In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.

In terrorist trials over the past 15 years, federal prosecutors and judges have gained extensive experience protecting intelligence sources and methods, limiting a defendant's ability to raise irrelevant issues and tightly controlling the courtroom. Moussaoui's trial was challenging because his request for access to terrorists held at "black" sites had to be litigated. Difficulties also arose because Moussaoui acted as his own lawyer, and the judge labored to control him. But it is difficult to imagine a military commission of rudimentary fairness that would not allow a defendant a similar right to represent himself and speak out in court.

more at the link

Good Article. Thanks.

So a President Bush guy likes this move...no red flags anywhere?

Since when are the Bushies an authority on sound judgement?

Since when are the Bushies an authority on sound judgement?

For the right, November 2000-January 2009.

But you do have a good point. The Bushies let 9-11 happen lost tw wars and almost killed the economy. You'd have to be stupid to buy a usedcar from them, never mind ask for their opinion on anything. Just ask aflac. He says he never really trusted them.

If it was such a smart move, why didn't Bush do it?

The point is, one may agree or disagree with the decision to try the men in NYC, but only rightwing idiots are ranting and raving that this will reveal national secrets or lead to the acquittal of the accused.

If it was such a smart move, why didn't Bush do it?

#6 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-11-20 06:33 PM | Reply |

Because you can't take someone in the US justice system and waterboard them.

#8

*slaps head*

Silly me!

The difference between the Military Court system and the FEDERAL SYSTEM is, the military system expects you to have your SHIT together when you come to trial.

Other than that they are effectively the same, without the tear jerking extraneous BS to string the jury along, the same appeals process, the same level of review, ALL the same!

The problem, as I see it, is we're dragging the People of New York through another round of TENSION that is totally unnecessary and uncalled for.

AND if they can handle it, why is SHUMER asking for an additional $75 million for beefed up security?

Also, virtually all of the trials the Feds have won were for terrorists OR Felons (not my choice of words) captured inside the United States with the investigation taking place here, or in a friendly western country!

These guys were captured in Pakistan, where's the chain of evidence, the witnesses depositions, the MIRANDIZING paperwork, the concern for the families of the VICTIMS?

AND then we tell the world, 'Whether they are found guilty, or not, we will NEVER release them from detention!'

Doesn't this, in itself, make a SHAM of everything they are doing?

So Corky likes Bush advisors now??
------

The guys who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower were just given 10 years.

Mitigating circumstances plead by the defense to be sure.

It is not a question if the civilian system can handle KSM.

The questions arise in that he was rousted out of bed in Pakistan, taken to Gitmo and interrogated without an attorney.

No Miranda rights--no attorney.

Great case to throw out by the leftist judges on the wheel.

Great case to throw out by the leftist judges on the wheel.

#12 | POSTED BY MURPHY

Generally it doesn't matter if the judge is left or right if you were not read your miranda rights the case gets tossed out.

We'll see. I bet KSM walks. We couldn't convict O.J. Fuckin' Simpson.

But KSM has been already tried and executed in the mind and statements of PresBO.....

If KSM is acquitted in a civilian court, at least we will know why. If he is acquitted in a military court we may never know why. This could be a devasting blow to the families of the 9/11 victims.

Corky agrees with Bush?

Generally it doesn't matter if the judge is left or right if you were not read your miranda rights the case gets tossed out.

#13 | Posted by jackass

As Colbert says, 'The truth has a well-known liberal bias'.

They are not going to throw this case out on a technicality. This guy supposedly was captured in a war zone and supposedly there is evidence of criminal behavior on his part against the US. It will not get thrown out on a technicality.

Now, is there evidence to convict him? He has been incarcerated (and tortured for what? 7-8 years). If the CIA couldn't manufacture some evidence by now......

That is what we really want isn't it? Vindication and justification? We want to justify our own illegal actions and corrupt practices by placing the blame on those that want to do us harm, but that we can't really prove were actually able to ever do us any harm.

The second reason Bush thinks it okay to try KSM in Fed court? Because I believe he wants Cheney's secret gov't exposed and prosecuted. He and Obama both agree this is the proper course. For once I agree with both of them.

"They are not going to throw this case out on a technicality."

