Nick Prout:

Perhaps the President and Attorney General could learn something from the Israelis.

Nick,

Great post.  I think you have got it nailed.  You thought of some risks that I didn't think of before writing my post.  Now I am more in agreement with yours than with mine.

Dave Hanson:

(Gip's comment) We keep sending our finest to countries we have no business being in, and always just enough troops to secure a spot in some one else's country, never enough troops to do the job quickly and return home

Dave Hanson:

It seems to me there are many difficult questions about this that the administration of President George W. Bush did not bother to explore and explain.  Just the raising of questions was brushed aside as "unpatriotic" by Republicans in the first years of this strange new war.  The American people supported military operations in Afghanistan largely for payback and security after 9/11.  Eight years later we are still struggling to get a handle on that situation.  (The Soviets tried for ten years and gave up.  That costly failure contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union.)  The American people mostly supported military operations in Iraq for reasons that were unclear and inaccurate.  Is it any wonder there is not 100% support for these "wars" several years later?

Dave/Gip/Clonnie,

This may be a first...I am going to side with Dave and Gip on this one. 

I agree we should never fight a war half-heartedly..either give it all we've got in order to win quickly or don't get involved.  We haven't done this since Korea (Granada was an exception).  Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan have all been fought with unclear objectives, no plan (or desire) to win quickly and get out, and without good leadership that could define the objectives and lead in accomplishing them.  They have been political wars where should never have gotten involved.  Yes, we needed to take actions against the terriorists, but we needed to fight their kind of battle...not try to take over or destroy a country.  So I think we have clearly seen through at least five presidents (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon,Bush II, and Obama) that our leaders are not always right and are not above playing political games using the lives of our finest young people as pawns in the game.

We failed to learn from those who failed before us...the French in Vietnam, the Russians and others throughout history in Afganistan... and who knows how many in Iraq where there has not been stability for centuries.  We need to realize we can't and have no right to impose our standards and governmently forms on all countries.  Our military has the objective of defending our country and our people.  It is not clear that that was or is the objective in Vietnam, Iraq or Afganistan.  Let's find a way to wrap up these actions as quickly as possible, get out, and leave those countries to destroy themselves if that is their wish.

tbowersock:

   I would like to get your opinion on Timothy McVeigh.  He attacked the US in the same manner as you describe above and went on to be convicted in a federal court.  With that being said I don't remember there being any issues with the case.  

 Thanks for your comment.  My short version is that McVeigh was Irish Catholic American born, served in the US Army and became racist, anti-American and agnostic and sought to retaliate against the government for some imagined wrong done to him, hence, the trial and conviction in federal court was logical.  Of course the bombing victim's survivors were also victims and all of America was in shock, however, in contrast the radical Muslim jihadist were motivated by their hate for all of America and in honor of Allah and we Americans are mad, freightened by them and bitter and we will not forget, hence, my reasoning for going military rather than federal in order to stem the possibility of the emotional drain, the fear of reprisal from more of their ilk, the time, the cost, etc. etc., remember I prefaced my remarks that either court could accomplish the correct end to this mess.

Clonnie Yearout:

At best our justice system is a slow, clumsy, lumbering giant.  It is neither swift nor sure.  Perhaps it will perform admirably in trying the terrorists, but if you're wagering on the outcome, bet that it won't -- regardless of the odds.  You'll be richer for it. 

 Ah, Mr. C, , . . . . . . . . Should you prove correct, I believe we will find ourselves not richer but vastly poorer.  Sharron .   

Sharron Smith:

I have difficulty equating three planes and 20 (19?) terrorists with Pearl Harbor.

