Leahy: U.S. Not Afraid to Try Terrorists

Says Americans Should Show World Our Justice System Works, While GOP Rep. Fears Trial Would "Rip Open Wound" of 9/11

(CBS)  The ability of America to try terror suspects was itself on trial today, as a Democratic Senator (and former prosecutor) argued the sentiments of a Republican Congressman who believes a courtroom is no place for an avowed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terror suspects on trial in a federal court in Manhattan, as was announced this week by Attorney General Eric Holder, is a bad idea, tantamount to " ideology run wild.

"We're going to go back into New York City, the scene of the tragedy on 9/11. We're now going to rip that wound wide open, and it's going to stay open for, what - two, three, four years, as we go through the circus of a trial in New York City?" Hoekstra said today on CBS' "Face the Nation."

He said the defendants and their lawyers will "bring every motion forward that they can" to drag the trial out so they can be at center stage, and that their objective is to make the trial a propaganda show. "Obviously our Attorney General, our legal system, will try to keep it dignified and civil and bring some respect to it," Hoekstra said. "That's not what KSM is going to try to do. They'll do everything they can to disrupt it to make it a circus and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology."

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, however, believes that putting those charged with attacking the United States on trial is the best way to show the world the strength of America.

"I think that Eric Holder, our Attorney General, is right; I think the president is right in holding the trials of these murderers in New York City," Leahy told Schieffer. "What we're saying to the world is, the United States acts out of strength, not out of fear.

"I was a former prosecutor. I'd like to just see them prosecuted, in the same way which we prosecuted Timothy McVeigh. We're not afraid to do that. We're the most powerful nation on Earth. We have a judicial system that is the envy of the world. Let's show the world that we can use that power."

Hoekstra said he would have preferred that the defendants be treated as other suspects will be, by going through a military tribunal, and argued that President Obama had not demonstrated why some detainees at Guantanamo will be tried before civilian judges and some before military courts.

"I would have put [KSM] through the military tribunal process," Hoekstra said. "We started that process. They pled guilty. Why won't the president take guilty for an answer and say, 'Now let's go to the sentencing phase'?"

[While military tribunal transcripts show Mohammed has said he was behind planning the 9/11 attacks, he said last year that he would plead guilty in a military court only if all defendants could plead guilty together, which did not happen because some defendants were undergoing mental competency hearings.]

Hoesktra said giving the "extraordinary" protections of our legal system to those who, he says, "mocked the American system, who want to do everything that they can do to destroy it," is a bad decision. He also protested the Obama administration's decision to transfer detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay to prisons on American soil.

"I'm all about problem-solving," said Hoekstra (left). "What problem is the president going to solve by moving these trials to New York or by moving Gitmo prisoners to Michigan, to Illinois, to Colorado? He hasn't outlined what problem he's solving. I don't see the problem of moving them from Gitmo. It's been a great place. We've been able to keep them there safely.

"Why move them into the United States while we are still under the threat from radical jihadists?"

When asked if he thought the trial might become a "circus," Leahy said, "I have a lot of faith in our judges. They know how to run the trial. They know how to keep decorum in their court. If Sheik Mohammed wants to stand up and say, as he did in Guantanamo, 'I committed all these murders and all these things,' if I was a prosecutor I would sit there and let that jury hear it.

"He's going to be convicted - that's the important thing. We show the world that our judicial system works."

"If somebody murders Americans, and they murder Americans in America, they ought to be prosecuted in America, hopefully convicted in America. I mean, if somebody comes into our country and murders somebody walking down the street, we're going to prosecute them here. It doesn't make any difference whether they're Americans or not. They committed a crime in America.

"We're not afraid of these people. We're ready to stand up to them. I don't think we should run and hide and cower. Let's use our system. Let's convict them."

"What if he should be acquitted?" Schieffer asked.

"I don't think he's going to be acquitted," he said. "I've discussed the evidence that's available. [Eric Holder's] got one of the greatest teams of prosecutors around him. I've gone over the case with him.

"I'd rather be the prosecutor than the defense counsel in this case," he added.

