Will Holder be tried in the same venue as the war criminals?
Are we at war—or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies—that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Ft. McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?
Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?
- Paul Grass™Lv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
0bama and Holder are committing a grievous harm to our nation in my opinion and it is treasonous that they proceed to derail justice for those terrorists, in my opinion!!
- ndmagicmanLv 71 decade ago
No formal declaration of war was ever made, therefore we are not at war.
Al Queda is not a country nor a formal military organization.
The WTC terrorist bombers of 1992 were tried and convicted in civil court in New York (a private building).
The Oklahoma City terrorists bombers were tried and convicted in a civil court (an attack on a federal building).
KSM is being charged with attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (a private building and a federal building) and the deaths of civilian and military personnel.
The Supreme Court just recently ruled that anyone held by the US on US soil (and a military base like Gitmo is considered US soil) is covered by the rights granted by the Constitution of the US.
What Holder is doing is not only proper under the Constitution of the US but it is the right and legally moral thing to do.
- 1 decade ago
Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed their commitment to military commissions in 2006, which have historically been the way that we respond to acts of war. To abandon our two centuries of tradition and to substitute some new civilian procedure as a response to such attacks endangers the security of our country and our national interest.
It was a tragic mistake to decide to abandon the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, which was designed physically and legally to handle these types of cases. It is a further tragic mistake to now bring the detained war combatants into the United States and to employ civilian criminal procedures which were never intended for this type of situation.
- A. E. MoreiraLv 61 decade ago
Unlikely he will be. The article though is completely off base in that it gets the definition of "admitted" wrong. The terrorists have not been admitted to the USA, and thus have no rights and will not have any constitutional rights.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- TootoyLv 71 decade ago
The Attorney General going to trial? Whoa. Another desperate Republican.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Mr. Patriot, I think you are 100 per cent correct. With the likes of heros like you, we will be America again
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Dude you better grab on to something else, those straws look kinda flimsy