Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Is Trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York a Mistake?
President Obama and Attorney General Holder have decided to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Federal Court in New York City just a few blocks away from the 9/11 terrorist attack. Republicans have been hyper critical of this decision including former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Vice President Dick Cheney. Is it a mistake to hold this trial in Federal Court as opposed to a military tribunal and if not, is it a mistake to hold the trial in New York City?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course Cheney is against having an open trial in a US Federal Court. Testimony about how he authorized torture and other war crimes is bound to come out. He also wanted Libby pardoned because he was afraid Libby would spil the beans about how he outed Valarie Plane in retaliation for his lie that was revealed by Joe Wilson. The man has no credibility and like Bush, he should just shut up.
ReplyDeleteI am concerned that so many prominent people have already stated that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be tried, convicted and executed including President Obama. It will be very difficult to pick a jury that hasn't already heard this and has some intellgence.
ReplyDeleteThe woman who is the leader of the 9/11 widows who got Bush to adopt and implament the recommendations of the 9/11 commission has stated that she thinks trying the terrorists in New York is the right thing to do. If she thinks it's the right thing to do, then that's good enough for me.
ReplyDeleteI think that the principal consideration should be what is in our country's best interest. Will someone explain to me how giving these bastards a world wide platform to spew their hatred is in our country's best interest?
ReplyDeleteI think that the principal consideration should be our adhearance to our constitution and our laws. I think that what ever hateful rhetoric these "bastards" spew, it will not only be seen as just that, irrational hatred, but also that no matter how repugnant the crime, we will comply with the law.
ReplyDeleteFirst, it is silly to think that trying KSM in a civilian court makes this any more "in compliance with the law". The alternative, military tribunals, are also compliant with the law and for some terror suspects, Eric Holder has chosen to conduct these trials using military tribunals. Obama continues to push the storyline that somehow Bush and Cheney were acting unlawfully and that we need to follow the "rule of law". But Obama and Holder have virtually guaranteed that KSM will be convicted so I ask you where is the "rule of law" when the President has convicted the defendant before the trial has even begun?
ReplyDeleteSecond, Patrtick is correct in that this is all about politics as Obama appears to want to expose Bush and Cheney's "corrupt practices" ... practices that Obama himself is actually utilizing (e.g. Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, military tribunals). So I ask you, if this is just playing politics -- what are we supposed to make of Obama? He appears to be willing to risk (a) huge disruption of NYC at a minimum; (b) potential violence/terror attack during the trial; (c) exposing our top secret war strategies and intelligence gathering techniques via trial evidence rules, etc.; and (d) most of all, potentially risk a hung jury, an aquittal, a mistrial, or something other than the death penalty for KSM. The fact that our President is willing to accept all of these risks in exchange for a cheap political ploy -- now that's disgraceful.