Andrew Sullivan’s head may explode today, between Palin’s book release and the predictable neanderthalic explosion re: the KSM prosecution.
Andrew Sullivan’s head may explode today, between Palin’s book release and the predictable neanderthalic explosion re: the KSM prosecution.
Please note: I am not saying that ANY criticism of Obama’s decision re: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is “neanderthalic.” This is a difficult issue, and reasonable people can reasonably disagree on how it should be handled.
However, while reasonable criticism is very possible, that doesn’t mean the criticism that’s actually being leveled is, in fact, reasonable. On the contrary, the totally un-nuanced, chest-pounding argument that OMG HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK WE SHOULD PROSECUTE HIM IN COURT, YOU TERROR-APPEASING IDIOTS, WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU, HE’S A TERRORIST DAMMIT, A TERRORIST!!!!!! is neanderthalic and ridiculous. It does not fall into the category of reasonable people disagreeing reasonably. It falls into the category of purely emotional bullshit, which fails to even consider, let alone address, any of the complex issues at stake here.
And yes, Joe Lieberman, sadly, is one of the first out of the gate with this nonsense. *sigh*
What Lieberman actually said was that it’s “inconceivable” to him that KSM would be tried in a civilian court because he considers him a war criminal rather than a common criminal and he should thus be tried by a military commission instead. Agree with it or not, that is a perfectly REASONABLE position. Lieberman further expressed concern that a civilian trial would give KSM et al “a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims’ families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America.” While I don’t necessarily agree that the first point should be of utmost concern, giving terrorists like KSM a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America to rally their followers is, again, an absolutely REASONABLE criticism to make against the Obama DOJ, not least of all because, as Andy McCarthy points out, “nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials,” and on said soapbox “the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it.”
But whatever, enjoy your caricature, Brendan…
Joe, we either stand behind our principals as Americans or we don’t. If we don’t what the hell are we fighting for?
I don’t believe there are really the grounds to hold a military court marshal of the man. At least not based on precedent or jurisdiction of which I am aware of in the standard sense of them. Most of the time war crimes get tried in bizarro land courts after a war; courts that aren’t really military and aren’t really civil and are very kangaroo. I may be wrong on that I am certainly not an expert in military law. Yes you could try him for war crimes but I think, in terms of US interests, taking this to the international war crimes court has way more of the problems you mention than trying him in jurisdiction in which his crimes were committed. So I think trying him for his crimes where he committed them and under the applicable laws at the time of his crime is most in keeping with our values. And if we don’t keep our values, again, WTF are we fighting for?
I don’t see how prosecuting terrorists captured abroad before a military commission rather than a civilian court is not in keeping with our traditions and values, and apparently neither does the Obama administration since they’re going to have at least one military commission trial for one of the Cole bombers. I’m also no expert on military law, but I don’t believe a military commission trial such as the one being announced by Holder today is necessarily the same thing as a court martial, and it certainly isn’t an “international war crimes court.”
I rarely understand the retard conservative reasoning, and this is another instance. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were tried in court for their attack on the Oklahoma Federal Building. The WTC bombers from 1993 were tried in American courts for their attack on the WTC buildings. John Mohammad was tried in court for his terroresque sniper spree (in the name of Allah). And Zacarias Moussaoui who was convicted in court.
Republicans and whatever Joe Leiberman is, are trying to blur the lines of reality or what’s best for this country, and it’s my Christmas Wish that all of Americans can recognize “these people” for what they are and what they have always done and that is politicizing the issue of terrorism. I’m not afraid of these criminals and no american should fear these thugs. Try them in court like the scum they are and throw them into a top level security New York pennetentiary with Bernie Kerick and let them all count down the days til they finally meet Allah, I guarantee you they will appreciate Allah a hell of a lot more when they meet him after they live out the rest of their lives in captivity.
JM,
The USS Cole was a Naval ship that was attacked in Yemen. Why in the world would this be an issue for the US courts? Of course an attack on our military abroad would be settled by the military in their own judicial system (military tribunal/trial).
I know Republicans aren’t really this stupid, but why play games?