Mornin' Ms. Sharron.  How many planes or terrorist does it take to start a war. 1, 100, 1,000, 10,000? Remember the "shot heard round the world" at Lexington, April 19, 1775, when 700 hundred Brits sought to take America back for the the King and Queen? Once again, I prefaced my opinion that either court could handle this case, however, wearing one of my other hats many years ago I assisted in the defense of a person in Salem who murdered his spouse, the time went on ad infinitum and after countless motions it was determined that the defendant couldn't get an unbiased jury and the trial was moved to Roanoke (as if that location was so distant from Roanoke) and a two week jury trial followed with lots of witnesses, evidence, motions, etc. etc. culminating in a guilty verdict and 20 year sentence.  An appeal was filed for the court's failure to allow certain evidence and the improper allowance of some other evidence and was granted and new trial ordered.  Again, venue became an issue and the trial was moved to northern Virginia and all of the prosecution teams, defense teams, witnesses, etc.,etc. had to travel to that court and hear another two weeks of testimony, etc. and again a 20 year sentence was imposed. The defendant has now been back in society for several years.  This was just one small, SW VA case compared to what I anticipate will take place in NYC and gain worldwide recognition and I cannot imagine the time, the cost, the problems that will ensue.  Sure some of the same things will occur in military court but I suspect Americans would pay a much lesser emotional cost, time, money, etc. etc., hence, my opinion to go military.  Hope this makes some sense to you.  Thanks for your comments.

Dave Hanson:

Why does that make it a formal "war," and therefore the jurisdiction of the our military courts?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, just puzzled.

Hi Dave, I don't disagree with your comments and certainly don't think they are argumentative, but, I simply expressed an opinion that 1. either court could legally hear this case and 2. my reasoning was the emotional, time, cost, etc. price that Americans may have to pay if tried in NYC as opposed to military court.  Without being unduly prolix, please check out my reply to Ms. Sharron in support of my reasoning.  Have a great day.

Luanne Traud:

Do you agree with the Obama administration's plan to prosecute the the Sept. 11 terrorists in federal court? What would you do with them?

 I recognize that this is part of keeping Obama's campaign promise to close the prison at Guantanomo Bay.  While I am a lawyer, I do not have knowledge of the fine distinctions between trial proceedings under the military tribunal, such as used in Nurnberg and Toyoko at th eend of Worl War Two, even though I remember them, a trial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and trials in the civilian Federal criminal court system.   However, I do know that a trial under the civilian federal system will afford the defendants full constitutional law rights, a better chance of acquital on technical grounds and a forum for their views.  So, I do not agree with the decision.  

I do not beleive that prisoners should be held indefinitely without trial.  We are well past the days of the "Man in the Iron Mask".  On the other hand, I do not know why the specific 11 prisoners were chosen for trial while several have already been released due to federal court intervention and some 200 are still scheduled for trial by military tribunal.  These prisoners are different from the World Trade Center bombers.  Those men were already in the United States, most legally.  while perhaps not technicaly "enemy combatants", these prisoners were captured in foreign countries as a result of military activities.  As such it seems to me that the tribunal approach is appropriate.

As to what to do with them in terms of punishment, I would favor prison terms for periods appropriate to their activities.  While we know that many of those already release have reconnected with terreorist activities, the death penalty would make them martyrs, a status which some of them, by their own admission, seek.  I have no fear of keeping them in our prisons.  We already have many equally dangerous men housed there.  In the case of Khalid Mohammed specifically, if convicted as charged, he should receive a life sentence to be served under the most restrictive conditions permitted by our laws.   

 " I am starting to suspect Mr. Liniel as well "

Ms. Sharron !  MOI ?

Liberty and justice for all. Where have I heard that statement? The military has done its job and rounded up the suspects. They are apparently certain of whom the guilty parties are beyond reasonable doubt. I congratulate them for their efforts.

I make two assumptions. First, President Obama has all of the facts and knows what he is doing. Second, that our justice system is fair to all parties regardless of their beliefs. I'm extremely uncomfortable with  the notion that the "police" ( the military) should be allowed to judge the alleged criminals. A military tribunal is just that, police judging the accused.

I don't have the evidence, You don't have the evidence , but someone surely must have some evidence or there would be no trial. We should be allowed to see it. Let it come out in open civilian court. The fact that these men have been incarcerated for many many years without a trial is an embarrassment to our concepts of justice no matter how guilty they are perceived to be.

We run the risk of these men getting off on a technicality. We run the risk of these men using the court as a worldwide stage for their poisonous views. We run the risk of intelligence gathering methods being exposed. We run the risk of our own dirty laundry being aired out in public. But if we don't take those risks  we then run the risk of losing those freedoms that we're trying to protect. Let there be light and quit living in a state of fear.

bobchristenson:

I make two assumptions. First, President Obama has all of the facts and knows what he is doing. Second, that our justice system is fair to all parties regardless of their beliefs.

