Before anyone complains that this is different because these attackers came from outside the United States, the truth is that we routinely prosecute criminals who are not United States citizens, including the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who committed crimes and are now in our jails, and high-profile mass murderers like the late and unlamented serial killer Angel Maturino Reséndiz, who was executed in Texas despite the efforts of the Mexican government to have him repatriated.
The reality is that there's very little reason not to try terrorists in regular United States courts, beyond the convenience of the prosecutors, concern for public sentiment, and a belief that military trials will be quicker and more likely to convict on weak evidence. Other arguments of convenience are also questionable. The ideology of the criminal, his violent inclinations, what role he may play in inspiring others, or the possibility of reprisals all have no standing at all in the legal process. None of these is a legitimate reason to override the basic right to a trial by jury to which criminals are entitled under our constitution, under common law, and as a matter of basic human rights.
Sentiment and the desire for revenge should never be allowed to override fact when it comes to the law. The fact that these terrorists were not soldiers, did not act on behalf of any nation, and are functionally no different from any other common murderer or group of murderous conspirators is undeniable. Since they are criminals they should be tried as criminals in both the state and federal courts and be punished under the laws of those jurisdictions. In this case, that would mean a trip to Indiana where federal executions are carried out by lethal injection.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jon Sobel
Damn it Dave, I can't believe how much I agree with you about this. There are other reasons to oppose the cowardly Congressmen who don't want these bastards sent to New York, but yours are plenty.
2 - handyguy
Like Jon, I find myself agreeing with Dave on this one [with the exception of the gratuitous digs at NGOs, etc.]. Since this particular confluence of opinion is pretty rare, I thought I'd acknowledge it.
The ostrich brigade quaking in fear about the potential of a trial on US soil are just ridiculous, even though most of their dumb rhetoric, Republicans and Democrats alike, is just posturing demagoguery.
3 - Dan(Miller)
Dave, I agree that KSM et al are not properly covered by the Geneva Convention. However, under the 1966 Military Commissions Act, military commissions are not reserved for those covered by the convention nor are they "a form of trial normally reserved only for internal military discipline." Indeed, members of the U.S. military are not covered by it and are subject to courts martial, a very different thing.
I have problems with trial of KSM et al by either a civilian court or a military commission, and argue here that the best course would have been to have left them in detainee status indefinitely. There was no legal requirement that they be tried in either venue, the practical and legal difficulties will be substantial in either event, and the political decision to bring them to trial seems unwise.
Dan(Miller)
4 - The Obnoxious American
Dave,
I don't disagree with the points you've made as they are all fact based. But I totally disagree with the conclusion.
First, I'd argue that all crimes are crimes. War crimes are crimes like rape and murder are crimes. What seperates terror attacks like 9/11 from common crimes aren't the uniforms or the organizations that back terrorists or anything that is described by the Geneva conventions.
What seperates these terror attacks is motive. And the motive of terror attacks is not to hurt individual Americans, not to hurt even individual buildings, but rather to hurt the nation as a whole.
How many regular crimes, murder, theft, etc, would it take to derail a nation? Well we have millions in jail for crimes committed so more than that at least right? And the motive behind each crime was personal, to satisfy a need or as a result of emotion.
By contrast, how many terror attacks to derail a nation? We've suffered less than a handful on our shores and look how much it's twisted us and our own institutions in knots.
The motive behind Al Qaeda is to take down America, and that is what makes 9/11 an act of war and thus a war crime suitable for prosecution in a military tribunal. Geneva conventions drafted before we could envision such things may not address it but that fact doesn't change what it is.
5 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy,
It's not fear at all and if you bothered to even hear the opposing arguments you'd know that. But please continue your tin eared strawmanning of your opponents (very Obama of you) and we can chat in late November 2010 to see how that worked out for you.
6 - handyguy
After a long and blessed silence, I see you are back and determined to live up to your name, oh obnoxious one. My criticism was aimed at cowardly congressmen primarily; they stoke people's fears. If you have other reasons, fine and dandy -- but it's fear that the demagogues are feeding.
7 - The Obnoxious American
Lolll I come around when there is something to say that isn't being said everywhere else. This is a topic that in my view has not gotten enough discussion in the MSM hence my appearance.
You say it's fear. I could point to just as many if not more of the same fear tactics employed by the left's demagoguery. Let's face it, politics of fear are practiced by all politicians. I'm only concerned with what is best for the country and I feel strongly (as do 2/3rds of Americans as per CNN) that this isn't.
