has already pled guilty and asked to be executed. That race-baiting leftist Holder is grandstanding (and he was one who delayed justice by holding up military tribunals).

Charles Krauthammer shows up how farcical this civil trial is (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/11/20/travesty-in-new-york/):


Khalid Sheik Mohammed ... has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."
...
Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
...

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2009, 08:02 PM
Absolutely. In fact 9/11 was clearly a crime committed on US soil and so a matter for the FBI and NYPD - the military had no jurisdiction.
Military did have the jurisdiction as Afghanistan refused to hand the suspects over to US, thus providing a reason for war.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-11-2009, 08:20 PM
Charles Krauthammer shows up how farcical this civil trial is (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/11/20/travesty-in-new-york/):


Khalid Sheik Mohammed ... has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.


Should we be afraid of confronting terrorists propaganda head-on?


[INDENT]So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Of course it's naive to assume that a politician like Holder has pure motives.
But the legal system that cannot convict a mastermind of 9/11 with the abundance of evidences does not serve it's main role - to protect citizens from violence.


Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Failure to convict means sheer incompetence of the vast (and, IMO, unjustifiably bloated) counter-terrorist network.
Kangaroo court with predefined conviction is equally bad, as it precludes real justice.


Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Farcical show trial is a disgrace. Keeping in custody without charge is also a disgrace.


Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

Aren't there any provision in legislation in terms of sensitive information?
Let's not forget that the process of "classifying" information is often used to cover up incompetence and, sometimes, even worse crimes.



That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."

While it's unfortunate, I view as minor inconvenience. The main reason bin Laden was allowed a free reign is a timid and inconsistent US policy. Bending over backward, advocating tin-pot dictators and pretending Saudis and PLO are "allies in war on terror" is much worse then leakage of small amount of a tactical level intelligence.
...


Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.
...
The incentive part does not follow from the rest of the article, but I'll leave up to Krauthammer .

Ian Murray
21-11-2009, 11:15 AM
Military did have the jurisdiction as Afghanistan refused to hand the suspects over to US, thus providing a reason for war.
CIA and the military, by Presidential decree for a limited time, can act offshore but not within USA. The Bush administration's repeated efforts to cobble together military tribunals to try terrorism suspects held in Gitmo were inept, with a nebulous legal basis, and failed. Over a ten-year period, mind - they couldn't get it right because the legal flaws remained. So much for military courts.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed and You (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911u/prosecuting-sheik-mohammed)
by Andrew Cohen
The Atlantic 16 November 2009


...as a direct result of the strength of our Constitution and the concomitant failure of its political and legal stewards, one of these dark, sinister men is coming to Manhattan, to a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero, for a federal civilian trial. The tabloids already have turned this mortal man into a monster. The very same politicians whose failed compromises stalled the tribunals in Cuba for nearly a decade now suddenly are projecting their own failures upon the federal courts. Suddenly the so-called rule of law isn’t good enough; suddenly it’s the federal judiciary and federal prosecutors who are inept....

What about a Mohammed trial here in the States makes you so angry? Do you think he shouldn’t get the same rights as you? Okay, that’s fair. But so what? The Gitmo tribunals were stalled, dead in the water, so aren’t you willing to sacrifice your feeling of indignation for the quicker conviction and sentence Mohammed’s civilian trial almost surely will bring? Aren’t you willing to set aside your rage at his treatment for the diplomatic and political benefits America will receive from giving the guy an open trial? Don’t you think that treating Mohammed and his colleagues like common criminals is precisely the right message to send to the world about terrorism and al-Qaeda? Don’t you think it hurts their cause to be considered murderers and not jihadist soldiers?

Are you distrustful of the federal judiciary? Why, because you believe the dangerous lie about how judges are ruining the rest of the government’s war on terrorism? Have you taken the time to look at the track record that federal prosecutors have in successfully trying terror suspects in New York? Can you name a single case where the feds lost a major terror trial since September 11, 2001? Can you name one from before the terrible events that day? Is Tim McVeigh walking around Buffalo today? Is Terry Nichols walking around Kansas? Is Ramzi Youssef back in Brooklyn or Zacarias Moussaoui out on an airfield trying to fly planes in Minnesota? Have you heard from Jose Padilla or Richard Reid lately?...

antichrist
21-11-2009, 07:41 PM
What I have noticed sticking up through the cracks that the basis of terrorism recruiting is poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity - I don't doubt this at all. And what creates such a disparity etc is third world non socialist and exploitative conditions.

