Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, KSM, and his buddies intend to plead not guilty, according to the New York Times so that they can rant against the United States. Well goody for them.
Critics, from politicians to pundits to terrorism experts are understandably outraged. Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder wants a “show trial” according to FoxNews. JamieWearingFool writes, Barack Obama and Eric Holder clearly have such an antipathy towards America but are too afraid to publicly espouse their views. So instead they’ll let these maniacs do the dirty work.”
Annemarie McAvoy who teaches Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing at Fordham Law School in New York City wrote, “These terrorists will be using this trial as a chance to try to recruit more followers to their radical views.” McAvoy questions why Attorney General Holder does not reverse his decision and send the terrorist back to military courts.
There is no question that this trial will provide the terrorists a wonderful opportunity to promote their cause. Charles Krauthammer calls it, “The greatest propaganda platform imaginable…in the media capital of the world.”
I say, let the terrorists rant. Give them the microphones and television cameras and the front page of the New York Times. The more publicity the better. I have no doubt they will use the opportunity to rally their supporters and make terrible statements against the U.S. and Israel.
I don’t like giving terrorists the opportunity to publicize their causes but I have come to believe that this may be what it takes to get many thick headed American alleged intellectuals and the international community to finally understand that these are terrorists are not some oppressed group trying gain justice for legitimate grievances. These are not people that we can sit down and talk with. We can not go through some sort of diplomatic grievance counseling to settle our differences. They want to kill the people at the center of infidel strength; the U.S. and Israel. They want to kill non-Muslims for being non-Muslims because that is what they believe is God’s command. They also want to kill Muslims whose faith varies from theirs.
Maybe if the whole world could see and hear these terrorists state their case than more people will understand just what the U.S. is up against in the war on terror. And perhaps, maybe, once the world sees and hears what these terrorists believe, directly from these terrorists, millions of the world’s Muslims and groups like CAIR will say, enough! Enough bloodshed and enough with forcing us to be a party to, and a scapegoat for, your evil.
Maybe Muslims will use the terrorists’ statements as a platform to unequivocally denounce terrorism.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
There are four main camps among those opposed to a trial. First, are those who fear it will put Americans in danger by making NewYork a terror target. I call this the “Don’t do anything that might make the terrorists mad argument.” You hear this one a lot on Fox News. There are some pretty glaring flaws with this argument, not the least of which being, it makes us look weak. The second argument is the “show trial” argument. This goes something along the lines of, “There is so much evidence against him, and he has already confessed his guilt, so the trial is nothing more than a show trial.” The logic here being, when there is strong evidence of guilt, we should not bother with a trial. This argument is so absurd, it simply dose not deserve a response. The third group is composed of people who are afraid that the evidence may be tainted by the possibility of torture. These people are afraid that it may be difficult to return a guilty verdict. I call this the “Let’s not do things when they are difficult argument.” This argument turns the notion of justice on its head. Its also another one you hear a lot on Fox News. Finally, there are those who feel Mr Mohammad should not be tried in a civilian court at all, rather he should be tried in a military tribunal. I can go either way on this one. People in this camp point out that we would never have held a trial for the people who bombed Pearl Harbor. That’s true, but the people who bombed Pearl Harbor were not the the FBI’s 10 most wanted list. Khalid Sheik Mohammad is not a foot soldier picked up on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He is a wanted criminal who was arrested by Pakistan’s intelligence services and turned over to US intelligence services. He is a terrorist, but he is also a criminal. Now, he will be held accountable for his crimes. If Osama Bin Laden is ever arrested, I for one would want to see him stand trial. I only hope there is a Democrat in office when that day comes, because the Republicans have made it very clear that they would never put him on trial.
I would greatly appreciate if you would read, and add your comments to an earlier post re the trials – KSM civilian trial is a sham.
@Sean: I agree with you. Our system works best in the light of day. We should trust in the strength of our institutions to handle terrorists. To the extent that they get us to have shadow courts and shadow prisons, they win because people are alienated by our willingness to abandon our ideals as it suits us.
@Bob: I agree. Although I think you made this point, I want to underscore that there is danger in the “they” of your 3rd paragraph. Of course the terrorists aren’t rational and we shouldn’t negotiate with them. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real grievances, and many people who aren’t terrorists (should we say yet?). There are legitimate people with whom we could negotiate.