I Am Not A Lawyer, but trust me, it will be a train wreck – legally because a decent defense attorney will use it as a platform to place the entire War on Terror on trial, shifting the focus from Mohammed’s acts to the government’s and to a grandiose litany of America’s wrongs in the world – and politically, because the American public is going to be really, really cranky when they see the mastermind behind 9/11 being aggressively defended in court.
Back in the dark prehistory of my blog, I pointed out that I thought the Clinton Administration had done a pretty good job of legally prosecuting terrorists, and that the terrorist movement had managed to grow rather dramatically regardless.
I hope I’m wrong on all counts. But I don’t think I am.
–
It will take an amazing judge for this not to be a fiasco of major proportions. Any statement gotten by waterboarding is out. Probably any statement after waterboarding will be out. Any evidence collected by soldiers will be challenged and it would not surprise me most of that will be thrown out. Any non-US witness will painted as doing it only for the money (and depending upon where they come from their family will be threatened). It would not surprise me for most (including KSM) of the accused to be found innocent.
If that happens, what will Obama do then?
And this is why you shoot these bastards. These guys are manifestly “guilty”, and should be terminated immediately.
What is the point of a trial other than as a bit of theater for the lawyers?
Somebody joked that Ron Kuby might be one of the lawyers. I think it more likely that Ramsey Clark and his crew will find employment here.
What if it turns into a Truther orgy, with the foul discharge ending up all over Obama’s shoes?
Well, this is no time to start worrying about the consequences of one’s actions.
_I Am Not A Lawyer, but trust me, it will be a train wreck – legally because a decent defense attorney will use it as a platform to place the entire War on Terror on trial, shifting the focus from Mohammed’s acts to the government’s and to a grandiose litany of America’s wrongs in the world…_-A.L
Well A.L, the War on a Tactic _should_ be on trial of course. Moreover, any decent defense attorney would point out that evidence obtained under torture is inadmissible. Back when we still lived in a constitutional republic this would have been something of a no-brainer.
_Back in the dark prehistory of my blog, I pointed out that I thought the Clinton Administration had done a pretty good job of legally prosecuting terrorists, and that the terrorist movement had managed to grow rather dramatically regardless._ -A.L
Yeah Clinton, the guy who wiped out the only pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan thus endangering the lives of millions, and oversaw the deaths of perhaps one million Iraqis during the crushing sanctions regime that his sec of state, Iron Madeline, characterized as “worth it”. Worth what exactly we’re still left to wonder. Surely there’s no way the beneficiaries of these tender mercies would ever view it as terrorism.
As to your last clause, methinks there is a direct correlation between “terrorism” and US foreign policy such as massive war crimes in Iraq and AF/Pak as well as our decades long subsidy for Israeli depredations in the (illegally) Occupied Territories and beyond. Just say’in.
Would an attempt to put the war on terror on trial work, or be rejected as irrelevant to the case? What is the defendant accused of? Conspiracy. Conspiracy to commit numerous crimes; hi-jacking, murder, mass murder; many more. Even if war had not ensued as a result of his conspiring with others, he would still stand accused of those crimes. That we in effect declared war on terrorists in no way negates the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is accused of committing crimes on US soil against citizens and residents of the United States, and so merits a trial by a jury of his peers.
I have more to say on the matter here, but the gist of it is, Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets his day in court. We win or we lose he gets his day in court because that is the right thing to do.
bq. _Khalid Sheik Mohammed is accused of committing crimes on US soil against citizens and residents of the United States, and so merits a trial by a jury of his peers._
KSM is not my peer. Peer is not synonymous with victim. What you’re crowing for is victor’s justice, which will provide absolutely no benefit to whatever court of opinion is being courted.
I’m reminded of what one of Supreme Court Justice Jackson’s _peers_ said about what Jackson did at the Nuremberg Trials:
bq. _”I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”_
RHSwan: “If that happens, what will Obama do then?”
KSM doesn’t get released if the government can’t find him guilty, so long as active hostilities against al-Qaeda and the Taliban continue. “This is the position of one of Obama’s lawyers”:http://washingtonindependent.com/49886/johnson-opens-the-door-to-post-acquittal-detentions Probably not a double jeopardy issue here because law of war grounds for detention are different than the crimes posited. The practical issue is whether the U.S. could do so, with all of the international jeers of hypocrisy that would accompany it.
I don’t agree that a good lawyer will be able to shift the focus as you suggest – at least while guilt or innocence is being determined, any good judge will be able to limit the evidence to relevant matters.
In the military context, “this case”:http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/us-v-huet-vaughn-legality-of-the-deployment-is-a-non-justiciable-political-question/ dealt with a war protestor who tried to make the legality of the war effort an issue at trial (and she had more justification for it, since she was charged with failing to serve in that effort). The court was pretty clear – that is not relevant.
Mythusmage: _That we in effect declared war on terrorists in no way negates the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammed is accused of committing crimes on US soil against citizens and residents of the United States, and so merits a trial by a jury of his peers._
So, we should have tried the Japanese leadership in Hawaii criminal court for bombing Pearl Harbor?