Putting aside the fact that the law is, in itself, a bundle of technicalities and when people say "such-and-such was tossed out because of a technicality" what they're really saying is "such-and-such was tossed out because it ran contrary to the law," I have a hard time believing a Bush Administration DOJ populated with attorneys who crafted what they peddled as a legally sound case for inflicting torture on people in American custody has been succeded by an Obama Administration DOJ lacking in lawyers capable of designing a logical model that gets around the question of not Mirandizing KSM when he was transferred by the Paks into US custody.

I'm not saying it's good policy or smart politics, let alone that it's right. I'm just saying.

I'm just saying.

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I agree. As far as we know, he was read his rights during the 'night of the anal cattle prod', when he confessed to being the Katherine the Great and the man on the grassy knoll.

Now, here's the fun part. The worse thing that the court could do, as far as the Islamic fundementalists are concerned, is let KSM go. Depriving them of their martyr and returning to them a sad impotent old man who is only effective in cloudy conjured memories, not in actual practice.

The second reason Bush thinks it okay to try KSM in Fed court? Because I believe he wants Cheney's secret gov't exposed and prosecuted. He and Obama both agree this is the proper course. For once I agree with both of them.
#18 | Posted by Lipzoidial

Explain to me how I'm wrong in believing that there's no such thing as Cheney's secret government, even if he was the one left in charge of things? In the final calculus, even if W left Cheney in charge of things, the culpability is still his moreso than Cheney's.

But you do have a good point. The Bushies let 9-11 happen lost tw wars and almost killed the economy. You'd have to be stupid to buy a usedcar from them, never mind ask for their opinion on anything. Just ask aflac. He says he never really trusted them.

#5 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-11-20 06

lost two wars?
"this war is lost"...harry reid

let happen?
us cole
embassies?

killed the economy?
with fucks like B. frank having NOTHING to do with it

I expected at least 5 years or so before you rewrote this history

its just a a DAMN good thing there are people like me around to call you on it....

tee hee tee fuckin hee

the REAL reason for this?

simple and easy

its the only way the obama GANG can put bush and cheney and AMERICA on trial.

With teabaggers like Kibble and his puppetmasters at ClusterFox and World Nut Daily around to enable the terrorists, the real terrorists don't have to raise a finger to keep 28% of us hiding under our beds.

Mission Accomplished.

If the idiot media and wing-nut politicians didn't report the shit the terrorist do, they would not be able to terrorize the citizenry. Keep every mention of attempted terrorist actions out of the news and there would be no reason for them to strike. If they knew that the world would never hear about their deeds they would not be so willing to die.

By spreading, and in many cases, exaggerating their deeds, the media is more responsible for the terrorism than the actual terrorists.

The shit eating Senator from Israel is a prime example trying to politicize the fuck that killed those soldiers a week ago. Calling it terrorism MAKES it terrorism. Reporting it as just another whacko going postal eliminates the 'terror'.

The Republican party and their paid talking heads in the media are the biggest terrorists in the world today. By enabling the terrorists and in many cases making up shit to terrorize their base, they create more terror than all the actual destructive acts.

too bad you feel the need to start off with the accepted liberal pornographic reference to millions of taxpayers who disagree.

maybe someone could tell me what you said after that because thats where I stopped reading

"Teabaggers" is what your billionaire puppetmaster came up with when he created the 'grassroots' movement.

You idiots embraced the term and reveled in the 'cleverness' of it until it was pointed out that there was a much older and far funnier meaning.

Too bad for you.

You bought it, you wore it. YOU KEEP IT!!!

typical

meanwhile

oops forgot

who is the billionaire puppetmaster..only one of those I know of is george soros

OH I guess you are talking about the fox owner guy..

Oh. Well...

...in that case.

It's cool.

Generally it doesn't matter if the judge is left or right if you were not read your miranda rights the case gets tossed out.

#13 | Posted by jackass

So you are saying holder wants the case to be thrown out ant ksm set free? That would be political suicide.

THIS IS TRUE!

The "Bush Justice System" (which is still in power in Washington) can and will handle (corrupt/manipulate) the KSM case and its outcome...on that there is no shadow of a doubt!!!

The difference between the Military Court system and the FEDERAL SYSTEM is, the military system expects you to have your SHIT together when you come to trial.

#11 | POSTED BY DOGEN AT 2009-11-20 08:38 PM

Oh, I thought it had more to do with lack of due process, the presumption of innocence, hidden trials, no appeals, and chain of custody on evidence?