Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Show Trial

November 18, 2009

Comments

In my initial posting on the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial, I asserted that “there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free. The fact that KSM was repeatedly waterboarded would seem to taint any subsequent evidence, including his own confession.”

This was based on the presumption that the whole point of trying KSM in a civilian court was to demonstrate that we’ve changed our evil ways and would allow accused terrorists to avail themselves of the finest justice system in the world.

Not so much, it seems. Jim Geraghty:

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa: “I don’t think you can say that failure to convict is not an option, when we have juries in this country.”

Attorney General Eric Holder: I have thought about that possibility. Congress has passed legislation that would not allow the release of these individuals in this country. If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released into this country…

Grassley: My understanding is that if for some reason he’s not convicted, or a judge lets him off on a technicality, he’ll be an enemy combatant, so you’re right back where you started.

I can’t find the full transcript online elsewhere, so don’t have Holder’s retort. But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham. That’s frankly much worse than the status quo, much less a military tribunal.

44 responses to “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Show Trial”

charles austin

November 18, 2009 at 1:39 pm

As others have noted, the country’s in the very best of hands.

The administration reminds me more and more of one of those old Mickey Rooney movies, only this time all the young, naive, passionate kids get together and say, “Hey everybody, let’s put on a government!”
markm

November 18, 2009 at 1:48 pm

But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham

That was the point I made in the other thread.

If this is to show that the USA is back…should they be acquitted and we still retain them, how would that look.

The President has already said we tortured them (or KSM) and if the guys that picked him up didn’t read him his Miranda rights, I don’t see how it is winnable.
Alex Knapp

November 18, 2009 at 1:50 pm

“there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free. The fact that KSM was repeatedly waterboarded would seem to taint any subsequent evidence, including his own confession.â€

KSM was first indicted by the Federal Government in 1996. The evidence tying him to 9/11 is derived primarily from the files on his computer. I’d be willing to bet that the prosecution doesn’t use a single bit of KSM’s utterances post-torture.

can’t find the full transcript online elsewhere, so don’t have Holder’s retort.

That seems to be an important bit of information missing, doesn’t it? If Holder doesn’t agree, doesn’t that render the whole “show trial” argument moot?
Alex Knapp

November 18, 2009 at 1:54 pm

if the guys that picked him up didn’t read him his Miranda rights, I don’t see how it is winnable.

Miranda doesn’t apply to this type of arrest, and I really wish people would research the law before they spout off nonsense like that.
Wayne

November 18, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Re “If Holder doesn’t agree, doesn’t that render the whole “show trial” argument moot?â€

No. If Holder or those involved leads us to believe or even if there is a perception which many of the MSM and Democrat talking heads have been contributing to that if he gets off that nothing will change and he will remain in custody then it is a show trial.
Wayne

November 18, 2009 at 2:08 pm

I forgot one thing. The only way for it not to be perceive as a show trial would be for him to get off then released. That wouldn’t be good either so we are now caught in a catch 22 situation. Thanks Obama.
Mithras

November 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm

But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham.

No, if the defendant is acquitted in this trial, then we’re presented with the choice of keeping him detained anyway or not. Chuck Grassley is making a prediction, but his prediction is certainly not policy. Even if it were, future AGs and Presidents might reverse that policy. Nothing is irreversible except death.

On the other hand, if this defendant is convicted using untainted evidence, then the trial is presumptively legitimate.

In other words, from the perspective of legitimacy, it can’t hurt. Besides, do you really think that Holder is just rolling the dice on a conviction?
Drew

November 18, 2009 at 2:41 pm

Alex –

I’m glad you engaged in this thread, and am interested in your thoughts as I have no legal training.

Do we not have a tainted jury issue? I can’t imagine that anyone in the country is not aware of 9/11, or could not be described as by a lawyer as tainted. This is only more so in New York.

Today, if I heard correctly, Pres. Obama (who probably misspoke, but will regret it) asserted that he was not worried about a jury verdict because “after SKM is convicted and executed…” But after the reporter basically inquired if we were past “give him a trial and then hang him” had to backtrack. Wouldn’t a lawyer be smiling ear to ear that the POTUS had made such prejudicial remarks?