We were and are at war and it doesn’t matter if the U.S. declared it so or not. Al Qaida declared war on the U.S., prosecuted that war resulting in many deaths of American military, civilians (as well as innocents from other nations), and did so well outside the constraints of the Geneva Conventions.
KSM is a war criminal. Justice demands that his day in court be before a military court – not a civilian court.
Obama’s and Holder’s action is designed to be a show trial providing a circus stage for epic Bush and America bashing to mollify the sick left, Islamist and Islamist-friendly interests worldwide – and to provide cover for Democrats in the 2010 elections.
Expect KSM to be found not guilty on technical grounds and Obama will then ride in on a white unicorn to save the day by exerting “Presidential post-acquittal detention power” that he claimed to have a few months ago…
Obama and Holder are beneath contempt.
It probably won’t be quite as bad as everyone fears, but only because Mohammed will insist on taking the stand and will incriminate himself.
If he doesn’t do that- and the judge holds to strict rules of evidence, it might be impossible to convict Mohammed in a fair court (jury sentiment aside).
Exactly what kind of evidence is admissible in this case. Likely NOTHING taken after his capture consider he treated like a criminal and read his rights or given a lawyer for years (if ever). Are we going to try to put intelligence assets on the stand? Good luck with that.
The reason this dog and pony show is idiotic is exactly because there IS a difference between criminal acts and acts of war. You have to be a jackass not to see that.
_First, the million deaths canard is just flat false. Here’s an article in the right-wing neocon rag (kidding!), The Nation that suggests that valid stats suggest excess deaths of about 350,000 – numbers which other groups think are too high by a factor of 2 or more_
-A.L
Have you ever been curious about that fact the standard methodology for estimating excess deaths in war zones or major disaster areas–“disaster cluster surveys”:http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/publications_tools/iraq/index.html–are only discredited when the agent of death happens to be the US armed forces or those aligned with them?
_And as a side note, I’m always amused at people who are antiwar and also anti-sanction. But let’s skip over that_
-A.L
There is no inconsistency A.L. Sanctions, particularly of the variety imposed on Iraq, are in fact embargoes and therefore acts of war. They are primarily designed to inflict maximum hardship upon the general population with devastating effects on its most vulnerable sectors such as children and the elderly. Moreover, the sanctions on Iraq served the purpose of strengthening Saddam’s regime as the population was forced to depend upon it for survival. You’ll recall that Bush the First allowed the viable resistance movement that arose following Saddam’s defeat in Gulf War I to be crushed by him without interference.
_There’s a key difference between war and terrorism which you – and many other left commentators – elide. That’s accountability. If the US attacks someone, under color of US law and with uniformed agents, that’s an act of war_
-A.L
The US attacked Iraq (one in series of victims stretching back to _at least_ the Philippines in 1898) unilaterally and without UN Security Council sanction or a credible Article 51 defense so this statement simply cannot be supported.
_Terrorist-supporting states want to be able to conduct war via proxy, and be untouchable themselves_
-A.L
Wow.
The US is not only the president of this particular hair club, but also a member.
_The reality is that the best police officers in the nation routinely violate laws in order to enforce them; the practical implications of a ‘work to rule’ by police officers is what we here in LA call ‘drive by policing’_
-A.L
A.L I attribute this to your unfortunate proximity to Hollywood and its “products”. Be rest assured that that’s not how I’ve conducted my near 20 year career on the streets of Chicago. Patting myself on the back for manufacturing evidence (for this is what you’re suggesting) against the “guilty” [Why? because I think they are] is just not. Gonna. Happen.
_We accept limited injustices by the police in order to effectively control crime – while we work to manage the level of injustices_
-A.L
Somewhere Ben Franklin’s admonitions regarding liberty and security spring to mind.
_We could be completely righteous in dealing with the rest of the world – we could act as Gandhi suggested the Jews in Germany act.
We’d feel good about ourselves until we died_
-A.L
This would work if the US were remotely analogous to the Jews of Nazi Germany. You see, it’s the US that has destabilized via subversion or direct invasion some 50 governments–including about 30 democracies–since the close of the Second World War. It’s the US who possesses an unmatched empire of military bases straddling the entire globe (700 and counting) as well as its crown jewel of an “embassy” the size of the Vatican in illegally occupied Iraq which, coincidentally of course, happens to be in the heart of the world’s energy producing region.
bq. _It probably won’t be quite as bad as everyone fears, but only because Mohammed will insist on taking the stand and will incriminate himself._
Well, his lawyers probably wouldn’t let him do that. Or will he fire his lawyers? Will his lawyers resist, saying he lacks the capacity to represent himself. If KSM fires his lawyers, how will his cross-examination of the government witnesses come across?
I remember a book that came out in the early 80s called something like 500 ways to beat the draft. It’s gems of wisdom included things like drinking a gallon of vinegar before going to your physical. Like that method, they all shared a common pre-requisite, not really caring much what happens to you. KSM is going to write a book about how to f**k up a trial, if they let him.
And if they don’t let him, he’s not going to have a trial like anybody else has ever received in the United States. Score one for courage of convictions.
_No, I’m just never surprised when people who strongly feel one way or another about a conflict manipulate the numbers to make spurious claims. If you’ve got a solid case to make for the million deaths, make it. Otherwise, you’re just throwing sand_
-A.L
There was nothing to manipulate A.L. Disaster cluster surveys are the standard methodology for estimating excess deaths in war zones. They were used in Iraq with politically unpalatable results but scientifically sound as the peer review process demonstrated. End of story.
