A Reasonable Arguement for Trying KSM

So trying the Japanese in the IMT (0.00 / 0)

post World War II wasn't a good example of American values? Wait a minute. It couldn't have been that bad because there are plans to use military tribunals right now for some of the GITMO detainees.

Besides, I think politicians are about the last people who should be lecturing anyone on American values or the Rule of Law.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 14:36:11 PM CST

As Nadler said, (0.00 / 0)

tribunals are meant for enemies captured on the battlefield. KSM was not.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 14:42:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

KSM kind of was (0.00 / 0)

captured on the battlefield. He was captured in Pakistan and it was not even by us as far as I can tell.

.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:01:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How is Pakistan the battlefield? (0.00 / 0)

We have no troops there. He was arrested by Pakistani police.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:35:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well al Qaida (0.00 / 0)

seems to think that Pakistan is a battlefield and Washington DC's definition of battlefield is rather outdated and/or sorely lacking.

The fact that large numbers of AQ, the Taliban, and other Wahhabi jihadis call Pakistan home leave no doubt in my mind that Pakistan is a battlefield. In fact, I'd say there are more Taliban/AQ in Pakistan than Afghanistan.

Besides, KSM was captured in Pakistan by Pakistanis(I actually heard ISI). Zacharias Moussaoui was tried in civilian courts, but he was captured on American soil by American law enforcement.

Same deal in World War II times. Nazi spies caught by the FBI in the United States were prosecuted through the American court system. The rest of the Nazi war criminals had to settle for the Nuremberg tribunals.

Sorry but the case for KSM to go through American courts is weak. I'd be inclined to say weak and politically motivated, but definitely weak, especially given the fact that no one is saying that they should not be tried.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 16:05:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

A "Thank You", finally admitting that we are now at War with Pakistan and it isn't a false third front, been waiting for that one to come out as well, as many of us already know and understand that, also the hatreds being expanded because of our actions over their border, not only as to some Pakistanies but the Region, ramping up the potential enemies, i.e. criminal terrorist, for the future generations!!!

'Hearts and Minds, "The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live there." -- President Lyndon Johnson

---

by: jimstaro @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 07:04:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry but (0.00 / 0)

I just don't see where that logic holds up. If such logic were true, then why are we not seeing terrorist attacks against the US perpetrated by Serbs? Unlike Afgh/Pak, bombing Serbia had nothing to do with our national security. Or for that matter, why no terrorist attacks in the United States by the Shiites?

 

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 20:22:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To elaborate further (0.00 / 0)

AQ views everywhere as the battlefield, including Karachi where KSM was allegedly captured.

At the same end, Hideki Tojo was not technically captured on a battlefield, yet it was decided that military tribunals were good enough for him.

Maybe Nadler needs to read some history and take a day off from politics educating himself on AQ and Co. For that matter, maybe he should take a little extra time to listen to bin Laden's two declarations of war.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 15:20:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Libertarian in me hearts Judge Napolitano (0.00 / 0)

Btw Fred, the judge also references the problem with comparing this to  WWII Japan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

here comes the judge... here comes the judge...

---

by: Ernie1812 @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 17:58:55 PM CST

Well (0.00 / 0)

Unlike most of our politicians, especially much of the Left, I generally hold the Libertarians in high esteem, Judge Napolitano included. The Libertarians do tend to be rather principled individuals I must say.

That said, I am going to have to disagree with the Judge on this one.

A. Al Qaida is a global insurgency vice a terrorist organization, one who has proven itself capable of waging war with the US and did declare war on the US twice. A strong case could also be made that they served as a shadow government in Afghanistan. The fact that they are not a recognized government is a technicality, one that they probably knew about and decided to take full advantage of. The Geneva Conventions also refer to them as Unlawful Combatants, which means they are afforded no protections whatsoever. A strong argument could also be made that AQ and Co are mercenaries, which receive no protections either. At the same end, why would al Qaida want to wage traditional war?

B. The preferred Arab method of warfare is generally proxy war, and I have seen a lot of circumstantial evidence indicating AQ to be a proxy of Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately such a fact will likely not be concretely proven, as our government seems to want to do anything but investigate matters pertaining to Saudi Arabia. Of course there is also circumstantial evidence to indicate that the Saudis did 9/11, evidence which I highly doubt has gotten a serious look.

I respect Napolitano's opinion but am still going to have to disagree with the judge here. Why should al Qaida receive more rights and privileges than the Japanese did when the Japanese, brutal as they were, did play by the rules to a point?

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 22:15:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What are the exact definitions (0.00 / 0)

of a "global insurgency" and a "terrorist organization". Just so we're clear.