[PUPITO69]

We should just put them all in the same room and FORCE them to read "GOING ROGUE" hows that for a fitting end for these slimeballs.

[stn_sage]

by Mortarman-29 November 16, 2009 10:48 AM EST

So, if no rights were read to them...who cares? If they had to give up information under duress, who cares? If they are guilty of conducting war against the United States, they dont need to be tried by civilian courts...they need to be tried by a military tribunal...and then shot.
(your comment fm date-time-group above)

My response: To this point in time, the question of where they shd be tried in a military or civilian court, hasn't come up in our exchange!

Let me state now...I don't see the necessity that it SHOULD be in a civilian court! Assuming they were taken in a military theater, while operating as a soldier as part of some type of military or quasi-military organization, then I'd personally PREFER it be done in a MILITARY court! Because it will be quicker both in terms of length of trial, procedure, and administration of verdict!

My primary concern is the evidence CANNOT have been obtained as a result of FORCED confessions! Because, at some point, almost EVERYONE will confess to anything to avoid the beatings! And secondly, if we do THIS...the militarizes of other nations, will do the SAME thing to U.S. soldiers! We do NOT want that to happen, CORRECT?!

Regarding punishment: I'd recommend life imprisonment! If you shoot them, you will make martyrs out of them! You don't want to do that, either!

I think this probably clarifies what I think on the subject. Bye!

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by Mortarman-29 November 16, 2009 1:30 PM EST

And what if a military commission failed to convict? While HIGHLY unlikely, the answer is to just lock him back up.
=================================================================
First of all, it's NOT highly unlikely. Considering the success rates of our military commissions vice trials in federal court, it's more likely KSM could get an acquittal in the military system.

Using your logic, we use the sore loser defense: "I know you won but you don't get the prize. We make up the rules as we go along. Justice? Pfft, just because you won doesn't mean we get to lose."

Seriously, even if the GWOT ended tomorrow, what would be the point of trying ANY of these detainees? I mean, the game plan, as you present it, is if there's a goodly amount of evidence to suggest guilt, that's the only basis to punish them as guilty.

In other words, if you're not American or subject to our constitution, you're a second class citizen.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by Mortarman-29 November 16, 2009 1:23 PM EST

I dont care what they want, really. But what I do care is that they want to, and will continue to want to, kill us and blow up our stuff. No matter what we do.

These are not rational people. When you strap a bomb on your back and go blow yourself up, you are not rational. You are a nut job.

The way to deal with the nutjobs is to make it painful for them. You have to make the price so high that they dont want to do it. Now, since they dont care about dying, how could we make the price high.

First, make it high on those around them. Those that are sane. Make it so those guys dont want these idiots around, and will take matters into their own hands to purge them. That was a big part of the successful surge in Iraq!

Second, yes...we have to kill those that remain. You cannot reason with them. And they will never stop trying to come after us. Thus, the only way to stop them is to help them achieve room temperature.
====================================================================
I dont base my argument on religion...if you dont convert, they want you dead.

Logic Mort. Seriously, if we continue to trumpet this "kill, kill, kill" battle cry, like I said, we continue to perpetuate the whole ordeal.

You can't kill all of them that remain. That's like herding cats --cats that are still breeding.

You can't compare what's happening -- or a way forward -- in Afghanistan to what happened in Iraq. Adding 24K troops, mainly to Baghdad, was hardly the sole reason for a drop in violence in all of Iraq. The Taliban's primary goal is just to get us out of Afghnistan. They could care less about a central government beauracracy and more about the de-centralized ability to spread their radical social agenda. Heck, the primary reason we invaded Afghanistan had very little to do with the fact the Taliban had control ofover 65% of the country. The Taliban even agreed to turn bin-Laden over. The Taliban wasn't even averse to our plan to eradicate al Qaeda.

And there is a way to make it harder on these guys and it's not all brute force. They can be persuaded financially and economically. A whole lot of the funding of these terrorist groups comes from oil so we should start there.

[briannorwood]

All I can say is that it seems the victim's families of the 9/11 terrorist strike are pretty much unanimous in their support of a trial in NYC.