What is the point of having a US judicial system trial if, in the case of failure, we just default to a military trial. Talk about pissing off the Muslim world for monkey trials. No?

This whole path that the administration is taking seems bizarre.
Trumwill

November 18, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Alex, why doesn’t Miranda apply to this kind of arrest? Under what sorts of arrests does Miranda not apply?
Rick Almeida

November 18, 2009 at 2:53 pm

I was hoping the Volokh Conspirators would eventually weigh in on this, and there is at least an initial comment worth reading.
sam

November 18, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Ah, Rick beat me to it. But let me post the crux of Eric Posner’s VC comment (for those who won’t take to time to go over there):

[T]he Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-qualityâ€ (civilian) tier and “low-qualityâ€ (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.

This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.
Scott Swank

November 18, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Based on the fact that Holder decided (and presumably Obama signed off on) a civilian trial, it seems reasonable that we have very strong, untainted evidence against these five individuals. That does not mean that this is a show trial. You make a basic logical error: 1. in a show trial ksm would be found guilty, 2. if we have very strong evidence ksm will be found guilty, 3. hence if he is found guilty then this is a show trial. This is what the educated kids call “Affirming the Consequent.”
Alex Knapp

November 18, 2009 at 3:19 pm

Drew,

Do we not have a tainted jury issue? I can’t imagine that anyone in the country is not aware of 9/11, or could not be described as by a lawyer as tainted. This is only more so in New York.

As long as attorneys for both sides agree on the jury pool, there really isn’t an issue here. It seems like a bad idea to do this in New York on the face of it, but like you said, there’s really no plausible change of venue where the jury hasn’t heard about it. Frankly, if I were KSM’s attorney, I’d go for a bench trial.

At any rate, while I haven’t read Holder’s charges yet (no time), I do know that the U.S. has been trying to arrest KSM since 1993 (he funded the first WTC bombings) and he was indicted in 1995, so there are no doubt plenty of non-9/11 related charges.

Today, if I heard correctly, Pres. Obama (who probably misspoke, but will regret it) asserted that he was not worried about a jury verdict because “after SKM is convicted and executed…” But after the reporter basically inquired if we were past “give him a trial and then hang him” had to backtrack. Wouldn’t a lawyer be smiling ear to ear that the POTUS had made such prejudicial remarks?

If Obama said that, he’s an idiot, but since he isn’t directly invovled in any law enforcement proceedings, I don’t even think that it could be brought up at trial.

What is the point of having a US judicial system trial if, in the case of failure, we just default to a military trial. Talk about pissing off the Muslim world for monkey trials. No?

This whole path that the administration is taking seems bizarre.

Now THAT I agree with you about.

Trumwill,

Alex, why doesn’t Miranda apply to this kind of arrest? Under what sorts of arrests does Miranda not apply?

Miranda doesn’t apply because KSM was not arrested on U.S. soil, and because he was arrested by U.S. military forces, not law enforcement officers.

Even if Miranda did apply, it would only invalidate KSM’s confessions, which will no doubt be thrown out anyway because they were coerced. Testimony and documents against him will be admissible, as will the contents of the files on his computer.
Andy

November 18, 2009 at 3:47 pm

I can’t find the full transcript online elsewhere, so don’t have Holder’s retort. But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham. That’s frankly much worse than the status quo, much less a military tribunal.

This is weak reasoning.

If Holder said that we’ll execute him for the 9/11 crimes no matter what the outcome of the case, that would be bad. But even if KSM was acquitted on the 9/11 charges, he’s still in the dock for Daniel Pearl and various other charges, so he won’t be released. Furthermore, the obvious parsing of the words is that he wouldn’t be released in this country, so he could be sent to a different country to face justice there, though I think that is unlikely.
James Joyner

November 18, 2009 at 3:55 pm

hence if he is found guilty then this is a show trial. This is what the educated kids call “Affirming the Consequent.”

You’re ignoring my argument — which is that Holder has said KSM would not be released even if acquitted — and substituting a weaker one of your own. That’s what the educated kids call a “straw man.”
PD Shaw

November 18, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Alex, you may be right about Miranda, but I believe the issue has been brought up by other terrorist lawyers and I would expect lawyers to bring it up again.