8 - Dave Nalle
Dan, indefinite detention is unjustifiable under any law domestic or international. Even terrorists have some basic rights, and those identified in our bill of rights are theoretically universal.
And ObAm, did you see the examples I gave in the article? How much more does KSM hate America than the other past terrorists I listed? The fact is that these terrorists are no more dangerous than any other criminals, and if some of them aren't executed and end up in the general prison population I wouldn't expect them to live very long, especially if they share the disdain for black muslims held by most middle eastern muslims.
Dave
9 - The Obnoxious American
Dave,
Let me start by saying I wasn't really cognizant during those days so my knowledge of Ayers, Hearst, Dorn et all is limited to the historical coverage.
That said I think there is a distinct difference here. With the exception of McVeigh, these terrorists are much more in the veign of the typical counter culter teenager rebellion phenomenom that occurs in every generation than hard core terrorism. This doesn't make their crimes any less evil but they certainly were less dangerous than KSM in any analysis.
In each case their crimes were amateurish, with no real support network, no militia to back them, no real movement to take down this country. Can you really compare the Weather Underground to Al Qaeda?
And some (i.e. Ayers) have gone on to live their lives rather peacefully. While they may hate America's capitalism or what it stands for (which is the right of every American individual) they don't necessarily hate every American. Al Qaeda hates America the country and America the people (at least those who aren't Muslim). I'd have no concern being locked in a room with Ayers (I'd be disgusted with the guy but there'd be no threat to my life). Same can't be said for being locked in a room with KSM who hates me for who I am as much as the country I live in. That said, I'd welcome anyone to lock me in a room with either for 15 minutes - that's all the time I'd need :>
I do think McVeigh should have been tried in a tribunal. We shouldn't make the mistake twice.
10 - doug m
Motive matters, ObAm? So then you must be pro hate crime legislation and more liberal then you let on.
11 - The Obnoxious American
Doug,
Lollll Interesting point. Motive does matter though, as does state of mind and there are many precedents in our legal system for that. People who murder because they are insane are treated much differently than those who murder out of emotion, or self defense (though I'd argue that self defense is "killing" and not actual murder per se). Serial killers get much more extreme punishments than a guy who shoots another guy for banging his wife and rightly so.
I do not support hate crimes legislation however. Most crimes are committed with hate. Is someone more evil because they hate another for his skin color or because he was screwing their wife? I can't make that call and the courts shouldn't either. Otherwise we have unequal protection (for the citizenry, not the accused) under the law. You could argue that treating terror differently than regular crime is akin to a hate crime, but the difference in my view is as above, that you're attacking the country, which is at best treason, but the way it was carried out by Al Qaeda is quite clearly a coordinated act of war for a foreign entity, led by KSM and his ilk.
12 - Dave Nalle
I think Doug M has the winning point there.
Dave
13 - Mark
Doug's vorpal blade went snicker-snack.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Of all your writings, I think this is the first one with which I'm in complete agreement with you...except for one little reference you made - Bill Ayers.
You never replied to my proof that the Bill Ayers that was once part of the Weather Underground has NOT visited the White House twice, as you claimed. You never replied to the fact that Bill Ayers is a shining example of how a criminal can overcome the evil he has done, put it behind him, become rehabilitated, and actually become a real success in life. It's sad that you just can't seem to let go of Bill Ayers...but you've said absolutely squat against Bush's friendship with the bin Laden family.
Now that that particular rant is done, the other 99% of your article is absolutely right and well said, and I think you deserve kudos for it!
15 - Ruvy
Gentlemen,
My proposal to settle this KSM's hash is cheap, simple and fast. A bullet to the head. The bullet costs 40 cents, it takes 10 seconds to blow his brains out, and three minutes to rinse him in pig fat and hand him the nearest available kadi for burial.
Screw the trial. Let the "civil rights" mongers howl and jump like the chimps they are.
16 - roger nowosielski
So perhaps OA doesn't quite know his own mind.
17 - Dave Nalle
Bit narcissistic are we, Glenn?
I hadn't read that thread since I made the comment and when I did I made a comment and it got eaten by the internet.
I leave you to imagine what I said in response to the claim that Ayers (and as it turns out almost every famous name on that short list) was not the famous Ayers.
Instead I'll just point out that at the time I wrote about it the WH had not chosen to divulge that fact and it was a reasonable conclusion based on Ayers' past association with the president.
