Travesty in New York
WASHINGTON — For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the “propaganda of the deed.” And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11—not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.
And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life—and KSM, a second act: “9/11, The Director’s Cut,” narration by KSM.
Sept. 11, 2001, had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable—a civilian trial in the media capital of the world—from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.
So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.
Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) “do not get convicted,” asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl.
“Failure is not an option,” replied Holder.
Not an option? Doesn’t the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure—acquittal, hung jury—is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.
Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.
Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York—what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims?—it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.
That’s precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of 200 unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden.
“Within 10 days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,” wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, “letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.”
Finally, there’s the moral logic. It’s not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.
By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.
What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime—an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?
By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?
Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil, and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform—everything but your own blog.
Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It’s Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.
Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.
Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be “the trial of the century.” The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Nov 25, 2009 at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Am I confused believing the past Administration sanctioned the torture of detainees? Or that Bush (Cheney, et al) attempted several times to have the suspects brought to justice in a manner deemed unconstitutional by his own Justice Dept. Then he (et al) tried firing those who opposed his view. And in the end he did nothing (which fairly sums up his two terms as President). Perhaps you are the one who's confused RAF.
Nov 24, 2009 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
As always, red is a confused humorist.
Nov 24, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Unbelievable arrogance / ignorance yet again by an administration that just doesnt get it."
Ummm, actually tiredofhearingit, that describes the last Administration. They arrogantly defended their use of torture and absence of due process then spent the next 6 years with their head up their wazoo waiting for the next Administration to fix their mess. This Administration not only "gets it" they will also exact the type of justice that sets an example for the rest of the world. Conservatives just can't seem to figure out what justice really is much less how to put in to practice.
Nov 24, 2009 at 6 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Miranda doesn't apply because he was not arrested on U.S. soil, and because he was arrested by the military, not law enforcement."
I have heard that we are now requiring our forces to Mirandize anyone captured. Granted my hearing it is not proof without a "source", if true would this not mean that Miranda would have to apply to KSM as well? If this is not true I hope someone will let me know.
Nov 23, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be “the trial of the century.”
***
That says it all - Holder wants his 15 minutes. I ask this though... at what expense? A Court House, A Judge & Jury, Media Pool or worse how about a dirty bomb with 100's or 1000's of spectators nearby. Unbelievable arrogance / ignorance yet again by an administration that just doesnt get it.
Nov 23, 2009 at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
For once, I agree with EVERYTHING Charles Krauthammer says!! I don't know what's coming, but grab the children and run, because I think hell just froze over.
Nov 23, 2009 at 1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"civilian" trial.
Nov 23, 2009 at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Besides, what would be a bigger "dog and pony show"? A civil trial, or a military tribunal where even hearsay evidence is admissible?
Nov 23, 2009 at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
The strongest evidence linking KSM to 9/11 came from his computer. It's possible the prosecution won't even have to admit his confession.
Miranda doesn't apply because he was not arrested on U.S. soil, and because he was arrested by the military, not law enforcement.
Even if Miranda did apply, it would only invalidate his confessions. Testimony against him, documents and his computer files would be admissible.
Nov 23, 2009 at 12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Here is one reason not to have a dog and pony show that will be labeled a trial.
.
KSM's lawyers demand all the documentation collected. This includes names of anyone who provided information against him. thier lives will be worth less than a warm bucket of hamster spit when any terrorist or terrorist symp gets hold of this list.
.
I don't believe that this will stop the process of this silly trial. The first thing that KSM's team will have thrown out in court is any confessions or statements made under "duress".
.
If he gets the "right" judge, his whole case could be dismissed because he was not mirandized when captured.
Nov 23, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Either ALL accused are treated equally UNDER THE LAW or none can expect a fair and just day in court. The U.S. cannot claim any human rights superiority over other nations without "walking the talk". Once upon a time, the people of the United States rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence — a presumption of guilt — as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society. Government cannot be trusted or supported if it does not respect the rights of the accused...ALL accused.
Nov 23, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Why are Chuck and many Republicans so fearful of using a jury trial to bring terrorists to justice? "Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish." As Mr. Holder stated, no terrorist will determine HOW they are brought to justice. Thats for the U.S. to decide.
"It’s Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice." All Mr. Obama did was put the decision where it belonged, not with politicians but with those who know best, the Justice Department. The Attorney General is involved in the prosecution process. Of course the prosecutors feel confident the defendant will be convicted or they would not have brought charges, therefore, what prosecuting attorney EVER offers the opinion the individual on trial will go free?
Who else here, besides Chuck, is naive or just plain dumb enough to believe bringing terrorists to justice through military tribunals will reduce the chances of another terrorist attack?
Here is the REAL reason Chuck and the Neocons are so fearful of a jury trial. It seems enough hard evidence exists to suggest a conviction is assured, but what may come back to haunt prosecutors is HOW the detainees were TREATED. KSM took credit (confessed) to being the mastermind of 9/11 before he was even captured but how will evidence be handled if it’s determined to have been gained as a result of waterboarding or from some other technique deemed to be torture by 99.9% of the civilized world. Wow! Wouldn’t it be a kick in the shorts if the actions taken by the past Administration were responsible for our failure to get a conviction? No wonder Chuck and the Neocons are so afraid of a public trial.
Nov 20, 2009 at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody."
Actually, he can, and will, get the death penalty.
Nov 20, 2009 at 10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Kraut,
Why do you politicize everything that shouldn't be?
.
Fort Hood, 9/11, Olympics...You are simply a political hack...no wonder Fox News loves you.
Nov 20, 2009 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Plenty of domestic terrorists have been given the same trial and procedure.
.
The only people making an issue out of this are the ones looking out for their political point of view. They are selfish and do not care about the greater good of this country.
.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.