Nothing to lose but their chains.

Give them some hope in life and they will be constructive not destructive. I don't think that they should be subject to capital punishment - they have already been subjected to capitalism and exploitation.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-11-2009, 09:04 PM
What I have noticed sticking up through the cracks that the basis of terrorism recruiting is poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity - I don't doubt this at all.

No, the only basis of terrorism is it's effectiveness as weapon.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2009, 05:17 PM
The big problem I have with the trial (apart from the various prejudicial statements about how it won't fail) is that it is being held in the city where the attacks are committed, making the prospect of an even remotely detached jury impossible. Under such circumstances a military tribunal would be preferable since it would be no more unfair and would generate less stage-managed hoo-ha from the defendant.

I think the option of a civil trial held somewhere else in the USA and preferably with jurors drawn from a range of states would be a good one but the present trial has all the makings of a trainwreck.

As for "international law" it is a joke, always has been and probably always will be.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-11-2009, 08:37 PM
As for "international law" it is a joke, always has been and probably always will be.
Crime was committed in US, accused is currently in US. what does it have to do with international court anyway?
your assessment is correct, but a bit light.

Ian Murray
24-11-2009, 09:53 PM
Crime was committed in US, accused is currently in US. what does it have to do with international court anyway?.
Nothing at all at the moment, but I threw it in as a poll option as some might prefer to see the establishment of an international court, similar to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Capablanca-Fan
28-11-2009, 02:21 PM
Clemency for terrorists but not our soldiers? (http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2009/11/27/clemency_for_terrorists_but_not_our_soldiers)
by Diana West
27 Nov 2009

...
We must recognize and protest the travesties of military justice that have tried, convicted, jailed and denied clemency to all too many brave Americans, the same brave Americans who have fought our wars only to be unfairly charged with "murder" in the war zone.

Readers of this column will recall the crushing conviction of Sgt. Evan Vela, a young Ranger-trained sniper and father of two from Idaho, for executing his superior's 2006 order to kill an Iraqi man who at the time has been compromising his squad's hiding place in the pre-"surge" Sunni triangle. Ten years in Fort Leavenworth, ordered not-so-blind justice. (There is evidence that Evan's harsh sentence was a blatant political offering to Iraq's government.) One reason behind my intense distaste for George W. Bush — my own personal Bush Derangement Syndrome — is the former president's callousness toward such Americans as Sgt. Vela, who served their commander in chief well in these difficult times of war. As the Bush administration came to an end, talk of a presidential pardon for Vela leaked to the media, no doubt elating the Vela family, but, cruelly, nothing came of it. ...

If this exercise elicits any pangs amid the general sense of holiday well being, good. Maybe it will help Americans see the urgent need for clemency in these cases. And particularly given the mind-boggling fact that the United States has been granting clemency in Iraq to the most murderous detainees our soldiers were sent to fight in the first place. ...

I don't mean to equate Iraqi and Iranian terrorists with U.S. soldiers. But I do mean to question a government that frees its enemies in a sham of "reconciliation" and leaves its soldiers to rot in a sham of "justice." ...

Capablanca-Fan
10-12-2009, 03:41 PM
One thing we need lawyer-types for: trying to protect innocent people caught by politically ambitious prosecutors and junk science like allegedly buried memories of child abuse, such as Gerald Amirault in Massachusetts (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ann-coulter/2009/12/10/martha-coakley-too-immoral-for-teddy-kennedys-seat/). He is merely the worst case of innocent people persecuted for non-existent abuse, while nothing happens to the false accusers.

antichrist
10-12-2009, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by antichrist
What I have noticed sticking up through the cracks that the basis of terrorism recruiting is poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity - I don't doubt this at all.

Igor
No, the only basis of terrorism is it's effectiveness as weapon.

A/C
Well you will find that the experts disagree with you, that is why the Aussie forces in Afganistan have turned to infrastructure projects as well as the gun - they know that these people need help and that is why they have turned to terrorism and poppy growing.