Dave
18 - The Obnoxious American
Loll I can tell you guys are enjoying this immensely. Let's try this a different way:
Punishing a hate crime literally means that those with status as per the legislation are somehow more protected than the rest of us. Kill whitey, you get 10 years, but kill a gay guy and you get 20? That's not equal justice under the law.
Does it matter if someone killed me because they hated the fact that I was a jew (i.e. a hate crime), versus hating the neighborhood I lived in (i.e. gangs)? Versus hating my driving skills (i.e. road rage)? It's all hate, it's all the murder of a person, and it should be treated the same way.
And if you're going to add on "hating me for being American (i.e. terrorist)" - if we are talking about the murder of one person, I'd agree. But KSM isn't and shouldn't merely be charged with murder X 3000. He literally attacked our country which resulted in the death of thousands, but the deaths were a symptom, a by-product of the actual crime, which was to hurt this nation. This makes it a war crime.
This idea isn't as easy to convey as a cutesy one line jab, but to suggest I am completely off the mark is ignoring reality.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Instead I'll just point out that at the time I wrote about it the WH had not chosen to divulge that fact and it was a reasonable conclusion based on Ayers' past association with the president.
Um, Dave - you wrote that comment yesterday, but the matter on who that 'Bill Ayers' was, was settled on October 30th. That's more than two weeks before you wrote that comment.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
OA -
So...there's no such thing as genocide? The Nazis should have been tried for simple murder times 6M, and the Hutus should have been tried for murder times 800K?
I'm not trying to be silly here, but that's the logical extension of your premise concerning hate crimes.
21 - handyguy
If KSM pleads guilty, as he has already indicated he wants to do, won't all this heavy breathing be moot?
22 - The Obnoxious American
Glenn,
I don't agree that this is a logical extension at all. The Nazi's didn't just commit murder times 12 million (not just 6 million btw), though that certainly was among a number of crimes that they committed that together constituted genocide.
A more apt comparison would be if one person killed 12 million people. In that case then yes, even if he was motivated by a desire to ethnically cleans, it would just be murder x 12m.
(It's worth noting of course, that scale of crime, as opposed to which kind of hatred motivated a crime, does matter. Just like stealing a candy bar gets treated differently than stealing 50 billion from pension fund, so does the treatment of a murderer of 1 person or of 3000, or 12 million.)
Let's talk Ft. Hood then, which is arguably a lone wolf (we don't use the term gunman because guns didn't kill these fellow Americans - this terrorist did) you could say that by my logic he should not be tried in a military court as it is but murder x 13 (let's put aside that he killed people working at a military installation).
While I obviously don't have all the evidence, if it could be proven that he was killing as part of an ideology that we are at war with (and the "war on terror" IS a war on an ideology) then the terrorist act is part of that war and should be treated as a murder x 13. It becomes an attack on the country.
Obviously, we no longer are fighting a war on terror :> And we are determined to see this through a lens of correctness. So we will inevitably try the crimes as murders unconnected to a larger war on the nation.
Sounds good on some level, but doesn't really deal with the underlying problem that allowed for Ft. Hood to happen in the first place. And I'm not talking politically correct blindness now, but rather the denial that we are actually at war with an ideology. To be fair, really recognizing that leads to some pretty unAmerican alternatives if you're trying to address this via the civil legal system. Another good reason it doesn't belong there.
23 - The Obnoxious American
Handy,
Doubt it. I suspect these terrorists will follow the so called Manchester document. And if they do, I see no way the case doesn't get dismissed pretty quickly, but not before they've strutted for the media and made total fools of us. But it's a nice thought that now KSM can decide how painful this situation is for us.
24 - Lumpy
KSM did confess and I think that's the key thing here. With the confession should there even be a trial or just a sentencing?
25 - The Obnoxious American
Lumpy,
How unamerican. Where is your notion of rule of law? Can't you see that this was a coerced confession from an alledged suspect who not only was:
- (by some definitions) tortured
- not read his rights
- not provided counsel
- not given a speedy trial
- humiliated by his captors, the American government
- treated unhumanely under the tutelage of George Bush and Dick Cheney
And this is where all this is heading - to let the courts divulge all of Bush's laundry (which incidentally kept us safe) so Obama doesn't have to get his own hands dirty getting his "reckoning" of Bush at the nearest International Criminal Court. To the delight of fools playing politics everywhere.