I think the larger issue is whether the exclusionary rule would apply. I don’t think it’s a given that unconstitutionally obtained evidence has to be excluded. I believe the court in the Kenya embassy bombing case said there was a national security exemption to unconstitutional searches and seizures.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III

November 18, 2009 at 5:21 pm

Dr. Joyner’s argument is the stronger one. If the outcome is a foregone conclusion, the facade of a fair trial loses some of its meaning. I cannot fathom why Obama would repeat the mistake Nixon made concerning the guilt or innocents of an accused. Unless it was to influence the outcome. If Obama was forced to release a fellow Muslim it would leave him a fine opportunity to blame the Bush administration for how they dealt with the matter, water boarding and all. Oddly enough we have allowed the left to define what certain words mean and then they use them against us. Listen to Rev. Wright’s sermon on the matter of 9/11 to see where Obama’s thinking lies. I hope I am wrong but the pieces of this puzzle reveal much malice when the picture is discernible.
Alex Knapp

November 18, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Alex, you may be right about Miranda, but I believe the issue has been brought up by other terrorist lawyers and I would expect lawyers to bring it up again.

To my knowledge, it has only been brought up in the context of cases where the accused were arrested on American soil.

I think the larger issue is whether the exclusionary rule would apply. I don’t think it’s a given that unconstitutionally obtained evidence has to be excluded. I believe the court in the Kenya embassy bombing case said there was a national security exemption to unconstitutional searches and seizures.

Actually, given the circumstances of the case as I understand them to be, the only likely exclusion would be KSM’s confessions. Though of course other issues may arise at trial. The ties of KSM to the original WTC bombings and his other mid-1990s terrorist conspriacies are probably pretty sound though.
Steve Verdon

November 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm

I can’t find the full transcript online elsewhere, so don’t have Holder’s retort. But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham.

Change you can believe in I guess.
Drew

November 18, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Alex –

WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama predicted that professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted, as Attorney General Eric Holder defended putting him through the U.S. civilian legal system.
In one of a series of TV interviews during his trip to Asia, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Muhammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed’s trial. “I’m not going to be in that courtroom,” he said. “That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

XXXXXXXXX

I believe I correctly heard the original sound clip (I think it was Major Garret) in which Pres. Obama was prompted to give the qualifier in paragraph 2.

“…..when (Drew: not IF) he’s convicted and when (Drew: not IF) the death penalty is applied to him.”

I’m sure the mainstreams will spin this away, or simply not report it. But it seems pretty straightforward to me.

If GWB had said this no doubt the mainstream predictions that he had set into motion a million new terrorist recruits would flood the airwaves……….making the Johnstown flood look like a leaky basement.

And now let’s have some fun: imagine Pres. Obama had said, long ago……. “and when OJ is convicted and the death penalty applied to him..”

One wonders what his 2008 black vote total would have been.
PD Shaw

November 18, 2009 at 6:29 pm

Alex, my own admittedly limited experience in this was working for a federal appellate death penalty defender one summer during school.

I spent most of my time helping with a convict that had killed his ex-wife and her lover and fled to Mexico, where he was tortured by Mexican authorities, signed a confession and then sent back to the U.S. His confession was read to the jury, who also heard the testimony of a cell mate as to the fact of the torture and the testimony of a representative of Amnesty International as to Mexico’s history of torture and the credibility of the cellmate’s story based upon documented patterns and practices. The jury was instructed by the judge to consider the confession only after evaluating it’s credibility, based upon all the facts and circumstances.

As described to me by the appellate lawyer, the tortured confession was not excluded because it occurred on foreign soil by non-U.S. law enforcement. It didn’t matter that the defendant was a U.S. citizen. It had more to do with deterring U.S. law enforcement conduct. The KSM situation may be different because of CIA / US military involvement, but I would not be shocked that where the stakes are as high as here, the exclusionary rule is deemed not to apply. If, for any other reason, it would curtail discovery by KSM’s attorneys to determine whether any of the prosecution’s evidence can be traced back to anything improper.
Alex Knapp

November 18, 2009 at 7:08 pm

PD,

That’s within the realm of possibility.
Alex Knapp

November 18, 2009 at 7:21 pm

Drew,

That is a despicable thing for him to have said.
Drew

November 18, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Alex –

I take back every negative thing I have ever said about you……..I love you, man…..