_So we should have finished Gulf I by invading and deposing Saddam? It would have been Ok for Bush I but not for Bush II? I’m eagerly anticipating the arguments on this one_
-A.L
Actually we didn’t have to fight the First Gulf War at all. Once Saddam realized that he’d misread Washington’s signals he offered to negotiate a withdrawal from Kuwait but Bush the First nixed the idea in favor of making a proper example of a wayward former trusted acolyte a la Noriega a year earlier.
As far as Saddam was concerned after the First Gulf War, he was well on his way to being deposed by the Shia majority and the Kurds but that scenario risked Iraq achieving actual independence. Washington’s preference was for a “better”, more reliable Saddam to rise from the ranks of his officer corps but rather than risk a revolution they couldn’t control Bush the First opted to allow the weakened tyrant to crush the rebellion and check both he and his population with an airtight embargo. The desires of the population as expressed in the rebellion never entered into the plans of the Washington Consensus. Still haven’t.
_You’re completely missing the point. State – supported terrorist organizations (Al Quieda at one point, Hezbollah and Hamas et al today) survive because the states that fund and support them are not accountable in the fashion that the US is for our actions_
-A.L
I’m puzzled. When were we held to account for our genocidal campaign in the Philippines or the rape of Haiti a dozen years later? As I understand it the Vietnamese are still waiting for an apology.
Merely because the US and Israel declare Hezbollah and Hamas “terrorist organizations” doesn’t necessarily make them so. Neither organization sprang from thin air but were organized as resistance movements against Israeli serial aggression. If memory serves me correctly, Nelson Mandela and the ANC were once declared “terrorists” by this nation at one time. My point being that “terrorism” is a political designation. Notice that the Contras were “freedom-fighters”.
_So, Coldtype, we were alone in this? No one else no other country invaded or destabilized any nation anywhere? There was no – let me call it a “Cold War” in which guerilla movements and terrorist groups were trained and funded by the other side? If we’d just kept our filty hands off Latin America, it’s all have been peaceful and tranquil?_
-A.L
A.L the “Cold War” ended twenty years ago yet we still outspend the rest of the world combined for “defense”. And what “other side ” do you speak of? I don’t subscribe to tribalism A.L. I only recognize people–wherever they are–struggling for self-determination and freedom. That’s something the US resolutely opposed throughout the Cold War with Indonesia and Vietnam as perhaps the most egregious examples from a body-count standpoint.
_Disaster cluster surveys are the standard methodology for estimating excess deaths in war zones. They were used in Iraq with politically unpalatable results but scientifically sound as the peer review process demonstrated. End of story._
Cluster sampling is accepted mainly as a better-than-nothing technique where normal population sampling isn’t an option; that doesn’t make it nearly as lock-solid as you are depicting it to be. See “Appendix A here”:http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:6QjMUWzQaToJ:web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf for a discussion of the limitations of cluster sampling.
This “Reason magazine article”:http://reason.com/archives/2002/03/01/the-politics-of-dead-children seems to be a good overview of how the # of sanction deaths has differed, but the conclusion supports AL’s numbers.
More to the point, which peer-reviewed study are you referring to, specifically? There’s been some attempts to measure mortality related to the Iraq sanctions, but none relied primarily on cluster sampling to reach their results AFAIK. Citation, please.
Not me; the alternative-universe schtick is getting pretty old.
And finding out your interlocuter is a Chicago officer makes me glad I don’t live anywhere near there. Yes, it’s unfair; yes, one’s loony paranoid politics don’t have any necessary effect on how one does street-level police work, but still… how would you react if you found out your about-to-be surgeon was a Larouchie or a Scientologist? Wouldn’t it give you second thoughts???
So, does this trial in NYC mean that every terrorist we capture anywhere in the world from now on gets a civilian trial as if he were a citizen of the United States? Do we have to read them their Miranda rights too? Did anyone read Khalid Mohamed his Miranda rights? Maybe they know they have the evidence against Khalid but what about the next bomb thrower they capture? And what about the incongruity here of, on the one hand, blowing up houses from the air in Pakistan with people in them, inclduing innocient women and children, if there is one person inside we think is a terrorist, but on the other hand, giving this evil mastermind of 911 all of the legal benefits of citizenship? Just wondering.
Also, I hope you will visit our site and add us to your blogroll. See http://www.centermovement.org
Having a trial is not a right of citizenship. If a Japanese Tourist kills someone, or robs a bank, or has a DUI, they get a trial, just like a citizen does. It’s just not true that non-citizens can be subject to double jeopardy, or enslaved, etc. (OK, we may have various treaties that the tourist is sent back to his home country for trial, etc.—my point is that in this matter, our Bill of Rights is binding on us.)
As we have discussed many times before, with KSM (and many other less important and less culpable detainees), the former Administration tried to create a magical status that was not a lawful POW, and which to some extent simulated the conditions of confinement of unlawful combatants without any sort of initial tribunal, or recourse.
