Washington - President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.
The president’s advisers feel increasingly ...that Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some alleged terrorists in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to the rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are the appropriate venue for those accused of attacking the United States.
The TV ad where the theme is "Gotta go, gotta go, Gotta go right now..." fits the Obama administration on so many levels I don't know where to begin...
The polls support the public's feeling about this. The majority do not believe a terrorist should be treated like an ordinary criminal.
ReplyDeleteThe public are idiots that don't understand what this is about. The propaganda machine has brainwashed the US citizens and they are ready to just do lynchings. This will be one more promise the Glorious Leader will break. The reason for the military court is because it will not have to listen to facts to convict this man, I assure you that no one in this country would want to be tried under a military court if they were brought up on charges.
ReplyDeleteWe already have seen Bush trample on the US Constitution, why not the Glorious Leader as well.
Exactly why not? Having lived in a military environment, I know military courts follows every principle of American law, and then some. The defendents are provided the best counsel, either by US miliotary or they can have their civilian lawyers, paid for by US.
ReplyDeleteI am real tired of hearing this kind of statement, like the American military is an evil force. But then as the spouse of and child of veterans who fought for this nation so that we can have the right to make ignorant ranting statement, I guess I am biased.
The difference......if it is done by military, the lawyers do Not lie and conceal facts
ReplyDeleteand i assure you young lady.......most people I know would prefer a military trial
besides what is it............about a man that commits an act of war, that you wanna see him treated like he held up the corner liquor store............like it or not, accept it or not, these people declared WAR on us
ReplyDeleteEveryone gets an attorney, in civilian or military trials....so there is representation. Not sure why military trials are seen as somehow less efficient or fair.
ReplyDeleteExactly...
ReplyDeletemilitary lawyers are not weasels like regular lawyers
ReplyDeleteYeah, they must answer to a commander.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in KSM's case, he has admitted his guilt proudly so it's pretty much a done deal.
KSM isn't a US citizen that he would get rights of a citizen. He didn't commit the crime on US soil. He wasn't arrested by the police, but was captured in a military operation. He wasn't guilty of a crime, but an act of war, and as an illegal enemy combatant, as defined by the Geneva conventions. He has already been given a break under the legal standards that apply.
ReplyDeleteRetracting the decision to try him in civilian court is the right move. I'm glad they have done this, even if it took a lot of protest. Unfortunately they are not necessarily doing the right thing for th eright reasons, but it is still the right thing.
I say, unless it's a case of mistaken identity just shoot the bastard and be done with it. He's guilty so why waste time with a trial of any sort...lets just be done with it. But then, that isn't how it works in real world, is it?
ReplyDelete