If it's ok by them, it's ok by me.

Let the Muslim Jackasses see how Democracy and a real judicial system works! Then kill the bastard!

[Mortarman-29]

What if he gets off on a technicality?

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by Mortarman-29 November 16, 2009 12:30 PM EST
What if he gets off on a technicality?
================================================

What if he doesn't?


What if a military commision failed to convict him.

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

by Mortarman-29 November 16, 2009 10:43 AM EST
Lawyers,

First off, I much rather see him in the military tribunal. I think there are better odds of things not getting screwed up (you dont get Oprah watchers on the jury!). Second, it is done without fanfare, and in private...so KSM doesnt get a stage to spout his crap.

Secondly, I would rather just see him sit in GITMO until he dies of old age. He has no Constitutional rights, and technically, we dont have to do anything with him until the war is over. And since this war with radical Islam will be going on for decades...I have no issue with the guy just sitting there.
=================================================================

Oprah watchers? That's a rather cynical take on the situation. As far as the fanfare, there's going to be some no matter what the venue. True, the degree of fanfare is going to be higher because of the trial being in New York, but THAT is what you can attribute to the Oprah watchers, ACLU types and Tea-baggers. (I'm sure you'll get victims of 9/11 from both ends of the spectrum joining the clamor.) But why put the focus of the blame squarely on the government's shoulders? Blame the media for whipping up a frenzy and also the lemmings waddling along to the noisy beat.

You claim we are technically at war but one can argue we are not at war at all. Heck, we have a difficulty defining the enemy. I mean, how was Iraq an enemy as it relates to the GWOT? Al Qaeda? How do you define an enemy other than with loose ideological terms? You could call the Taliban the enemy but as soon as we leave Afghanistan, they would cease to be our enemy. If radical Islam is our enemy, why aren't we in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan or Indonesia?

Yeah, I too would prefer that KSM and his ilk just rot away or face the needle but I also want him to stand and account for his actions. We have a better conviction rate in federal courts as opposed to military commission so I don't understand the rationale against a civil trial. Lastly, I don't know why people tend to elevate KSM to some type of quasi-super human status. If you look at it objectively, he's an ordinary criminal that committed an extraordinary crime.

[Mortarman-29]

Of course I am cynical! Why wouldnt I be? Remember OJ? Remember some of the jurists with the Mendendez brothers?

I dont blame the media. The government could leave these POSs in GITMO and there would be no media! And no circus.

Our enemy believes they are at war with us. they have been bombing us well before 9/11. Iraq? Look, if you want to fight an enemy, do you want to do it in Afghanistan or Iraq? We went to Iraq, and Al Qaeda stated that the war against America was now in Iraq. And all the little jihadis ran over there and started shooting at us. Of course, we slaughtered the little bastards by the thousands!! Which is a good thing.

Now, why arent we in all of those countries battling radical ISlam? Because we cant do everything at once! We have to kill these people one at a time. It is going to take time. That is why we are going to be at this for decades. Now, we can refuse to go after them. but they will never stop coming after us...that is unless they are dead.

I dont look at what he did as a crime, necessarily. It was an act of war. Radical Islam is at war with us. We had better get to know that and get ourselves prepared for that and what is needed. A lot more jihadis are going to have to die before this ends. Maybe in the hundreds of thousands. We dont have a choice, because these folks just arent going to stop.

I want KSM to just rot. I dont care if he faces "justice." Its what he wants anyway. Just let him sit there in his little cell, with no voice, no visitors...alone. Many of the prisoners released from GITMO have talked about overwhelming depression while in there. That is GOOD!! Let them just sit there staring at their cage and know this is as good as it will ever get.

No family will ever visit. No postcards in or out. No idea how family members are doing...and their family has no idea how they are.

No TV, magazines or entertainment. Just three hots and a cot. And one hour a day to run around a little courtyard with a ball for activity.

Let them live that existence the rest of their lives. Not in front of a camera. But let them become non-persons. Let them practically be erased from existence, while still existing.

That is the way to make this happen!