Trying terrorists in civilian court isn’t the least bit unprecedented. I suppose the trial could be a circus, but then, if open, a tribunal could be a circus, too. And it does show a certain lack of faith in the American judicial system, don’t you think?
I’m not a great fan of these drone strikes, but isn’t it interesting that the Obama methods, including many peaceful arrests of AQ members, seem as effective at dismantling AQ as anything Bush did, and with less overhead than an invasion of Iraq?
We have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for a reason. It has protected us very securely for over 200 years and has been the foundation of American exceptionalism since its ratification.
Now we should be afraid of following it because of a bunch of ignorant terrorists? We should be fearful of what they may say?
I will take James Madison and a long line of exceptional American Jurists over the Al Queada boys any time.
I think that most of you should stop allowing these terrorists to terrorize you.
We have a constitution and a bill of rights, but there is no reason why they should apply to non-citizen terrorists. Or even citizen/terrorists for that matter.
In the “Legal Affairs” journal, Douglas Burgess argued in favor of treating terrorists not as enemy combatants or citizens, but in the same way that pirates were treated in the 16th century, when pirates ruled the open seas – as enemies of all people and nations, without the protection of any laws.
Modern pirates and terrorists are not comparable, because the average Somali pirate is fairly apolitical – but during the 16th century, pirates, like terrorists, were a powerful tool of statecraft. Burgess says:
By the 16th century, piracy had emerged as an essential, though unsavory, tool of statecraft. Queen Elizabeth viewed English pirates as adjuncts to the royal navy, and regularly granted them “letters of marque” (later known as privateering, or piracy, commissions) to harass Spanish trade.
It was a brilliant maneuver. The mariners who received these letters, most notably the famed explorers Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh, amassed immense fortunes for themselves and the Crown, wreaked havoc on Spanish fleets, and terrorized Spain’s shoreside cities. Meanwhile, the queen could preserve the vestiges of diplomatic relations, reacting with feigned horror to revelations of the pirates’ depredations.
The Queen expressed horror just as the Saudi supporters of al Qaeda expressed horror at the smoking ruins of the World trade Center, or as the state department expresses our need to remain allied with these Saudis, or as the Palestinians/Pakistanis/Russians/Chinese claim that they are moderate, not responsible for the acts of rogue terrorists.
We can’t fight terrorism if we’re allied with it, but we also need to convince other nations to stop allying with it too. By requiring that all nations stop coddling and rewarding their “rogue” militias, the Declaration of Paris solved the problem of ‘wars of proxy’ for a while. Burgess says:
TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF DEFINING TERRORISM as a species of piracy, consider the words of the 16th-century jurist Alberico Gentili’s De jure belli: “Pirates are common enemies, and they are attacked with impunity by all, because they are without the pale of the law. They are scorners of the law of nations; hence they find no protection in that law.” Gentili, and many people who came after him, recognized piracy as a threat, not merely to the state but to the idea of statehood itself. All states were equally obligated to stamp out this menace, whether or not they had been a victim of piracy. This was codified explicitly in the 1856 Declaration of Paris, and it has been reiterated as a guiding principle of piracy law ever since. Ironically, it is the very effectiveness of this criminalization that has marginalized piracy and made it seem an arcane and almost romantic offense. Pirates no longer terrorize the seas because a concerted effort among the European states in the 19th century almost eradicated them. It is just such a concerted effort that all states must now undertake against terrorists, until the crime of terrorism becomes as remote and obsolete as piracy.
Our democracy was strengthened by taking legal rights away from these enemies of all nations. We need to learn some lessons from history.
Mary,
A lot of things were done in the 16th century that were remedied by the Bill of Rights and a long line of rulings by American Courts. I tend to think that the thought behind the Bill of Rights and these decisions outweighs a reference to Piracy in The Elizabethan Age.
We have a constitution and a bill of rights, but _there is no reason why they should apply to non-citizen terrorists. Or even citizen/terrorists for that matter._
Well, the reason the Bill of Rights was enacted was that it should apply to the citizens of the United States, who, last time I heard, were presumed innocent until proven guilty. If we don’t go by that yardstick, just who is it that we will rely on to judge whether or not the citizen is a terrorist. Since a jury seems to be ruled out then I l I guess we can leave it up to the press?, opinion polls? what?
Or system provides for the protection by the Bill of Rights for all people accused of crimes that pass under the jurisdiction of the American legal system, citizens or non-citizens. Should they too be culled by public opinion, et al.
Stop letting these guys terrorize you. They will be convicted under our system and executed. the best way for us to protect ourselves is to stand by what we believe in and not be taken over by fear.
Our Constitution authorizes KSM to be tried by military tribunals. Military commissions have been part of the system since the Continental Congress authorized them in 1776 for violations of the customs and laws of war. Since 9/11 the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that military commissions are authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Osama bin Laden’s driver was convicted under military commissions.
Obama is using his proctorial discretion not to pursue KSM under the laws of war. Doing so removes the flexibility afforded in military tribunals. He certainly can decide to try this case with one hand tied behind the government’s back. The importance of the outcome strongly suggests, however, that the government will use every bit of it’s war power authority to win each battle waged in the civilian court. We will get a mixed system of justice that would be unrecognizable to the Founders, who would certainly wonder why military tribunals weren’t used instead of degrading the civilian court system.
