As the Obama administration develops a comprehensive strategy and architecture to bring terrorists to justice, conservatives continue to politicize and fearmonger this critical national security issue. Whether its inane assertions that terrorists will kidnap Mayor Bloomberg's daughter, that Democrats may actually want another terrorist attack because they want to create jobs or that Illinois will be ground zero for terrorist attacks and jihad recruitment, when it comes to combating terror, conservatives are simply unhinged. But while they demonize our judicial system, and lambast the ability of the men and women working in our prison system and law enforcement to keep our communities safe, they neglect the fact that trying terrorists in civilian courts -- and following the rule of law -- is one of our best strategies for combating extremism. It takes critical recruitment tools away from the terrorists and underscores the foundations of our democracy that separates America from its enemies.
The men and women of our military fight every day to defend our judicial system, the constitution and the bedrock principals of American power. And conservatives who insists on disparaging these institutions for political gain denigrate the very core of American society. As 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser said: "To be clear, the only danger posed by prosecuting men like KSM in an open court in New York is the red alert it poses to the Republican Party's faltering reputation in fighting their "war on terror."'
The Obama administration acknowledges the task of developing a comprehensive strategy to detain and try terrorists is not easy. That is one reason why they've admitted they won't reach the January deadline to close Guantanamo. But it is more important to get this policy right than to rush to some ad hoc and potentially confused conclusion. That was the approach of the Bush administration, which failed to both bring terrorists to justice and keep America safe. In the wake of these failures, the Obama administration is taking a careful and methodical approach to right these wrongs. This will roll back the recruitment tools the previous administration brought to our enemies while restoring the foundations of American democracy.
By implementing this strategy, the Obama administration will finally bring those who attacked us on 9/11 to justice and put into place a system that works within the rule of law and constitutional constraints. This critical course correction will not be easy, but Obama's constructive approach differs greatly with the counterproductive and politicized rhetoric conservatives continue to spew which in the end, works to undermine America's national security.
Conservative Myth: Obama administration's plans for imprisoning terrorist suspects in the U.S. makes us less safe. Over the weekend, Rep. David Manzullo (R - IL) and Senate candidate Mark Steven Kirk wrote, with fear-mongering rhetoric, that "[a]s home to America's tallest building, we should not invite Al Qaeda to make Illinois its No. 1 target."
Reality: The U.S. has a stellar record of safely keeping hardened terrorists behind bars. In 2007, 60 Minutes reported on the Supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado, which holds dozens of terrorists who were convicted in civilian court, including: Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the September 11, 2001 attacks; Ramzi Yusef and Omar Abdel-Rahman, convicted for masterminding the first World Trade Center attack; and Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber. According to the former warden there, "Most prisoners spend up to 23 hours a day in their cells, every minute, every meal."
Conservative Myth: Trials will be a propaganda vehicle for Al-Qaeda. "The suspects are going to "make it a circus and use it as a platform to push their ideology."
Reality: America's best legal traditions will "put Jihad on trial." Writing in the New York Times today, Council on Foreign Relations counterterrorism expert Steven Simon writes: "Historically, the public exposure of state-sponsored mass murder or terrorism through a transparent judicial process has strengthened the forces of good and undercut the extremists. The Nuremberg trials were a classic case. And nothing more effectively alerted the world to the danger of genocide than Israel's prosecution in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat who engineered the Holocaust."
Conservative Myth: Trying terrorists in federal courts gives them the advantage: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani criticized the plan to try 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, saying on CNN's State of the Union that "It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists and why would you want to give an advantage to the terrorists, and it poses risks for New York."
Reality: Federal courts are one of America's best tools for bringing terrorists to justice. A 2009 report by Human Rights First written by a team of former federal prosecutors found that "of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. This is a conviction rate of 91.121%."
Conservative Myth: 9/11 terrorists tried in New York will be found not guilty. "The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found 'not guilty' due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."
Reality: New York City Courts have never acquitted anyone of terrorist charges. According to NYU's center on Law and Security, New York City courts have a zero acquittal rate for terrorism cases.
This is the kind of trial, as was the trial of Eichmann, that could be discussed AFTER the enemy has been defeated and there is no need to keep intelligence classified. This trial, as the with the U-Boat example, is timed incredibly wrong given that we still have soldiers in the field fighting the war in which KSM was captured, and who's daily success and failure relies of the very same intelligence streams used to track KSM.
Also, good job using the Eichmann example as the rule and ignoring the Nuremberg military tribunals as some inconsequential side show not worthy of mentioning. It really displays the author's attention to detail.