Ahem, back to reality….. ;->

Look, I really don’t know what to make of this. As a Chicago/IL resident I have from day 1 of his “candicacy” been totally flummoxed and wary of his popularity. As a PE person responsible for hiring senior execs of opcos I would have dingded this guy for turning two fabulous degrees into a career best described as “mushy nothing”………until he found politics. If that isn’t a red flag, I don’t know what is.

I’m very worried I am absolutely correct about this crew…..and that isn’t pretty.
davod

November 18, 2009 at 8:43 pm

“In other words, from the perspective of legitimacy, it can’t hurt. Besides, do you really think that Holder is just rolling the dice on a conviction?”

You need to read some of Andy McCarthy’s writings on the Administrations actions with regard to this and the interrogation memos.

You should also be aware that Holder’s law firm was deeply involved in defending the Detainees. Additionally, DOJ now has a number of lawyers who were also involved in the defense of Detainees.

I would like to think that the Bush rule (Applied by Democrats) was in place (Everyone has to recuse themselves) but somehow I doubt it.
charles austin

November 18, 2009 at 9:08 pm

FWIW, Andy McCarthy, who was the lead prosecutor in Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman’s trial, is bitterly scathing about the decisions AG Holder and President Obama are making concerning the impending trial of KSM. If you are interested, head on over to National Review and see if you can refute his points. He certainly speaks from a position of knowledge and experiences that cannot be matched here.
Herb

November 18, 2009 at 10:41 pm

I think you misunderstand the nature of a “fair” trial. It doesn’t mean the accused has a 50-50 chance of going free. It means they get to hear the evidence mounted against them and get to mount some kind of defense (doesn’t even have to be compelling – see the defenses of every man, woman, or child who has ever been convicted of the crimes for which they were accused).

In fact, in a perfectly fair trial, the guilty are punished and the innocent are released.

Just because all evidence points to KSM being guilty, leading any reasonable observer to conclude that in a fair trial he would be convicted, does not make this a “show trial.”

A “show trial” is not a trial at all, and if that’s the case you are making, then you should go ahead and actually make it instead of blithely calling it a show trial because all signs point to conviction.
Mithras

November 18, 2009 at 11:26 pm

Listen, guys: If KSM is acquitted, Holder’s career in government is over (and Obama’s presidency might never recover from it). If he brought this case, Holder is going for a conviction and believes he will almost certainly get it.

I don’t care you have a list of 57 ACLU radicals you’ve found at Justice. Andrew McCarthy is a former prosecutor opining on geopolitics and national security matters, which are well outside his area of expertise. Also, he’s slandering the judge in the Moussaoui case, who actually shut down Moussaoui’s antics in court (remember?) and kept the case tightly on point while not compromising any classified material. I predict this will happen again.
davod

November 18, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Herb: The appearance of a show trial to the rat bags and their supporters.

“Just because all evidence points to KSM being guilty, leading any reasonable observer to conclude that in a fair trial he would be convicted, does not make this a “show trial.”

Mate: Perception is reality. If those in high positions (for purely political purposes to cover their backsides)spend time saying KSM will be found guilty and executed, then the perception is that he will be found guilty, despite any evidence to the contrary, and executed.

Try telling a Jihadist or would be Jihadist, or for that matter any Iman counseling Muslims in a third world country, that KSM received a Fair not Show trial after such comments.
Herb

November 19, 2009 at 3:29 am

The appearance of a show trial to the rat bags and their supporters.I don’t think that’s the argument James was making…

And it’s not a convincing argument on its own merits. We can’t try these guys because the jihadists will call it a show trial??? So?

It’s not like they’re saying all kinds of nice things about Gitmo…
Eric Florack

November 19, 2009 at 7:49 am

Miranda doesn’t apply to this type of arrest, and I really wish people would research the law before they spout off nonsense like that.

