Even after witnessing the horrors of 9/11 that included me helplessly watching the murder of my husband on live television, I still believe that we are a civilized nation of laws. And like the Nuremberg trials that brought the murderers of millions to justice, now more than ever, Americans need to trust our own judicial system to fully and openly prosecute the mass murderers of 9/11 while the rest of the world bears witness.
Because while the terrorists were successful in bringing down the Twin Towers and hijacking airplanes on 9/11, our Constitution should never be hijacked or brought down as a result of anything--let alone the potential adversity faced in prosecuting modern day monsters like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Indeed, in the fight against Islamist extremism, we should never bow to the terrorists by compromising, manipulating, re-writing or flat-out ignoring the core, bedrock principles of our Constitution that speak to the very heart of who we are as a nation--a democracy.
Yet, quite alarmingly, Republicans seem to be exhibiting just this sort of crisis of confidence in our Constitution's ability to prosecute these horrible men. Republicans argue that men like KSM are war criminals who can only be convicted in military commissions where they won't receive the protections of our laws. Republicans seem to lack a certain faith in our Constitution's ability and adaptability in meting out the demands of modern day justice.
So the once-brazen, chest-thumping Republicans who preemptively started a war in Iraq, claimed mission accomplished, and ordained that they wanted Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter, are now off crying in a corner lost in their own feigned anger and fear. Complaining that it will be too dangerous. Worried that it will make New York City a target.
First, I've got news for anyone who didn't already know this: New York has been, is, and will always be a terrorist target. That's why many of us wanted millions spent on hardening domestic soft targets like NYC (and mass transportation systems, chemical plants, nuclear plants, borders, etc). But after 9/11, the Bush Administration chose instead to spend billions on starting a war in Iraq.
Indeed, in the quantitative analysis of what truly makes us a terrorist target, holding a trial in the Southern District of New York does not top the list. The war in Iraq wins that contest hands down. And the Bush Administration's illegal torture policies come in at a close second. These are the things that have fomented the most hatred towards Americans and placed us at the highest risk from terrorist attack.
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."
And that is the real reason why Republicans are supporting the use of military
commissions instead of Article III courts. Because military commissions are held in secret. Republicans want the dirty, damning truth about their failed torture policies to remain hidden away from public view. And they'll use every lame excuse in the book to get their way.
God forbid, the truth came out about torture. Imagine the worst--that KSM, one of the world's most heinous terrorists, is set free after the evidence needed to convict him is thrown out because it was illegally obtained through torture. Imagine further that KSM's torture bore no fruit at all--in other words, it provided no information that prevented any attacks or saved any lives. In essence, KSM's torture proved useless and counter-productive. Talk about a public relations nightmare for the party who once with grand cowboy swagger announced that they'd bring 'em all to justice.
But will KSM ever walk free? Absolutely not. First, haven't we all seen enough Law & Order re-runs to know that prosecutors don't proceed with cases unless they know they've got the goods to convict? Not to mention that KSM also made a self-admission about planning the 9/11 attacks on al-Jazeera long before he was captured and tortured by our government. So I'm confident that even taking into account all the mishandling and mistakes made by the Bush Administration, KSM will not be set free.
However, remain cognizant that were such an acquittal even remotely possible, it would not be due to any shortcomings of our nation's 200-year-old, well-established legal process. Nor would it be a result of some wily terrorist making a "mockery of our rule of law." Rather, responsibility for such a ghastly acquittal would fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales--those who in a panic after 9/11, breathlessly ordered the illegal use of torture because they didn't know what else to do. And that, folks, is the big dark dirty secret that Republicans don't want any of us to find out.
But, the prosecutors in the Southern District of NY do know what their doing--especially when it comes to winning terrorist convictions. Moreover, long established safeguards will be in place to protect sources, methods and any other classified information from leaking to the public. In fact, because we are a democracy, KSM will be given a fair trial, in an open courtroom facing certain and swift justice just steps from Ground Zero. And once convicted, he will receive the maximum penalty--death.