And al Qaeda was never anything close to a shadow government of Afghanistan. They rented space, that's the most you can say for them.

I'm on twitter.

---

by: Richard Allen Smith @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 22:53:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There are no exact definitions but the textbook says (0.00 / 0)

Insurgency-An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.

Al Qaida certainly meets that definition rather clearly

Terrorism- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Al Qaida indulges in that one as well. But from what I have seen, they are more involved in insurgency operations vice terror attacks. Terrorism also happens to be a tactic not an ideology and labeling them a terror organization leads many to believe that they are similar to groups like the IRA, which they clearly are not even in the same league. That said, I think the Global Insurgency label makes much more sense.

As for being a shadow government, I am not saying that they were that for sure, but they were doing more than renting space IMHO. I don't think the Taliban govt could have survived or beaten the Northern Alliance without assistance from AQ and their Gulf Arab financers. That said, AQ is predomiantly Arab and was paid much, much more than the average Taliban conscript as I understand it, which would clearly make them mercenaries.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 18:27:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fred, because the US decared war on Japan. (0.00 / 0)

Had we declared war on AQ then the situation would be different but we didn't so we are where we are.

---

by: Ernie1812 @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 17:21:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

that doesn't speak well of us at the moment. In fact, it points to the fact that we are either too dumb to collectively realize that we are in a war or sorely lacking the intestinal fortitude to admit that we are in a war.

Not taking either side on the pro vs anti-war debate there, but we are in a war. That is not debatable.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 18:53:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Though (0.00 / 0)

I must give you credit on that one. The Judge did put forth the best argument I have heard for civilian trials, an argument that was also free of political rhetoric.

Though I still think it's clear that AQ has found a loophole in our system and are exploiting it. Regardless of what happens to KSM, that loophole needs to be closed.

---

by: FredUSMC @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 22:20:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Reply (4.00 / 1)

I'm not watching the videos, at least at this point, because I have two three year olds that make it virtually impossible to hear all the details.  However, I have my own ideas about the use of tribunals vs. civilian courts.

The first is developmental.  The tribunals most often cited as an example of what we should do are the Nuremburg tribunals.  What most people forget now is that the tribunals were offered as an alternative to direct retributive justice - i.e., the direct and immediate execution of enemy combatants.  Churchill wanted British Parliament to pass a Bill of Attainder to relieve the courts of any jurisdiction in doing so, and Stalin wanted to kill roughly fifty or a hundred thousand German soldiers.  Largely the idea of Henry Stimson, the military tribunal had to deal with crimes committed in multiple jurisdictions under multiple legal systems.  Just as importantly, the Germans agreed to its special jurisdiction in their surrender.

This leads to the second argument for use of civilian courts: jurisdiction.  KSM is accused mostly of crimes committed on US soil - the attacks against the WTC, the US Bank Tower plot in LA, the Millennium Plot, etc.  Because there is no shared jurisdiction on these crimes, it is clear that the United States has jurisdiction.  The only two actions that aren't clearcut are the murder of Daniel Pearl and the Bali bombing.  With Pearl, the US can claim jurisdiction because it was against a US citizen.  The United States really has no jurisdiction over Bali, though.

The third argument against the military tribunal is based on constitutional superiority.  The Constitution is primarily a limitation of the powers of government.  The rights given to the accused in civilian courts are severe limitations on the actions of our government.  So, too, are the civilian courts seen as preferable for the sake of justice than are military courts.  While the Constitution is also not a suicide pact, I do not see how allowing the trial to proceed in a civilian court is anything close to suicide.

A fourth argument is purely for PR purposes.  Trying these guys in a military court gives them the status of being at war with the United States.  Trying them in a civilian court reduces them to the status of a common criminal.  In effect, it cheats them out of the victory of claiming to be at war with the Great Satan.

---

by: ThurmanHart @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 08:00:46 AM CST

I like that idea (0.00 / 0)

Let's give AQ and Co. the option of surrendering and facing tribunals or facing termination. AQ's status of unlawful combatants puts such a policy well within our right to carry out.

As for PR, AQ and Co. are at war with the Great Satan whether we like it or not. PR exercises will only make us look like idiotic sissies in that regard. If we don't want AQ and Co. to be at war with the US, maybe we should do something that is actually constructive, like changing the policies that actually put AQ at war with the US(IE:Support for Arab tyrannies.)

That or we could ensure that they are no longer at war with the US by destroying them. It's kind of hard to be at war with the Great Satan if you don't exist.  

---

by: FredUSMC @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 18:47:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]