United States Senator Arlen Specter -- former chairman and current member of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- would like to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's federal court trial be televised.
"I'd be for that. Absolutely," the senator told me one day after questioning Attorney General Eric Holder about the decision to bring KSM to the Southern District of New York. "I would let the world see exactly what went on -- how calculating, how ruthless, how brutal they were, how devoid of any humanity. Contrasted with the decorum of federal court, where they are accorded rights, where they are treated with dignity."
At the outset of our conversation, Specter said that the attacks of September 11, 2001, were perpetrated on American soil where legal tradition prescribes that those criminals be prosecuted here. A worldwide audience will be reminded of the horrific details of those events, Specter said, while those "who are not involved one way or another who are watching what we do with Guantanamo, watching what we do in our trials, will say, "You've got to hand it to the Americans. They're giving them all those rights and they're willing to use their values and not to be intimidated and I like them.'"
Pennsylvania's longest serving U.S. senator knows the implications of what he said. The man cut his political teeth more than four decades ago as Philadelphia's hard charging district attorney -- a Republican during a watershed Democratic era. As a young lawyer he was tapped to work on the Warren Commission. No doubt he was thinking of the Nuremberg trials when he invoked the "American values" and the "great many safeguards" the country will extend "to these blaggards."
He's also well aware of the arguments that support the current prohibition of cameras in federal criminal trials. Though the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have recently approved legislation that would allow cameras in federal courtrooms, neither was brought up for a full vote.
Specter said his support for broadcasting the proceedings stems from a prosecutorial belief that trying KSM in a federal civilian court is the right decision. The evidence is sufficient, he told me, as will be the security measures taken.
The "dominant factor" in his mind will be the contrast between America and the "bloody, ruthless, murderous terrorists" seated in a court that has never acquitted an alleged terrorist.
"The war against terrorism is going to be won in the minds and hearts of men. It is a battle of democracy versus fundamentalism, and by using our regular judicial system, we are showing the world the superiority of our democratic principles and our values," he said.
What about the men and women defending those principles in Afghanistan and Iraq? Senator Specter told me we're "fortifying them" by instilling a "confidence that they're defending a system of values that they can be proud of."
"When they're fighting terrorists wherever they might be, those terrorists are not totally stupid. I think that there are some who may well be ashamed and who may well be persuaded by the superiority of the way we're handling" terror trials in domestic courtrooms.
Not that Specter believes that every suspected terrorist needs to be flown to the U.S. to make that point. To the contrary, He called the objections of those who envision American soldiers reading Miranda rights to Osama bin Laden unfounded. "If you have battlefield conduct, that preeminently qualifies for the commission. And where you have the blowing up of the ship in Yemen -- our Naval ship in Yemen -- there's been a decision to move ahead with the commission. So there is a good distinction which justifies what we're doing here and doesn't tie us down in future matters," he said.
Nor does he tolerate any confusion between his desire for due process with a refusal to mete punishment. Lest his critics think he has gone soft on terrorism, consider his response to concerns that KSM's trial could turn into a circus. "If he turns it into a spectacle, he can be shackled." Or removed from the courtroom and forced to watch on closed circuit TV. "We've got answers to all of those issues as a result of centuries of judicial procedure," he said.
Can we afford so many lost hours of people 'hooked' on watching the proceedings.
Apart from the incredible expense - let's have it over and done with as soon as possible.
It's manna for Al Queda and it will not do America any good to make a bun-fest of the event - rather the reverse will happen.
"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"
How do wingnuts keep track of which talking point is active for each day?
I think the Obama Administration wants to do the same for the terrorists who actually did succeed in blowing up the twin towers. Trying him in a military trial would give KSM some credibility for being a "combatant" in a global war. We need to take that power and prestige away from him. He is a criminal.....and a horrible, amoral one at that.
He will not get off.....there is too much evidence gathered before the WB.
It will not surprise me if instead of a vigorous defense by the accused we will see a presentation of the radicalized islamic claims of grievances and the call for further jihad in the most long-term, persistent and militant sense. Our system is set up with a presumption of innocence and a desire by the defense to defend themselves from wrongful accusations. It all falls apart when the defendant does not want either of those two things and when the defendant most above all want the attention of the public.
This is not a civil case. It is about an enemy conducting war. The fact that it cannot be attributed to a soveriegn state has complicated the matter but the undeniable truth is that this is not a case of murder but a war crime.
We will see this problem of perception should Major Hasan's act of treason (not terror) come to a civil trial.
Why have our experts taken to buzzwords as they pander to the media instead of coming up with rational and established approaches which have been shown to work? I have my suspicion.
And how would he be viewed as less of a martyr if he were put in front of a military tribunal?
On the one hand, Obama assassinates terrorists with Hell Fire missiles fired from drones (which is fine by me). That makes him judge jury and executioner. They are treated with the presumption of guilt.
On the other hand, we catch one of these thugs red handed and give him the old innocent until proven guilty routine.
Yet if this were true, why would Holder say there will be only one outcome to the trial. I would think his attitude would be to let the jury decide. Otherwise, why give him the trial?