When that happens, 8 years after 9/11, justice will have finally prevailed.
Michael Smerconish: KSM: Ready For His Closeup?
Sen. Arlen Specter would like to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial be televised, stemming from a prosecutorial belief that trying him in a federal civilian court is the right decision.
Accused 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed faces New York trial ...
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - KSM - The New York Times
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Can New York Handle Self-Proclaimed Sept ...
As you correctly pointed out, the only thing they have to fear in this regard is their own abrogation of the constitutional protections afforded citizens of the US when accused of a crime. The torture occurred AFTER the confession as I understand it, so I don't think the let the criminal go because the police state acted badly rule applies here. But we shall see. The Justices, including now one wise Latina, will have to decide, ultimately, exactly what it means to be subject to the rule of law in this nation. If they decide to let this/these criminals go, it will be because the Republicans corrupted the rule of law on their watch. It they do so, they had better recognize that the R's won't see it that way, and neither will the public. Instead they will pretend that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld kept them safe and that the law is something they can live without. God forbid.
The venue of prosecution is based on the location of perpetration. The acts were committed in New York, so New is an appropriate venue. The Constitution that so many of our ancestors and relatives have died for calls for trial by jury. It does not say trial by jury except when you don't want to.
Throw out our transparent system of justice and provide more fodder for their propaganda, brilliant.
Critics of the author point out Nuremberg's trials were held several international delegations. Well, those crimes were perpetrated against those several nations. This was against us. We need to address,it here. Otherwise, the perpetrators win.
KSM goes to a civilian court b/c he attacked civilians in the US, while the attackers of the USS Cole go to military tribunals.
The lesson to our enemies is, if you attack a military target outside the US you will have to deal with a military court, but if you attack inside the US you will get a civilian trial with all the protections of the US constitution. The soft targets get softer.
If you were determined to attack US interests what would you attack?
A. A military target
B. A "soft" domestic civilian target
That maybe it was an inside job. No one has ever talked about the "Laptop".
The Nuremberg trials were handled by a multi-national military tribunal, not the US justice system.
Kristen writes a simple, powerful and effective common sense article full of such obvious truth we rarely get to see. How do we respond? In our polarized fact-free America even in the supposed liberal columns of HuffPost we see comment after comment attacking her for simply saying we should follow our own laws.
Just wake up people. KSM wants a military mock trial held in secret with a summary quick execution thereafter. That would make him a martyr and be a far more powerful recruiting tool than any supposed public platform a civilian trial would give him. I heard a Republican arguing we should not give KSM what he wants. He meant bringing him to New York but KSM doesn’t give a monkey’s tail about that. Becoming a martyr is far more important to him.
Trying him according to the laws of the land he attacked turns him into a common criminal and strips away the glory of "freedom fighter" status he would otherwise gain from the tiny but dangerous section of militant Islam.
The real tragedy, however, is that as long as the media continues to present these hucksters and sloganeers as if they were worthy of serious consideration, we will be forced to contend with them for the future of the country. Such is life this great country.
This is such appeasment so we look "nice" to the world. I think it is playing with fire.
Do you think our constitution provides that 12 rapists are required to make up the jury for a trial of a rapist? Or only 12 serial killers can sit in judgment of an accused serial killer? Is that really what you think is meant by a "jury of his peers?"
Enemy combatant: The more appropriate designation simply because we routinely bomb Afghanistan and Pakistan to take out these enemy combatants. No Miranda, just death from above. If we would of just bombed these guys back to he!! this wouldn't even be an issue.
Criminal: What is one of the first things we do to a criminal when we arrest them? Read them their rights.
Now, since we have treated these terrorists as enemy combatants all along, how can we change their status to that of a criminal and actually think we're going to get justice? "The right to a speedy trial." Just based on this alone, the cases could be thrown out.