Wow, Bob,

You start out with two dangerous assumptions.  I disagree with the first and, in many cases, the second also.

Clonnie Yearout:

We're already dangerously close here on the panel to reopening the torture debate of last spring and summer.  Perhaps that portends what the trials will do as well -- on a national scale.  Perhaps that was at least part of the reason behind the effort to bring the trials into American civilian courts....  Many panelists seem to foresee speedy trials with the terrorists easily convicted and sentenced to death, after which we will all stand around misty-eyed and congratulate each other on the strength and precision of our justice system.  I am not so optimistic.  I see years of trials and fabric-fracturing turmoil.  I see political grandstanding and lawyers looking for cameras.  At best our justice system is a slow, clumsy, lumbering giant.  It is neither swift nor sure.  Perhaps it will perform admirably in trying the terrorists, but if you're wagering on the outcome, bet that it won't -- regardless of the odds.  You'll be richer for it.

Do you agree with the Obama administration's plan to prosecute the Sept. 11 terrorists in federal court? What would you do with them?

I strongly oppose the Obama Administration's decision to try the Islamic terrorists in New York.

In the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed there is a direct parallel to what was done following WWII.  Japanese Prime Minister Tojo ordered the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, an event that led directly to war with Japan.  Following the defeat of Japan, a military tribunal condemned Tojo to death by hanging.  The sentence was carried out without fanfare in a Tokyo prison.

Mohammed designed the attack on the World Trade Center and supervised its execution, an event that led directly to war with Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  He was captured in Pakistan, a neighborhood of the war and a destination of terrorists fleeing the U.S. invasion.  He has been held, quite properly, as a Prisoner of War at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.  The war has not ended and he remains in prison.

Mohammed has pleaded guilty to the charges against him, charges that would earn an execution.  Why is there another step required, that of starting from the beginning and causing such an uproar among the public? 

The trial itself is likely to become a circus, especially if the defendants receive permission to represent themselves.  Motion after motion, claims of Miranda rights never given, claims of evidence tainted by the method of extraction, and on and on.  As to the trial itself, what if a Muslim sympathizer managed to end up on the jury and in a position to hang it?  Housing and transporting them securely will be enormously expensive.  Finally, in 2006 then-U.S. Senator Obama strongly supported the trial of Mohammed and others by military tribunal.

I would submit these terrorists to execution by firing squad and disposal at sea.  Only then I would I announce the fact.

tbowersock:

Sandy Light:

We should remember that justice for the victims of Germany’s concentration camps did not come with the defeat of the Third Reich:  it came at Nuremberg.  This should remind us that even those accused of the most despicable crimes deserve a day in court and that justice resides in the rule of law.  We must prove that democracy triumphs over terrorism.  Let the trials begin.  Let justice be served.  Above all, let freedom ring.   

 

 What a great point Sandy!

Thanks Tyler, but  Sharron gets all the credit for this one - I just wish I'd said it!

bobchristenson:

We run the risk of these men getting off on a technicality. We run the risk of these men using the court as a worldwide stage for their poisonous views. We run the risk of intelligence gathering methods being exposed. We run the risk of our own dirty laundry being aired out in public. But if we don't take those risks  we then run the risk of losing those freedoms that we're trying to protect. Let there be light and quit living in a state of fear. 

 Dear Mr. Bob,

No need to duck on this one!  We have missed you!  Sharron

Liniel Gregory:

we Americans are mad, freightened by them and bitter and we will not forget, hence, my reasoning for going military rather than federal in order to stem the possibility of the emotional drain, the fear of reprisal from more of their ilk, the time, the cost, etc. etc., remember I prefaced my remarks that either court could accomplish the correct end to this mess.

Thanks for taking the time for the follow up Liniel.  I do not disagree with the preference of having a military trial.  I just wish if we were going to go that route we would have done it a long time ago.  Either way, I want a conviction any way we can get it.  I do disagree with your remark that Americans are frightened for this simple reason-if we fear them then they have won.  Unfortunately I think we have to accept some bad with all good in an open and free society.