Finally, there is a simple connection that all many of the terrorists tried in federal court share: They were arrested by civilian police forces on American soil while breaking American laws.
Think about what a trial and conviction does:
-It makes bin Laden a human being on the run, rather than a shadowy ghost under everyone's bed.
-It highlights the failure of the Bush administration to catch him
-It undermines the entire concept of fighting terrorism as "war". It ISN'T war; it's LAW enforcement.
One more thing: As far as I'm concerned, if the evidence presented against KSM in trial was coerced by the torture of waterboarding, it SHOULD be thrown out and he SHOULD walk. Dammit, I am willing to put lives in danger, including my own (I'm a NY'er) to defend our principles. Bush and Cheney's torture of these detainees is akin to a detective walking into a crime scene and wiping off fingerprints. It's incompetence of the first order, and if a murderer walks to expose that incompetence, then a greater good is served.
I'm guessing you're confusing "Crimes" with "War", like most cons do. "War" is when one country attacks another. A "country" is a politically organized body of people under a single government. We weren't attacked by a country, what actually happened is that a small group of maniacs flew commercial planes into buildings. "Commercial" means "a function of commerce", in this case, as opposed to "military". "Buildings" are tall things with people inside that stick way up in the air where they're easy to hit with hijacked commercial airplanes.
Hope that helps.
the Health Care Reform Act is nothing more than a scheme to syphon off trillions and trillions of taxpayer dollars to Insurance companies. It's not a "reform of Health Care" it's a "government sponsored subsidization of a private company".
What is the point of causing the tax payer millions of dollars to go thru this ordeal if the outcome is already known.
Its a joke and it is meant to put Bush on trial for so called torture when they cannot put Bush on trial normally. Why waste our tax dollars on someting so foolish as this. Also this case will not be sped up, the Army was about to sentence KSM after he plead guilty but Obama stopped the process, it would already be over if he did that. They are lying about the process being delayed.
Interestingly enough, by giving them a civilian trial, we are actually giving them a platform for their brand of radical beliefs.
And where can they find an impartial jury?
Isn't the point of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence?and not merely for show?
Btw, the world has seen enough of how wonderful the American justice system is. Thanks to reality T.V.
This trial a farce that's going to costs millions of dollars.
We are not set on punishing "groups of people". You are missing the point here. KSM is in trial for the attacks on 9/11. This is not some made up story of terror. It happened and if you really want justice, these people who admitted and owned the 9/11 attacks should be punished.
The proposed trial in New York City of the 9/11 terrorists is an invitation to have another terrorist attack on that city. Events in the Middle-East should have taught your president and others that there is no defence against people who think it is an honor to sacrifice their life for Allah. Deliberately exposing the citizens of that city to that terrible danger just to score some political points is irresponsible and very dangerous. Casey Tjooitink, St Catharines, Ontario.
They used feigned fear to manipulate voters.
Perfectly stated. These conservative wants to be seen as the only one that knows how to fight terror when they had no clue of what to do when they were in charge. I'm glad to see more 9/11 family speak out like that. Obama is doing the job Bush was too incompetent to do now they're trying to prevent Obama from doing it.
(except in addition to being incompetent, the Bush Administration didn't care about justice)
And why does a 9/11 widow's opinion hold more weight than the average American's opinion when it comes to HOW the terrorist is prosecuted? From what I've read the majority of people want this tried in a Military Court.
(CNN poll yesterday) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091117/ts_alt_afp/usattacksguantanamojusticecourt
If I am to understand your sentiment you want to put Bush and the Republicans on trial more than the terrorist. (as do a majority of the commenters here). So should we be making decisions like this based on political ideologies rather than doing them the way they were done prior to this case?
Republican politicians are not afraid of bringing KSM and the other defendants to NY for trial in the sense that it endangers Americans, although that's what they're spouting.
What are they really afraid of? Success.
The success of President Obama and his Administration in obtaining convictions and demonstrating again to the American people, the utter disregarding the Bush Administration had for our democratic institutions.
He essentially said, "This is smart because I studied it, and it was the smart way to go."
It was pathetic. There is no reason for this drama. It's a huge mistake.
Unless, of course, your intent is to mislead.
I had been reading the blog sites and noticed that nobody had been pointing out that the Republicans looked like Cowards when they talked about bringing the Terrorists to the U.S. for trial. A few days ago I decided to point this out on a few of the Liberal blogs and it has now taken on a life of its own. It is nice to see that your voice is actually being heard. Thank You!!!