It wouldn’t apply in a military tribunal. It WOULD apply, however in an article 3 court.
glasnost

November 19, 2009 at 11:11 am

Andy McCarthy is a completely cynical purveyor of the worst kind of fantasies, or a completely deranged lunatic. The guy who tried the 1993 WTC bomber arguing publicly that we can’t try KSM because… during the last eight years (the BUSH administration???) liberals have subverted our justice system? Liberals like the majority-conservative supreme court, he must mean. He’s selling his entire profession down the river for the worst kind of conspiracy-mongering. He is, in short, a complete scumbag.

Meanwhile, James, for a usually sober-minded guy who doesn’t fall for flim-flam and hysteria, you’ve been completely, totally full of sh*t on this topic. Your ignorance has been embarrassing to your audience and has frankly pissed me right off. You predicted the common-sense absurdity that KSM would get right off because… of a trial in federal court? Why in God’s name would you think that? Is it that you think he’s innocent? What other reason would you have to believe that a guilty man would get off scot-free in a fair trial?

And now, because of some mangled quotes, you’re claiming he’s about to get a “show trial” because that’s the only way there’s not a strong chance that he’ll be set free?

What. the heck. is wrong with you? We all know he’s going to be convicted b/c there’s enough evidence in the public domain for there to be very little doubt that he’s guilty of numerous terrorism-related crimes. Obama and Holder’s *opinions* on the likelihood of him being found guilty – shared by 350 million sane Americans – have no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the trial, because the judge and jury can decide whatever they want and have no obligation nor face any penalty from not listening to Obama and Holder. That’s the selling point of a CIVILIAN trial.

Anyone worried about a “show trial” or even the perception of one, and thus complaining about this decision, I call you out for being a total freaking hypocrite of the most nauseating obviousness. The alternative to a civilian trial is a military tribunal. Hmmmm, I wonder what looks more like a show trial to people overseas, hmmm? Military tribunals with hearsay evidence and (in prior incarnations in the Bush Admin) admissibility of confessions obtained by torture)… or civilian trials? Hmmmm? I wonder?

Jesus, the whole point of the civilian trial is to decrease the perception of a show trial. Any reasonably educated person, even overseas – like the elites in majority-Muslim countries that we are trying to persaude – has heard a long armload of confidence-destroying stories about the military tribunals, accurate stories – military officers being fired for having problems with the kangaroo courts, damning quotes that the COs of the tribunals considered any non-conviction outcome unacceptable, BS convictions later quietly ignored with the detainees released, etc, etc, etc. There’s thousands of pages of evidence on how utter and complete a sham were the military tribunals.. and it makes sense, because SecDef Rumsfeld and has power over the people who have power over the people who ultimately set the whole thing up and made the guilt/innocence decisions.

This is not a slam on ordinary courts-martials or the military justice system as a whole – a lot of military folks with integrity ultimately foiled the show trials by speaking up – but the civilian trials are an ANTIDOTE to the show trials already performed, about which none of you seem to remember jack sh*t.

Hypocrites and fools abound in the comment section, and where was your concern about show trials when they were on full display, James?
James Joyner

November 19, 2009 at 12:11 pm

You predicted the common-sense absurdity that KSM would get right off because… of a trial in federal court? Why in God’s name would you think that? Is it that you think he’s innocent? What other reason would you have to believe that a guilty man would get off scot-free in a fair trial?

No, as I explained in the very next sentence, my concern is that the fact that he was held for six years in violation of his rights to due process, counsel, and a speedy trial and also tortured should be grounds for dismissal. Alex Knapp has since persuaded me that no judge will actually follow the law in this matter.

And now, because of some mangled quotes, you’re claiming he’s about to get a “show trial” because that’s the only way there’s not a strong chance that he’ll be set free?

Again, you’ve got a serious reading comprehension problem. Most trials, especially federal ones, have the deck stacked since the prosecutor gets to pick which ones to take to court. My concern here is that, were KSM to somehow be acquitted or the charges dismissed, Holder is saying we’ll keep him in indefinite custody anyway. I’ve got a problem with that.

