By: Robert S. Siegel

Robert S. Siegel — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:04:01 +0000

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.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:12:25 +0000

@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.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:53:44 +0000

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.

Comments on: 9/11 terrorists to use trials to publicize his cause? Good. Let them go for it.

By: Robert S. Siegel

By: Lynn

By: Sean