A message to you, Rudy: Man up
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
A message to you, Rudy: Man up
Rudy Giuliani -- from "Winston Churchill" to quivering Jello-like mass of fear in just eight short years. Maybe it's domestic bliss? It was just a few short years ago -- during the Bush years, if I'n not mistaken -- that Giuliani was happy to testify at the domestic criminal trial of a foreign-born al-Qaeda plotter, Zacarias Moussaoui. Wonder what changed?
Legal expert Andrew Cohen had a must-read piece in the Washington Post about some of the myths about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York. He notes:
Trying Mohammed in New York will significantly raise the risk of another terrorist attack there. Fact: No one can determine how big that increased risk would be. But New York has long been able to safely host trials of terrorism suspects -- including the trial that followed the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center -- and its security systems are among the world's finest. I have seen, during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, just how intense security can be in terrorism cases. It's awe-inspiring.
Rudy should go. He might learn something. He could also listen to Pat Perry:
Pat Perry, whose son was a police offer killed on 9/11, says she would rather see the Guantánamo detainees who have been held without charge “appear in open court where we can all sift out what we feel is really the truth and the judges can make a decision based on our Constitution.”
These 9/11 family members all say they agree that holding detainees without charge in Guantánamo is a betrayal of American values and they look forward to true justice being served in federal court.
“My son gave his life to save those trapped in the Twin Towers,” Welty says, “and it does not honor him that we violate our Constitution in retaliation for what happened on September 11.”
Comments (78)
Comment removed.
"I would assume that the reason for putting these particular individuals on trial is that the evidence against them can stand up to the kind of defense that can be mounted in civilian trials, whereas with the other detainees that isn't the case. So - half a loaf is better than none. Put these guys on trial in civilian court. Prove that we stand behind our foundational principles. Let KSM put on a fair defense, and then convict him and punish him. Show terrorists that they cannot manipulate us into doing what they want us to do - which is to act in contradiction to our underlying principles. Show the same to anyone who might support them, who would be swayed by signs of hypocrisy." You say this as if it is a given that a civilian court is somehow more valid than a military one....this is simply untrue. Tps, the point is that a military tribunal is the ~correct and proper~ venue to try enemy combatants during wartime under our rule of law. These men are accused of attacking at the heart of our military operations, the Pentagon, after having declared war on the US. They never set foot in this country, as any conspiracy that they may have committed occured oversees. "Any negative ramifications from trying other detainees in a more restrictive legal environment will be dwarfed by the advantages of putting these detainees on trial in a civilian court. So the argument goes. It is a legitimate argument." Are you saying that our system of jurisprudence is unfair...that those who are tried under military tribunal are not being treated the way that an American should treat a person who is accused of wrongdoing?— legatus- Once again the sky is falling. OMG I can't believe Obama has the audacity... If he went with Limbaugh's plan he would certainly be criticized by the right for "flip-flopping" or for being a thinly veiled opportunist hair-triggered by the Republican Gubernatorial victories in NJ and VA. Short of bombing Iran, there is nothing Obama can do that won't be negatively spun by the Limbaughs and Becks and Hannitys. I may have felt the same way about Bush, but there was and never will be a noise machine screaming as loud as the FOX nuts. Air America and or Rachel Maddow have about 100 million less sheep in their pasture.— pagoda
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- TPS -- I'm going to give an example to show why I think the legal points bear some thinking about, rather then political or influence points. Imagine that there is a South Korean student who runs a blog criticizing North Korea, mocking it's leadership, and calling for a general revolt against the rulers. North Korea decides it feels that this student has committed a crime against it, invades South Korea, captures this person, and puts him on trial inside of North Korea. So in other words, how can we legally apply American laws to people who are not American and did not commit their crimes on American soil? I would think you would absolutely have a legal argument that what KSM did was not against the law in the country that he resided in, and is not subject to American jurisdiction. Also interesting, is the handling of national security issues during the trials. Our court system has certainly had to deal with how to appropriately handle top secret material in criminal cases, but how do they handle it when it's almost guaranteed that any confidential information will end up in the hands of people who will try to use it against us? I'm talking about identities of CIA personnel, bases, operational plans, tactics, etc. How will the court prevent that information from getting to the enemy?— IggleFan68