_I’m not a great fan of these drone strikes, but isn’t it interesting that the Obama methods, including many peaceful arrests of AQ members, seem as effective at dismantling AQ as anything Bush did, and with less overhead than an invasion of Iraq?_
I’m a great fan of anything that exterminates those vermin. And it remains to be seen how effective or ineffective Obama’s policies are at keeping Al Quaeda under control. He’s only been president for less than a year. It will take AQ longer than that to regroup significantly from the damage Bush’s policies did them. My guess is ultimately, Obama’s policies will not be as effective as Bush’s, and that his weakness will prove a much bigger boon to AQ recruitment than Bush’s willingness to use force.
Stop letting these guys terrorize you. They will be convicted under our system and executed. the best way for us to protect ourselves is to stand by what we believe in and not be taken over by fear.
Modern (and mostly Islamist) terrorists ‘fight’ their wars of extortion using a combination of state support, petrodollars and smoke and mirrors. Their power is limited – through the use of horrific and somewhat staged mass murder events, they can extort money and concessions from pacifist and other weak governments. But they aren’t an effective offensive or even defensive fighting force. Al Qaeda and the Saudi military are currently spending a lot of time and effort fighting a ragged batch of rebels in Yemen. The Sauds and al Qaeda are supposedly vicious and armed to the teeth, but they’re losing the battle, badly. They’re currently whining and stomping their little feet, demanding that the US help them. As a military force, they’re downright embarrassing.
Yes, you’re right, we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be frightened of them at all. But we should be concerned about our government’s willingness to work with terror supporting countries like Saudi Arabia. These alliances with terror are similar to the war-by-pirate proxy wars that were fought many years ago. We can learn from history about why this tactic failed so miserably. We can also learn how piracy as a tactic of statecraft and war, was defeated.
But people are frightened
_”They will be convicted under our system and executed.”_
So you believe this to be a show trial Toc3?
Here is the fundamental problem with equating war crimes with civil crimes- under our system you are innocent until proven guilty. If the defendants are _guaranteed_ to be convicted, its a kangaroo court. Is that our beloved system you are talking about?
If they are not guaranteed, then you by definition risk setting them free, when they were detained in the first place because they are a military risk to the security of our nation.
So we lose either way. Either this is a show trial (which the defendants and their allies are sure to claim), or its not and we DO risk setting them free.
_”I’m not a great fan of these drone strikes, but isn’t it interesting that the Obama methods, including many peaceful arrests of AQ members,”_
Site? Or are you suggesting that KSH’s capture on Bush’s watch was an ‘Obama method’. Now the great one can bend the laws of space and time apparently.
But people are frightened
oops – that was the beginning of a sentence whose structure proved unworkable. I should have deleted it
Terrorists killed or apprehended under Obama.
bq. _Either this is a show trial (which the defendants and their allies are sure to claim), or its not and we DO risk setting them free._
I think that’s right, particularly when coupled with the general disregard the world or at least the non-Anglospheric West treat jury trials. I think they’re seen as a non-rationale, dumbed down form of justice. And then there is the death penalty . . .
“That’s a very interesting point. But isn’t it equally true of any military tribunal? ”
Not necessarily- if someone wasn’t convicted of a war crime they could still be held as a normal POW under the GC. Or they could be turned over to their native nation or the nation that they were fighting in and possibly face charges there.
If they win their case in federal court they will walk out the courthouse doors with full due process protections equivalent to an American citizen, rendition or classifying them back to POW status becomes much more difficult if not impossible, since it will require more civilian courts.
_”Terrorists killed or apprehended under Obama.”_
Your link points to 2 terrorism suspects arrested here in America, and 2 more killed in a missile strike in Somalia.
Pretty impressive record I must say, but what does that have to do with your claim of “many peaceful arrests of AQ members”? I count 1 that can be tied directly to AQ, 1 that was a Jordanian student that was only told he was working with AQ operatives (in fact FBI), and 2 more killed with missiles, hardly peaceful.
What I WANT to hear is this alleged strategy for peacefully arresting AQ members abroad in places like Tribal Pakistan and Somalia. Waiting until their cells get here and hoping to arrest them doesn’t seem like a good plan to me.
By the way- do we really want to compare this impressive 4 (maybe) AQ neutralization count with Bush’s record of retiring AQ members?
Does anybody know what crime KSM is to be charged with? My best guess is that he committed the crime of conspiring to murder multiple people. “But that doesn’t appear to be a death sentence offense.”:http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-laws-providing-death-penalty Most of our criminal laws hold the person who actually does the violent act to the highest penalties, reserving planning and assistance to secondary offenses.
It’s somewhat the opposite of the law of war framework in which the foot soldier is generally not accountable for killing, but commanding officers can violate the law of war by planning particularly aggressive wars.
_”Want to compare US Intel estimates of AQ enlistment success under Bush vs Obama?”_
Sure. Produce them.
toc3:
Yes, we know how fearless you liberals are when contemplating terrorism. Especially after digesting statistics showing that the terrorists are much more likely to kill some innocent person other than yourself.
But don’t tell me how to remember 9/11. If you don’t mind.
