Al Qaeda War Criminals In Civilian Courts

On every level imagineable, you know this is wrong.

That is, if you have any sense about you.

From the LA Times this past Friday the 13th:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four other top alleged conspirators have been held for years in secret detention camps overseas, and, most recently, at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba -- will be tried as terrorists and criminals in a federal court in Manhattan, just blocks from the site of one of the terrorists' targets, the World Trade Center, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder announced today.

This will be a civilian court, as opposed to a military court or tribunal.

Which means that, of course, civilian rules of jurisprudence and law will hold -- not that of the UCMJ.

I apologize for not addressing the topic earlier but I've been otherwise distracted by personal issues.

This is a mistake. And not just a "mistake" but an error of geometric and massive proportions, setting an unwanted, corrupting, denigrating, deleterious precedent.

AG Eric Holder has already announced his confidence that there will be clear and easy convictions in each and every case. Not to worry. Eric and Barry are Large and In Charge.

The American Civil Liberties Union -- of course -- called the move a "major victory for due process and the rule of law."

Other clear-thinking individuals such as Charles Krauthammer said:



Affording terrorists access to American civilian courts is the sheerest of insanity. It makes no sense whatsoever. On almost every level imagineable.

First, these trials will occur in a federal court in New York City, mere blocks from the site where almost 3,000 unsuspecting and completely innocent Americans were literally liquified and their tissues absorbed into the hundreds of thousands of tons crushing down upon them -- that is, if they didn't jump, burned, flaming, shirtless, shoeless, from hundreds of feet in the New York air, only to impact the hard concrete below -- and then have hundreds of thousands of tons crush them into human juice.

That is an abomination itself.

New York, already Target One in the eyes of Jihadists, will only serve to make itself a more tasty morsel as various factions vie to either rescue their brethren or bring their brand of Islamic Hell to the court's doorsteps.

Second, there is a massive world of difference between the two court venues, civilian and military. Different rules of evidence, exclusionary rules, rules of time and custody.

For example, if I were a defense attorney, I'd attempt to free my clients without stepping a foot into open court. I'd first cite evidence indicating that they were held, incommunicado, for a ridiculously extended period of time, completely unrepresented -- a clear civil violation. If that petition failed, I'd cite the questioning tactics up to and including the waterboarding of my clients, attacking that point from the angle of torture -- still not firmly addressed or answered in civil court decisions. AG Holder himself has called waterboarding "illegal torture" -- yet he believes a conviction is certain?

In a civilian court venue, defense attorneys would and should make a mockery of the system. They will make the issues those of philosophy, a venue for the oppression of Islam, the ghastly treatment of the world at the hand of the evil United States, a matter of religion, a matter of fighters for freedom, paupers, standing up to the Great Satan. It will be the quintessential Show Trial, trotted out before Live Television (clearly, too juicy and salacious to remain uncovered by the Defeatist, Elitist Media, yes?).

And, moreover, civil defense attorneys will demand access to all of the evidence which may even faintly denigrate their clients to include any and all intelligence, methods, sources, all trotted out in open court for the world to see, hear, know.

That in mind, a new CNN poll showed that fully two-thirds of respondents believe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in military court while 34 per cent agreed with the decision to try him in civilian court.

I'd also cite the inconsistency of the Government in its trial venues. The USS Cole bomber Nashiri will face a military trial. I should also like to point out that so-called "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh, faced a civilian DOJ trial only because the mechanism to support Gitmo, early in the fight, was not yet in place. He acquired a 20-year sentence. Some say he was railroaded. I say he should shut the hell up and be grateful his stupidity and naivete didn't acquire a life sentence.

9/11 was an act of war, clearly and simply. Trying its enfolders and designers is not a mission of civilian law enforcement. And, we seem to have no qualms about holding American born persons accountable under military justice. Second Lt William Calley and numerous, numerous other soldiers over the years. The UCMJ was deemed perfectly fine for those applications.

When those who fight against us violate the Geneva Convention, we should set aside any and all civilian rules. The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[7] Soldiers who fight out of uniform or commit atrocities such as the murder of prisoners or the targeting or killing of non-combatants may be executed by firing squads.

All acts committed by Jihadists under the banner of Islam.

Why do those who wish only harm to this country warrant extraordinary civilian treatment?

BZ