Face it, it's all for show. It's the beginning of a huge soap opera. Don't be surprised in the end when this scheme backfires.
Yes or No. simple.
Rule of law or no. very simple. Yes or No.
Torture or no. extremely simple. Yes or No.
What is it you Rethugs do believe in that is genuinely American. Or perhaps you do not believe in America and it's advertized values. Simple. Yes or No.
Here's the bottom line. Are you Rethugs fascists or just anarcharists. One or the other is your answer. Pick.
This man was picked up on the field of battle. The Geneva Convention applies. Not the Constitution of the United states.
This is going to be a thorn in the side of the administration for the rest of its four years. I hope you enjoy the show.
There are very good arguments for and against this.
Nobody knows the impact of this on our welfare and on our cherished constitution.
I pray for the best for our country and our President that this is the right course of action.
Do we want to give enemy combatants our civil rights> Its a difficult but important queston.
Yousef Head of the 1993 WTC B0mbers was caught in Pakistan.
Just a few other al qaeda members tried and convicted in FEDERAL court, who are now serving time in Federal prison (nearly all arrested overseas).
--Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad: Al qaeda member. Bin Laden spiritual adviser. Convicted of financing al qaeda and Ham.as. Arrested in Germany. Arrest and conviction hailed by George W Bush as major bIow to al qaeda.
--Abdul Hakim Murad: Convicted in Federal court. Al qaeda member serving life in ADX Florence, Colorado. Arrested in the Philippines
--Ahmed Mohammad Ajaj: Al qaeda member serving 115 years for First World Trade Center bo.mbings.
--Ahmed Omar Abu Ali: Al qaeda member serving 30 years in prison for providing support in plot to kiII former president GWB. Arrested in Saudi Arabia. Went through 'Extraordinary rendition" for 20 months.
--El Sayyid Nosair: Al qaeda member. Convicted of World trade center bom.bing. Serving 240 years in prison. Arrested in Jordan.
--Khalfan Khamis Mohamed: Al qaeda member. Convicted of 1998 embassy bo.mbing in Tanzania. Arrested in Cape Town, South Africa. Serving life sentence.
--Mahmud Abouhalima: Al qaeda member. Convicted of world trade Center bo.mbing. Sentenced to life. Arrested in Egypt.
--Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali: Al qaeda member. Convicted of world Trade Center bom.bing. Sentenced to life.
--Mohammed Saddiq Odeh: al qaeda member serving life for 1998 US embassy bombing. Arrested in Pakistan.
It should make sure the the jury is never shown, parts where certain secret information needes to be presented, the feed it strictly controlled by the Judge, and be cut if any Defendant or their counsel beheaves inappropiately.
What changed?
It's also outrageous--really so--that the nation's top attorney would push so hard for trial in a specific place for any reason other than the strictly legal. All this noise about the poetic justice of a trial right there where the attack took place, etc., is just setting up reason for appeal. If I were a defense attorney, first thing I'd do is run tape of Holder and people on cable news talking about how important it is to hold the trial there, etc., and the point would be obvious. Trials are not supposed to be venues for emotional catharsis, and when they're announced in advance as such, it only sets up the possibility of an appeal later on.
And finally: Progressives shouldn't be so quick to have a kneejerk response to conservative opposition to the trial in NY. Yeah, most of it is "anything the White House wants, I'm against"; but there really are tremendous security concerns and the heightened possibility of skewed process.
I said that there were security concerns, and there are--very serious and substantial ones. But I did not say that the trial should be moved solely because of that, nor that "writing" so by me or by anybody else ought to be the reason for a transfer of venue. What an odd thing to say. Do you mean to say that you thought I believed the trial should be moved merely on somebody's statement (mine or anyone else's)? Or that it shouldn't be moved even if the people in charge discover an irremediable threat to security? What?
And I am quite aware--as, again, I also implied--that the venue is (allegedly) in NYC because of the location of the attack. ("Allegedly" because in five other cases, military tribunals are just fine with Holder, an essentially unjustifiable inconsistency.)
And, just for clarification, I fully support the decision to try KSM in a civilian court in New York City and believe that it would be the best thing to happen in America's long war in a very, very long time. Of course, that would assume that every judicial and democratic detail of it is broadcast far, wide and live - especially throughout the Muslim world. I would go so far as to hope that the terrorist-in-chief himself will be within earshot of a television - he and his ilk might finally get a clue as to what they are up against in the war of ideas.
I would allow cameras but only if the judge was strong enough to reign in the theatrics and proper decorum. That's going to be a tough job with such a volatile defendent and a mega-high profile crime such as this.
I'm not talking about allowing cameras in the courtroom a la OJ - oh my God, perish the thought!
Surely there is a better arrangement that can be worked out that would severely limit the media and render the coverage as unobtrusive as possible.
The Canadian Supreme court allows ‘a’ camera in the courtroom for some arguments and this is about as unobtrusive as you can possibly get - no media and, certainly, no media circus.
Is something like this possible in US federal courts?