Andrew, surely that should read, “alleged terrorists captured or killed under Obama”.
_Want to compare US Intel estimates of AQ enlistment success under Bush vs Obama?_
I’m with Mark on that one, but even if the numbers are smaller _so far_ under Obama, it’s still too early to tell if that’s because they are still hurting from Bush’s policies or Obama’s are more effective. I suspect it’s the former and that in another year or two AQ recruitment will surpass any hight it reached in Bush’s terms. We’re talking about the most extreme people from an extreme culture, a culture that worships strength even when that strength is used for brutal oppression and despises weakness however well-intentioned. Remember Obama’s “strong horse/weak horse” analogy? Obama is a very weak horse.
_”No, Mark. I actually believe our Justice system will work.”_
I see. Verdict first, trial after is it? Something about your line of reasoning isn’t making a lot of sense. Are these guys innocent until proven guilty or not?
_”this reads both incoherently and as a non-sequitur and for that matter a bit hysterical._
_What exactly are you trying to say?_”
Seemed pretty straightforward to me. If they have the assumption of innocence, how can you guarantee their conviction?
“Because I believe in the system” (jingoism aside) isn’t an answer- if they don’t have the assumption of innocence then you DON’T believe in the system, and you are offering them a show trial to feel good about yourself and how enlightened you are.
On the other hand, if these guys DO have the assumption of innocence and will receive the exact same rights as any American, in a fair trial there IS a real chance they will walk free (by definition).
And I’m not just making a semantic argument here. If you toss out literally everything these guys said since capture (assumedly they weren’t given Miranda) and you don’t allow unsourced intelligence info, what evidence do you have against them? Is the government going to go into Pakistan and dig up witnesses? Is KSM allowed to do the same for his defense? Let’s call a spade a spade here- going through the motions of a trial doesn’t equate to a fair trial under our system… which is EXACTLY why we shouldn’t try.
Instead of burnishing our justice system we will be dragging it down in the dirt to GUARANTEE a conviction. _Best case_ these guys confess, otherwise there is every reason to believe the trial (by civilian, constitutional standards) will be vastly unfair.
That is why you don’t conflate how you handle enemies of the state and common criminals.
I have some personal knowledge of one of the four “AQ members” since he struck about a block from where I’m working. He had been under FBI surveillance for years and I doubt that any President can take credit for the legwork. (I doubt he is an AQ member — I think he’s a self-radicalized Muslim convert with a thing for John Walker Lindh)
The last time somebody called in a bomb threat to the courthouse, he was tried a 100 miles away from here for fairness. Timothy McVeigh was tried in Denver, not Oklahoma City. Why would KSM be brought to trial in New York City? It’s not because the evidence of his wrongdoing is in NYC, that’s just where the victims are.
I think this is the first clue that KSM will not receive traditional justice. KSM is a non-resident alien not entitled to complain about the forum when he commits crimes in the United States.
_”Believing in the justice system is jingoistic?”_
Oh please, stop fencing. When your only reply to a perfectly rational question about the fairness of this trial is ‘No, Mark. I actually believe our Justice system will work.’, that is jingoism.
_”He has the assumption of innocence. That is how our justice system works._
_Yes there is a chance that he will walk free._ _This is how the system works._”
Thank you. That is all I was asking. Now we have to ask ourselves, politically, if that is palatable. I know your answer and you assumedly know mine. The voters will ultimately let us know there’s.
_”The above is pretty wild-eyed. why would you let yourself be this terrorized.”_
You can keep saying that, but it doesn’t make you look any less silly with repetition. Toc if a plane crashes into your building, please don’t let the burning jet fuel terrorize you. Just keep typing.
Under Bush.
Propaganda has been a little more difficult under Obama.
OK, I realize there is an apples-to-oranges element in the comparison. But the fact remains, the invasion of Iraq was an AQ recruitment bonanza, and the election of a black American with part-Muslim roots to the Presidency was an AQ disaster.
Andrew… come on. Are you really going to try to pull so obvious a slight of hand?
If AQ started with 10,000 members and Bush killed 5000, are you really going to give credit to Obama for only having 5,000 to face on his watch?
Did AQ instantly evaporate the day Obama was sworn in? Or have we managed to kill or capture thousands of them in the last 8 years, leaving Obama with a much smaller number to deal with.
And Time magazine is propaganda?
Andrew:
The naivete of that statement is mind-blowing. Interesting that Obama is an ersatz Muslim when it suits the fuzzy logic.
What’s mindblowing is believing some radical fire breathing Saudi steeped in the local madrassa decides that instead of heading for Pakistan with an explosive belt he’s going to take up sheep herding, all because America elected a president with a different colored skin and familiar name.
Its the same logic that would have you believe all of these zealots would be selling rugs or studying architecture if George Bush didn’t force them to grab their AK and go looking for mentally disabled kids in Anbar to strap dynamite to.