[W]here was your concern about show trials when they were on full display, James?

Which show trials were those? The Bush administration was going to try these folks under Congressionally approved military commissions but never did because they were tied up in legal battles. But at least that was consistent with their being held as war criminals rather than ordinary criminals.
charles austin

November 19, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Two words for all those who are absolutely convinced KSM will be convicted because the evidence against him is overwhelming: O. J.
bmj

November 20, 2009 at 1:00 pm

Mate: Perception is reality.

I know a lot of Republicans believe this, but it isn’t true. Herb’s explanation of the difference between a show trial and a fair trial is spot on.

But if the defendants have zero chance of being released, this is a show trial and a sham

They have “zero chance of being released” in the practical sense, because the prosecutors have an extremely strong case. Again, that has nothing to do with whether this is a “show trial.” Even though the practical chance is zero, they have a nonzero chance of being released in a theoretical, structural/procedural sense, and this is part of what makes it a fair trial.

And the fact that we have other, independently valid grounds for holding them, even in the extremely unlikely event of an acquittal or dismissal in the civil trial, again says nothing about the fairness or otherwise of the civil trial.
davod

November 21, 2009 at 11:54 am

James – “The Bush administration was going to try these folks under Congressionally approved military commissions but never did because they were tied up in legal battles.”

As I recall several ratbags were judged s treied e

bmj -“Mate: Perception is reality.

I know a lot of Republicans believe this, but it isn’t true. Herb’s explanation of the difference between a show trial and a fair trial is spot on.”

Do you work for the MSM. If not you comment like you do.

My perception is reality comment lead to who might be perceiving:

“Try telling a Jihadist or would be Jihadist, or for that matter any Iman counseling Muslims in a third world country, that KSM received a Fair not Show trial after such comments.”
davod

November 21, 2009 at 12:40 pm

My November 21, 2009 | 11:54 am post Part 1 should have said

“James – “The Bush administration was going to try these folks under Congressionally approved military commissions but never did because they were tied up in legal battles.”

I believe a few detainees were tried at Guantanamo.
tom p

November 21, 2009 at 9:49 pm

Ok, you are idiots: Obama can’t bring KSM to trial in Federal courts because Bush/Cheney tortured him…

ERGO… If KSM is released due to a lack of evidence (all evidence is tainted due to the torture under B /C) , IT IS OBAMA’S fault. If however, KSM is convicted and sent to prison for the rest of his life (under any other system then GWBs (read Dick Cheney’s) kangaroo courts …

IT IS OBAMA’S FAULT FOR PUTTING ON A SHOW TRIAL.

What possible world do you people live in? And where do I get on that train?

I want some of your drugs.
bmj

November 22, 2009 at 6:37 pm

My perception is reality comment lead to who might be perceiving:

“Try telling a Jihadist or would be Jihadist, or for that matter any Iman counseling Muslims in a third world country, that KSM received a Fair not Show trial after such comments.”

I defy you to describe any circumstances at all under which such people would be satisfied that KSM had received a fair trial and justice had been done. Equally importantly, why should we care what they think? When did their opinion become a relevant metric? The point is to demonstrate to the non-fanatical world that the US is capable of living up to its own ideals, and that these men can be brought to justice in a fair manner.
davod

November 23, 2009 at 7:28 am

“The point is to demonstrate to the non-fanatical world that the US is capable of living up to its own ideals, and that these men can be brought to justice in a fair manner.”

This seems eminently reasonable but for the fact that the Obama Administration is going to try some detainees under the Military Tribunals.

Never forget this little gem.

“Mohammed’s military tribunal was already under way when Obama came into office,[Obama] stopped the proceedings and, eight months later, announced that Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York.”
davod

November 23, 2009 at 7:40 am

“I defy you to describe any circumstances at all under which such people would be satisfied that KSM had received a fair trial and justice had been done. Equally importantly, why should we care what they think?”

If you look a little harder at the Administration’s outreach (Especially if you re-read Obama’s Cairo sermon) you might well find that the idea is indeed to show Muslims (most of whom live in third world countries) the Western (US)system of justice is equal to Sharia.