[Lawyers-Guns-n-Money-01]

Our enemy believes they are at war with us. they have been bombing us well before 9/11. Iraq? Look, if you want to fight an enemy, do you want to do it in Afghanistan or Iraq? We went to Iraq, and Al Qaeda stated that the war against America was now in Iraq. And all the little jihadis ran over there and started shooting at us. Of course, we slaughtered the little bastards by the thousands!! Which is a good thing.
======================================================================

That is rather twisted logic. One of the fundamental reasons these guys were at war with us is because they viewed our presence in their holy land as the ultimate affront.

And what's with all this killing business? The rate at which these guys are being killed is hardly a rationale for huge, protracted military involvement. Unless, of course, you're rallying for our version of a final solution. You can't kill an ideology by brute force. Nay, there are other ways to mitigate their influence. But as long as both sides of this conflict base their arguments on religion, it will continue to pepetuate itself.

[Mortarman-29]

What if they get off (think OJ)???

[stn_sage]

If they get off, it's because the government didn't really have a case to begin with...but, after all this time, effort, and expense...it would have been MORE embarrassing NOT to try them, then to do it, and FAIL!

[Mortarman-29]

What if the issue is that the judge doesnt allow evidence to to it not being gathered correctly by civilian law, or because some of it was gotten under duress, etc? What then?

I mean, we already know KLM is guilty. So if he gets off because of technicalities, what then?

[stn_sage]

by writer10 November 15, 2009 9:44 PM EST

by stn_sage November 15, 2009 9:00 PM EST

My comments are as follows:

1. You have to be brain dead to believe those accused are responsible for 911. These guys are the 'sacrificial lambs' being offered up to an ignorant, witless public.


And you are ignorant to believe otherwise as these men stand in high praise of themselves in admitted responsibility...gee-zus...do you not pay attention to current events? Even as they practically jump up and down shouting "We did it and we would do it again!" without pressure, you still take the stand that 'they're innocent pawns'...you are an idiot incapable of common sense - reading your constant anti US babble is frustrating as well as comedic stupidity.
=============================================================
1. Let me extend the same compliment...I've read your comments which mostly amount to blather! You are either extremely ignorant or naive, which, I do not know...but neither is particularly redeeming!

2. Our country has arrived at the state it is in because of people JUST LIKE YOU...whom...too often choose NOT to think for themselves, but allow the government or someone else to do their thinking for them!

3. IF you know anything about Islam...and I doubt it...the true devotees...
would claim responsibility for any violent act against whomever...to achieve martyrdom and celebrity status in the Muslim world! Surely, you've heard of this phenomena, before?! Do you think they're any different?!

4. DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! NO WHERE did I say they are "innocent pawns"! Au contraire! Most likely they ARE soldiers of some type! Do they belong to Al Queda? Quite possibly. Are they the "masterminds" behind 911? Not likely! How many "masterminds" are behind it!? We've heard it was Bin Laden! Then, Maoussi (spelling). Then, Sheik Khalid. And, a couple of others! NO definitive, all encompassing proof has been offered to prove the quilt of ANY of these people as the "mastermind"! Bin Laden has never been charged with ANYTHING---he's just wanted for questioning! Think there might be a reason for that?!

5. In light of #4, have YOU ever bothered to follow the events of this ongoing saga?! If you had, you wouldn't be quite so willing...and gullible...to 'jump on the U.S.govt bandwagon'!

6. Let me further correct you on another point, my writing is NOT anti-government! My writings challenge the honesty, integrity, and lawfulness of those in charge...who repeatedly appear to act in violation of the law, sir! THIS, is conduct in the finest tradition of this nation...and I DO NOT apologize to YOU or anyone else for it! There is nothing to apologize for! It is called Free Speech...possibly you've heard of the concept?!

7. You, sir...need to 'wake up'! And, start thinking for yourself! Or, remain silent and learn from others! But, don't profess to KNOW what you have NOT adequately studied!

8. I'm glad you find my writing comedic...I find yours insulting to anyone who has intelligence and uses it. But, I suggest that in the future...IF
you read my comments you look closer and THINK about what I'm saying...and ask yourself, 'what is he thinking that makes him say that?' Quite possibly, you may start seeing meaning, where you say none!