_”I know you don’t believe it, but your argument assumes zealots are born and that no change in external circumstances can reduce either the ferocity of the zealotry or the number of zealots.”_
I absolutely do not believe that. I believe that zealots are crafted over many years, probably a lifetime. Is it the dirt poor barely literate that ends up being the suicide bombers because they snap one day at their lot in life? No indeed- it is the educated, middle class that fill out the terrorist profile. Does it make sense that they were living their peacefully living their lives and suddenly could bear no more the American bootprint in Iraq? Of course not. They were undoubtedly stewing in these juices of jihad and conquest for _years_ and found their excuse to swing into action. Did AQ not exist before Iraq? What was OBL and the 911 hijackers justification for 911- Americans airmen defending sacred Saudi Arabia as I recall. Wouldn’t you think if that justification wasn’t handy it would have been something else just as easily? Or do you really believe the towers would be standing if we didn’t have an airbase in SA?
_”Do you really not believe that the US invasion of Iraq was a very useful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda?”_
In the short run, perhaps- but again, who were the people that jumped at the chance and what were their intentions otherwise? Moreover, polls across the Arab world showed conclusively that AQ’s nihilistic campaign of death turned huge majorities of Arabs and other Muslims _against_ AQ and their methods. In the balance AQ probably lost its most critical support, precisely because they were forced to reveal their true colors as murderers (or fellow Muslims mostly) unrepentant and Talibanesque thugs looking for power. AQ lost Iraq BADLY.
_”Is it not possible for the number of AQ-supporters and agents to wax and wane, in part according to US policies and military actions around the world?”_
I certainly believe that, but not in the way you think. AQ and its ilk thrive on _weakness,_ and wither in the face of strength. Bush proved he would stand up for friends and would not be cowed by losses to cut and run and abandon those you establish trust with. That is and was of unesteemable value. Obama’s seeming willingness to bend over backwards to show how toothless we are, how fickle to friends and deferential to foes, could well encourage AQ and meeken moderates.
_”The US invasion of Iraq helped to plant the belief in some, strengthen the belief in others, that the US has territorial ambitions in so-called Muslim lands, making a host of arguments for jihad much more appealing to those who were already vulnerable to them.”_
And what does our establishment of Iraq as an independent nation in the face of massive violence, and withdrawal of our troops only after the violence is quelled mean to them? Seemingly by your definitions it would utterly disarm those same skeptics.
So I guess somebody out to throw some data into the mix:
_”Ten percent of Saudis have a favorable view of the al Qaeda terrorist network, according to a survey by Terror Free Tomorrow, an international public opinion research group based in Washington.”_
“cnn”:http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/17/saudi.poll/index.html
_”Polling in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example, reveal that more than 90 percent of those populations have unfavorable views of AI-Qaeda and of bin Laden himself. This astonishingly high rate of disfavor no doubt reflects the horrible violence that these two populations have suffered at the hands of bin-Laden and his network of killers. Just two years ago in Turkey, polls showed that 90 percent of citizens there believe that the Al-Qaeda bombings in London, Istanbul, Madrid and Egypt were unjust; 86 percent thought that there was no excuse for condoning the September 11 attacks; and 75 percent said bin Laden does not represent Muslims._
_Another study shows that since 2002 support for terrorist tactics has fallen – often dramatically – in seven of eight predominantly Muslim countries that were polled as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project (www.pewglobal.org). Five years ago in Lebanon, 74 percent of the population agreed that suicide bombing could sometimes be justified. Today, only 34 percent hold that view – still too high, but a stark reversal nonetheless. Similar declines in support have also occurred in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and Jordan._
_Equally significant, Muslims the world over are openly rejecting bin Laden’s attempts to pervert their faith. WorldPublicOpinion.org (www.worldpublicopinion.org) found in April that large majorities in Egypt (88 percent), Indonesia (65 percent) and Morocco (66 percent) agree that groups such as Al-Qaeda violate the principles of Islam. These shifts in attitude are beginning to show up in actions. Sunni leaders in Iraq’s Anbar Province are working with coalition forces against Al-Qaeda because they say the terrorists bring only chaos, “Killing people, stealing. . . , everything, you name it,” as one local leader commented._
“Kuwait Times”:http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTA1NDQ3MDEwOA=
Here are some pew polls:
“Support for Suicide bombing”:http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=19&mode=table has sunk for every Muslim nation polled between 02 and 08
“Support for OBL to do the right thing in world affairs”:http://pewglobal.org/database/?indicator=20&response=Confidence&mode=table again decreased in every Muslim nation polled except for Nigeria. Jordan went from 56% to 19%.
Those don’t seem to be the indicators of growing support.
Mark B.,
_Seemingly by your definitions it would utterly disarm those same skeptics_
Not utterly and not all. But some, yes. I’m talking about reducing vs increasing a few among several factors motivating jihadists. I am not talking about eliminating or creating all factors or one single over-riding factor. If there are 18,000 active AQ agents, perhaps half them _are_ born killers. But I believe at least half of them might have taken a different path in different circumstances and that we _can_ have some impact on some parts of those circumstances. Not all. Some. Jihadism is a movement. The best thing we can do to combat it is to reduce its appeal. Not eliminate. Reduce.
And yes, non-muslim troops, whether Russian or American, in muslim countries, regardless of the rationale in the minds of those troops for being there, seems to be a significant and successful rallying cry among pan-islamists. But then, driving foreign troops off your “home” soil, especially when mixed with religious fervor, has always been a cause a certain number of people are drawn to throughout history.
