Trying KSM in civ court in NYC, like trying Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbo

[Little-Acorn]

The Obama administration announced today, that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (Ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers) would be tried in civilian courts in New York City, not far from where the World Trade Center once stood.

Trying KSM and the rest in civilian courts in New York City, is like trying the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, in civilian courts in Honolulu. The notion is ridiculous to the point of being loony.

These Islamic militant fanatics regard Islam itself, as a sort of nation, or even an entity that supersedes nations. And they are "loyal" to that nation, and fight for it just as the Japanese pilots did.

Did FDR propose trying the Japanese pilots in courts in Hawaii (which was not a U.S. state at the time), or anywhere in the U.S.?

Of course not. He knew we were at war. And we are at war with these militant Islamics... a war they declared against us. We must treat them accordingly: Destroy them by military means, wherever we find them; or, if they surrender, take them prisoner and hold them (without trial) until the conflict is over. That might be a long time.

Some people say we must treat them as the Geneva Convention directs. But the GC only applies to nations that sign it, which these terrorists haven't.

BTW, Something else the Geneva Convention says about combatants like these terrorists, just in case you still want it to apply? The GC says that people who take up arms against your country without wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians, must be treated as spies if captured. Especially those who mingle with your own civilian population, without wearing uniforms, as a means of avoiding detection. And the way you treat spies vcaptured during a time of war, is to give them a field court-martial, line them up against a wall, and shoot them. Or hang them, either way is OK.

So if you want these terrorists to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, I don't think that's appropriate. But I'm willing to make an exception in their case.

[Kathianne]

The Obama administration announced today, that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (Ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers) would be tried in civilian courts in New York City, not far from where the World Trade Center once stood.

Trying KSM and the rest in civilian courts in New York City, is like trying the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor, in civilian courts in Honolulu. The notion is ridiculous to the point of being loony.

These Islamic militant fanatics regard Islam itself, as a sort of nation, or even an entity that supersedes nations. And they are "loyal" to that nation, and fight for it just as the Japanese pilots did.

Did FDR propose trying the Japanese pilots in courts in Hawaii (which was not a U.S. state at the time), or anywhere in the U.S.?

Of course not. He knew we were at war. And we are at war with these militant Islamics... a war they declared against us. We must treat them accordingly: Destroy them by military means, wherever we find them; or, if they surrender, take them prisoner and hold them (without trial) until the conflict is over. That might be a long time.

Some people say we must treat them as the Geneva Convention directs. But the GC only applies to nations that sign it, which these terrorists haven't.

BTW, Something else the Geneva Convention says about combatants like these terrorists, just in case you still want it to apply? The GC says that people who take up arms against your country without wearing uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians, must be treated as spies if captured. Especially those who mingle with your own civilian population, without wearing uniforms, as a means of avoiding detection. And the way you treat spies vcaptured during a time of war, is to give them a field court-martial, line them up against a wall, and shoot them. Or hang them, either way is OK.

So if you want these terrorists to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, I don't think that's appropriate. But I'm willing to make an exception in their case.

Serious wrong here:

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/11/13/breaking-khalid-sheikh-mohammad-to-face-trial-in-ny-civilian-court.php


Breaking: Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Face Trial in NY Civilian Court
Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: November 13, 2009 - 6:42 AM
This has "terrible mistake" written all over it. The AP is reporting the news:


Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.
The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.

The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

It is also a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method - waterboarding, or simulated drowning - was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Holder will also announce that a major suspect in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will face justice before a military commission, as will a handful of other detainees to be identified at the same announcement, the official said.

My first question is why is KSM being tried in a civilian court while Abd al-Rahim an Nashiri is facing a military commission? I don't know enough about civilian versus military trials regarding these two men to offer any intelligent analysis, so I am waiting for Andy McCarthy to weigh in. As I'm sure many of you know, Andy McCarthy successfully prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. I'd like to hear if Andy thinks, as I do, that this a terrible idea to try KSM this way because it would put at risk so many national security secrets regarding how KSM was captured.

McCarthy's post for today:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNjZTljN2MxMGI4MTJkNTMxODA4YjA5MGNiMmRlYWM=


September 10? It’s Worse Than That
We are ignoring the best tools we have for fighting terrorism. Why?

By Andrew C. McCarthy

‘September 10 America.” The phrase signifies a reprise of the “terrorism is just a crime” mindset that reigned in the years before the 9/11 attacks. Like other observers, I’ve groused in recent months that we are back to that self-destructive ethos. I was wrong. If the Fort Hood atrocity tells us anything, it is that things are much worse than they were before 9/11.

For one thing, 9/11 has happened. Before it did, perhaps we had an excuse. But we’ve experienced the wages of consciously avoiding Islamism. To have retreated into puerile fantasies about a religion of peace is, at this juncture, unfathomable....

...So the FBI ignores the significance of a terrorist cleric’s influence over an unabashed Islamist in our midst. After all, their contacts seemed to be religious in nature. We’re told, moreover, that we can’t do anything about the anti-American vitriol oozing out of Islamist mosques under the guidance of our friends the Saudis. After all, the vitriol hasn’t yet “crossed the line into material support.” By the time it does, you might have 13 corpses to tend to, but at least there will be lots to talk about at the next outreach conference — or the next time the attorney general decides to speak at a CAIR-fest.

The post-9/11 era was supposed to be about knocking down walls that obstructed effective counterterrorism. But behold the new wall, more insidious than its suicidal Nineties forerunner: the arbitrary barrier separating terrorism from “protected” incitement — the cagey, generalized, non-specific jihadist rhetoric that is the Islamist cleric’s stock-in-trade. Aside from not being required by law, this new wall will usually mean you can't go after the worst actors (the Islamic authorities and the terrorists they inspire) until after an attack has happened and Americans have been killed.

In other words, be prepared for more Fort Hoods. We’re not in September 10 America. We’ve managed to land in a much more dangerous place.

[Missileman]

You can solve the whole situation in a jiffy. Let the judge give them bail...$1.

However, the day before their bail is set, you take out a front page ad in every newspaper in the US, and broadcast on every US TV station to announce the exact time these scumbags will be walking out the front door of the courthouse and then simply push them out the door at the alotted time.