[healnghanz]

Its okay to try the terrorist in New York City. They flew planes into buildings here, so thats where the trial is. And there is no better city in the world to get a fair trial. The diversity of opinion in NYC is unlimited. As far as fear of retribution is concerned, yes we are afraid, but we must go forward. We agreed that tribunals in Guantanamo Bay using techniques of incarceration with out being charged was unconstitutional and unlawful. the referendum on this led to the election of Obama as president. We may well be attacked or at least an attempt may be made to attack us. But if you really think about it, those who would gain the most from an attack wouldnt be the terrorists. It would be the republican party. That is why I believe that republican rogue elements of the CIA and FBI, ex agents and moles whose agenda are to discredit the democratic party at every chance because peace is a threat to the concentration of power, that there are people who will lets just say, look the other way when terrorists have a chance to be caught. If ronald reagan could have made a deal with iran not to release the hostages until after he was elected, then there are elements in the republican party who are committed to destroying the democrats even at the expense of the united states. For there are people, and I know its hard to believe, that have much more faith and love for who is in control of the country, than for the country itself. The homeland is THEIR homeland, not THE homeland. But if this discussion is to be taken place fairly, then you have to look at whether liberalism is legitimate. Is it just good deeds flying in the face of reason and practicality? Take Lord Chamberlain who agreed to take the word of Hitler in his promise for peace through appeasement. Well it turns out the Chamberlain was a conservative businessman. But what about welfare? wasnt that a liberal failure? or were republican poison pills placed on welfare that forced fathers to be removed from the home of poor families in order for them to receive benefits. once welfare was conceptualized by liberals, the republicans sought to make it a punitive system. the idea of poverty being a blameless state is inconceivable to republicans. we can have no fault car insurance, and even no fault divorce, but no fault poverty? no that goes to the heart of our blame based society. our judeo christian religion is founded upon blame. but our constitution is based upon origional innocense. All men being created equal. unfortunately, what we dont see in everyday live is that the constitution is a compromise agreement and fusion of disparate and disagreeable elements forged unto a frankenstein state. and thats where we are today still. we can have a free country where the poor are blamed by the rich as shiffless even though we have a history of slavery that is the dominant engine of american preindustrial transformation, and the destruction of families over generations of slavery is seen to be able to be vaporized in an instant and if its not, then these people dont deserve our help cause they cant be helped, and its better just to give them nothing than to help them which will only enable them. its like saying to a woman on the ground who has been raped, leave her there, let her get up on her own cause if you help her it will only foster more trauma and cement it in place. what a load of crap. help is legitimate. how you help is a matter of discussion. but the discussion should be based upon what the result of a particular kind of help is. thats called best practices. you try something out then you see what worked the best and then you implement it no matter what. but then you get into the inevitible but unavoidable definitions of what BEST means. best for whom? And if you do the best thing, well then what does it mean for what was done before and who did it to whom that wasnt the best thing? So that colors everything because a best practice cannot be created that shames the worst practice that preceded it. It has to be seen to flow from that worst practice which has to be cleansed into a better practice, or, the best practice has to be watered down to make the worst practice look better than it was. I dont have time to get into it.

[chitown639]

The Republicans are obligated to be oppose to everything Obama and the Democrats support, even if the grounds Republicans are forced stake their claims for opposition are on irrational, hypocritical and in most cases insanely ridiculous territory. It's unfortunate that we have such a large group of Americans trying to undermine the operation of our government at every turn simply for ideological reasons. They are hoping that everything for America fails, just so their party will gain the upper hand in the next election. They want the economy to tank, they want the wars to go bad, they are quite simply hoping that America fails, and they are doing everything in their power to see that it happens.........

[Mortarman-29]

Dont know about Republicans. But I do know that conservatives want all of the marxist, socialist programs being pushed to fail. If they fail, America wins. If they succeed, America loses!

Now, if they do something that helps us, keeps the government out of our business, and obeys the Constitution...I'll back them all the way!