I’m not sure why you think AQ thrives on weakness. It seems, rather, to thrive on conflict, specifically conflict with the West, which it views as a military, social and cultural threat, i.e, a foreign, dominant and aggressive power. They seem hell-bent on attacking and antagonizing the strongest powers around, not the weakest.
_”I’m not sure why you think AQ thrives on weakness. It seems, rather, to thrive on conflict, specifically conflict with the West, which it views as a military, social and cultural threat, i.e, a foreign, dominant and aggressive power. They seem hell-bent on attacking and antagonizing the strongest powers around, not the weakest.”_
Bin Ladin’s own words, of course- “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
Don’t mistake size for strength- the US looked very weak indeed before 911. We had sat on our hands after the 1st trade center bombing, Somalia, the embassies, the Cole. Our halfhearted missile attacks must have seemed nothing but a further provocation- certainly no reason for alarm.
The mistake is believing AQ’s avowed rational was any more realistic than, say, Hitler’s demands at Munich- for the fascists there is _always_ some provocation worth killing over.
On the other hand, Iraq disproved any number of fantasies AQ was busy constructing for their Muslim audience- that America wouldn’t stand for casualties, that we weren’t a good ally, that AQ was heroic and that a society based on their principles was desireable, and possibly that a multi-ethnic democratic state is viable in the Middle East instead of holy war and fascism.
_”However, we were not talking about the Muslim world as a whole, but that very very very small and narrow band of Muslims that are potential and actual AQ recruits and supporters.”_
True- but fish swim in water, and if the water turns to poison they will die. If the societies that here-to-fore tolerated or even encouraged them reject AQ and extremism, they cannot prosper, cannot draw supplies, cannot raise money, and can’t hide for very long. And that is how you defeat such a movement. How else? By giving them ‘what they want’? What is you alternate end game here?
_”London, Madrid, Riyahd (5 different ones), Bali, Istanbul, Mombassa, Djakarta.”_
None of which were American targets I might add- and all of which made blood enemies of some potential allies. Never get in your enemies way when he’s making a mistake?
_”I think they want to provoke the West into the kind of aggressive behavior they believe will swell their ranks.”_
I’d suggest they will be more careful what they wish for in the meantime, but I doubt they have the self-awareness to learn such a lesson. Their provocation has caused a massive backlash from the west, but that backlash has cost them _their own_ support at home, which is their lifesblood. How have they benefited from that?
_”I believe the West can be most effective in reducing the threat by targeting AQ as specifically as possible, rather than large-scale attacks against people who have very little, if anything at all, to do with AQ. That tactic is just counter-productive.”_
I agree completely. And I don’t believe we have launched any large scale attacks against innocent peoples. On the other hand- AQ didn’t bloom in a vacuum. Their poor, illiberal, angry cultures and nations created them and channeled their jealousy, xenophobia, and rejection of equality and modernity against a useful scapegoat, The West. I’m not sure how you drain that angry swamp without knocking out some of the fascist little thugs that keep them that way and (more importantly) keep the ideals, modernity, and charity of the West at bay or steal and horde it. Will abandoning Afghanistan help or hurt this issue? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Jordan, Egypt? Spain? How far and how fast do we have to pull our stakes and friendships out of the region to appease these clods?
Like it or not, we ARE fighting a battle of ideologies. From Denmark and Holland to Michigan to Riyad, to Tehran, to Bali. Keeping our heads down, bowing to kings, and launching the occasional missile that will only occasionally kill 20 children is not going to arrest that fascist momentum. Challenging it and holding it up to the standards of modernity can. We don’t have to invade every nation- we have potential examples that we need to nurture and show what can become of them, especially compared to the Talibanesque hellscapes AQ and their ilk have to offer.
_”I’m scratching my head over that statement. How was “shock and awe” not a large scale attack? How were the Iraqis that perished under the bombs we dropped not innocent?”_
How were the most of the nazis we bombed in WW2 not innocent? Its war. We went far out of our way to avoid collateral damage and without question held it to an unparalleled level.
_”I always suggested withdrawing from Iraq because it was a mistake to have invaded in the first place.”_
How does one follow the other? It might be a mistake to swim through a croc infested river, does that mean we should swim back?
_” I am not a proponent of invading Pakistan, e.g., nor do I favor increasing the # of troops in Afghanistan.”_
I’m still fuzzy as to what you ARE suggesting.
_”You draw a distinction between American and British targets when measuring the success of our war against AQ . That they bomb busses in London is a sign of progress? I just don’t get that at all.”_
London was 1 of the targets. I believe there were several others including Turks and Indonesians that were hugely powerful potential sympathizers with AQ.
_”make this something of a hollow concern, a sham, really”_
Was it a sham when Churchill smiled (undoubtedly with a brandy) in relief after Pearl Harbor was attacked? Our enemies displaying exactly just how evil they are is not a bad thing. I don’t want anybody to be killed, of course, but getter some long term good or lesson be drawn from it than none at all. In other words better this than some nihilistic act against another group without the potential to protect itself or strike back and end the threat, taking common cause.
Its easy to smack down everything anyone else does in this war, because sometimes there are no good or ideal solutions. But mark, what do you suggest as a grand geo-political all-world plan (or the broad strokes anyway)?