You know what, Joe, you’re right: I’m going too far in lumping Lieberman’s comment in with the neanderthalic, outside-the-realm-of-reason nonsense that some on the Right are spouting, and have been spouting about issues like this ever since Obama’s decision to close Gitmo. Lieberman’s use of the word “inconceivable” is certainly hyperbolic — “it is inconceivable” and “Joe Lieberman strongly disagrees with it” do not actually mean the same thing — and that’s what set me off, along with the surface similarity of “[i]t is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created” to the ridiculous “NO TERRORISTS ON U.S. SOIL!!” or “DON’T PUT THEM IN OUR PRISONS!!” nonsense, as if terrorists are some sort of super-mutants who cannot be prevented from escaping, or, as sensible Republican B. Minich says, carriers of cooties.
But, although I’ve become disillusioned with Lieberman as of late, I should know better than to think that his comments are unthoughtful. Joe is many things, some good, some bad, but he’s not a dummy and he’s not a neanderthal. And although I happen to think that fears of “mocking” the victims, and using the tightly controlled environment of a courtroom as a “soapbox” for radical views, pale in comparison to the almost nation-defining civil liberties implications of indefinitely removing, for the duration of a war that will continue for the remainder of our lifetimes and probably our children’s and grandchildren’s, an amorphous class of individuals whom the Executive Branch declares to be “combatants,” from any possibility of involvement in the civilian justice system… nevertheless, Lieberman’s concerns are not totally illegitimate (nor, certainly, are the concerns noted by Andy McCarthy, which Lieberman may well have in the back of his mind), nor is the manner in which he expressed them totally beyond the pale (although it is flawed).
By the way, if Obama had decided to try KSM in a military tribunal, I’d be fine with that, too. I think KSM’s case is one where either option is OK. What bothers me is the precedent that the OMG HOW DARE YOU TRY A TERRORIST IN A COURT, OR BRING HIM TO THE U.S., OR GIVE HIM FOOD, OR NOT SHOOT HIM ON SIGHT crowd would set, as there is seemingly no awareness whatsoever of the power it would give the executive to be able to throw someone in prison with zero, or minimal, legitimate due process, simply by saying the word “terrorist.”
I mean, isn’t this worse for KSM anyway? “Hey, jurors, here’s the guy who masterminded the bombing of the WTC!” Yeah, can’t see that ending well for the defendant.
Oh, and for Lieberman:
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
The issue for the “neanderthalic, outside-the-realm-of-reason” Right isn’t really that the terrorists are on U.S. soil or might be put in U.S. prisons, but rather that they are being afforded the same rights under the Constitution as U.S. citizens. Whether you think terrorists should be afforded constitutional rights or not, if it was decided that the Gitmo detainees were going to be moved to prisons on U.S. soil but not afforded the same constitutional rights that you and I have, then my guess is you wouldn’t here a peep from the people you describe as the “neanderthalic, outside-the-realm-of-reason” Right. Oh, you might still here cries of “NO TERRORISTS ON U.S. SOIL!!” or “DON’T PUT THEM IN OUR PRISONS!!” from a few on the fringe, but in numbers so small that no fair-minded person would pay them any attention.
Likewise, the issue for the VAST majority of critics of prosecuting terrorists in civilian court obviously has nothing at all to do with anything even resembling the silly belief that terrorists are “some sort of super-mutants who cannot be prevented from escaping” or “carriers of cooties.” That’s just stupid. It isn’t a matter of terrorists escaping from prison, but there is the VERY sober and rational fear that terrorists could be set free in our courts of law. I know what you’ll say: Oh, that will never happen, the odds are so small, they’re obviously guilty, blah blah blah. Well, it doesn’t take too much imagination for anyone remotely familiar with our legal system to see how someone, ANYONE, might possibly be set free on a technicality, especially when they were apprehended by the jackboots of the
Third ReichBush administration (Defense Attorney: “Your honor, my client’s confession was obtained through illegal coercion and torture.” Judge: “All information obtained from the defendant is inadmissible.”).When it comes to your average murderer, or even a serial killer, the thought of them getting off is horrifying, but the effect is somewhat limited by the fact that they very likely won’t get away with doing it again without getting caught, and if they do the number of lives lost will be relatively few. Not so with a radical jihadi bent on mass murder-suicide.
Moreover, if you think it’s so unlikely that these terrorists could be found not guilty that the fear I describe is unreasonable, then you’re saying the outcome is effectively guaranteed….which of course means you’re not really interested in seeing a fair trial at all, but rather a show trial (which these civilian trials could be anyway).