- ---}}} more valid than a military one....this is simply untrue. {{{--- More valid? Where did you get that? Where did I even imply that? But the procedures are different. The kind of defense the accused can mount is simply different. That is just a simple fact, legatus. Giving the detainees greater ability to mount a defense only shows your level of confidence in their guilt, your ability to prove that guilt, and in your belief in the underlying principles of our judicial process.— Talking point sleuth
- longshanks -- are you 12 years old? Were you old enough to remember the "do nothing except shoot off a missile when your own missile was found in the wrong intern's mouth" Presidency? I've said before that Bush owns some responsibility for 9/11, but the Clinton administration absolutely does as well. Just like our present economic situation, where both Obama and Bush share responsibility, and to a lesser extent Clinton (some of the key linchpins of our downfall were put into place during his watch, but I would have expected Bush to have fixed them, and he did not).— IggleFan68
- Also -- no one has answered the question about -- "Why isn't a military tribunal under the UCMJ appropriate?" What's wrong with that process -- the accused still gets the right to a defense and face his accusers....— IggleFan68
- I think the questions about controlling important intelligence is are legitimate questions, Iggy. However, I have seen in the past where those questions are used to provide political cover. For example, when people claimed that the NYT articles about warrantless surveillance would, in any way, change terrorists behaviors - as if a terrorist would say, "Oh, now that I know that they don't need to obtain warrants, I will suddenly be more careful in how I plan my next bombing." As for your example: North Korea would have no ability to claim legitimacy in any court proceeding it puts on precisely because of how they differ from us in upholding such principles as "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty." To the extent that we back down from prioritizing those principles, we become unable to legitimately show how we are not like such a country.— Talking point sleuth
- Comment removed.
- "American hypocrisy as a powerful recruiting tool for jihadists." So were cartoons of Muhammed in a Danish publication - so should the West abrogate freedom of speech to cater to them? Jihadists will always find a reason to attack the West - catering to their warped mindset does nothing to alter their recruitment, IMO. We should not decide the trial venue for KSM on what Jihadists or their wannabees think of us.— db_cooper
- "The kind of defense the accused can mount is simply different. That is just a simple fact, legatus. Giving the detainees greater ability to mount a defense only shows your level of confidence in their guilt, your ability to prove that guilt, and in your belief in the underlying principles of our judicial process." Once again Tps the point is that a military tribunal is the ~correct and proper~ venue to try enemy combatants during wartime under our rule of law. You wouldn't try Bernie Madoff in small claims courts, would you? You wouldn't try a federal case in state court. You wouldn't try a civil case in criminal court. The fact that you're ignoring is that if you truly have a "belief in the underlying principles of our judicial process", you would try them in the proper setting. Even though this setting is one where the "kind of defense the accused can mount is simply different" than a criminal trial, our justice system has decided that this venue is the proper one to try enemy combatants during wartime. It seems that it is Holder who has no belief in the underlying principles of our judicial process. Either that, or he has other reasons that he'd rather use a civilian criminal court.— legatus
- Sorry Bryanc, I meant to type "opposed", you know, as in NYPD and NYFD opposed to Rudy's reckless and ill-conceived idea.— pagoda
- ---}}} so should the West abrogate freedom of speech to cater to them? {{{--- Huh? So's I make sure I got this right - you're saying that putting KSM on trial = abrogating freedom of speech? ---}}}} Jihadists will always find a reason to attack the West {{{--- Oh. I get it now. Jihadists will always find a reason to attack the West, so let's not consider how anyone else responds to our actions? So, I guess Petraeus is wrong when he says that we shouldn't give our enemies tools to beat "us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion?" Good point, db. As a matter of fact, let's start beheading the wives and children of jihadists on national TV. I mean the jihadists will always find a reason to attack the West.— Talking point sleuth
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: