Nobody should be surprised to hear former New York mayor/failed presidential candidate/potential future governor of NY/blood-sucking specter of doom Rudy Giuliani express the above views. Stomping all over civil liberties and the rule of law is his job! It’s just unfortunate that, also unsurprisingly, the entire Republican party has mobilized behind him, to say with one voice: Due process for me, but not for thee.
For example, there’s the house minority leader claiming that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is being granted a trial by jury to appease “liberal interest groups.” And there’s another failed presidential candidate, John McCain, shaking his wizened head from side to side to express his disappointment.
Now you’re probably wondering: Is Joe Lieberman in on the grandstanding too? You bet your sweet ass he is! Dude could smell an opportunity to wrap himself in the neocon flag and condescend to the proles if it was twenty miles away and buried under a heap of garbage, which he would undoubtedly burrow into like a mole to get to the sweet stuff.
If I’m going over even my own high standards of incivility here, there’s a reason for it: when it comes to Eric Holder’s announcement on Monday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in a New York City court, there is no reasonable room for disagreement. If you think the man should be placed before a military tribunal instead–or better yet, not given a trial at all–then you’re an idiot.
For one thing, neither KSM nor any of the 9/11 hijackers and plotters are soldiers. And they’re not “enemy combatants” either, which is a legally ambiguous nonsense term coined by the Bush administration as a thin justification for trampling habeas corpus. They’re common thugs and murderers, and they should be treated as such. To behave as if they’re something more is, as Matthew Yglesias points out, to accept their own ludicrous narrative.
What this means is that while KSM may count among the rankest sacks of shit that humanity has to offer, he still has rights. He’s just as entitled to a trial by jury as any other criminal or non-criminal. The idea that Giuliani, Lieberman, Boehner, et. al. are espousing that these rights are special privileges that can be given and retracted by the state has more in common with the political philosophy of totalitarian regimes like the Taliban than it does any of the ideals the United States was founded on. I hate getting into insipid pissing matches over who loves America more, but in this case there’s no room for ambiguity: if you have any faith or understanding in the principles this country was founded on, then you accept the premise that everyone has the right to legal representation.
It’s a perfectly human reaction to not care about that and just want revenge. But it’s wrong, and I don’t think that’s even what the strong pushback on this is about. Sure, indirectly it is–the core constituency of the Republican Party is people who don’t give a rat’s ass about due process and just want to see some blood. But Giuliani and his coterie of crypto-fascists have enough legal experience (i.e. more than a failing grade in a high school civics class) that they should know better. Hell, I’m pretty sure they do know better, and are just cynically appealing to the worst instincts of their supporters for a little extra press coverage and a couple more fundraising dollars. It’s shameful, obscene behavior, and I hope that they’re all thanking the ghost of Patrick Henry each and every night that the same basic liberties they’re currently playing political foosball with allow them to go on TV and blithely condemn some of the most basic legal and philosophical touchstones of our civilization.
Because make no mistake: to create a populace controlled by fear and undermine what makes our country so strong was the intention behind the 9/11 attacks, and these fucking clowns are going on FOX Sunday and cheerfully helping that process along. It’s sickening.
Which is not to say that the Obama administration is free from blame in this matter. But their problem is the exact opposite of what their critics are making it out to be: what the Obama administration is really doing that’s so dangerous is picking and choosing which terrorists get to have a civilian trial based on who they think they can get a conviction for. In effect, this is only marginally better than depriving all of them of the right to trial by jury, and it’s unacceptable. Each and every murderer in our custody should face justice by due process.
You’re probably wondering at this juncture why anyone thinks it would be a challenge to convict any of the terrorists in American custody. Torture was likely a factor in the decision; even with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the treatment he faced in American custody will probably play a role in the trial. For others, it’s not inconceivable that it could get cases tossed out entirely.
But you don’t pick and choose who gets to keep their rights based on a cost-benefit analysis. And isn’t it funny that the people publicly opposing fair trials for people who were tortured because the torture itself weakens the case for conviction so greatly are the same ones who cheered on torture in the first place? Their disregard for human rights has already fucked us all over, but they just can’t help themselves.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by NYULocal, Ned Resnikoff. Ned Resnikoff said: My invective-laden take on opposition to 9/11 plotters getting tried in civilian court: http://bit.ly/4py9o2 #fb [...]
I certainly agree that KSM should get a fair trial through the US legal system, but when the crime (9/11) was essentially an attack on America itself, how can we expect to find an unbiased jury? What american doesn’t have some kind of pre-judgement about these terrorists? Even Ned himself describes him as “one of the rankest sacks of shit that humanity has to offer.” To me, that’s the only reasonable argument (but an important one) against why KSM and other terrorists should be tried in New York. Where would you find a neutral jury?
I should post this comment on the NY post website, that would be fun.
@Dan: That’s an admittedly difficult technical challenge that I don’t think anyone could reasonable argue should preclude KSM from getting his trial by jury. Andrew Cohen’s got a good response here.
Of course, this is why KSM is guaranteed a conviction, and likely guaranteed the death penalty. Otherwise it’s unlikely the Obama administration would be sending him into a civilian court, and that underscores their efforts to stack the deck when it comes to their detainees.
So impartial juries are a thing of yester-year? Back in the days of buicks and doctors and pregnant women smoking unfiltered cigarettes?
Eh, I suppose I can buy that.
I’d phrase it differently: the concept of an impartial jury isn’t obsolete, but total impartiality in judging anything is and always was an illusion. That doesn’t mean it’s not an ideal we should reach for. And it doesn’t mean that trial by a jury of peers isn’t still the fairest system of justice we have.
The Court, and the lawyers, will intentionally try to pick jury members that are at least somewhat capable of going into the trial without a preconceived notion of KSM’s guilt. That’s no different than any other big ticket case that garners a lot of media attention. Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, Okhlahoma City Bomber… to name a few.
It’s pretty easy to understand just asking yourself what you would do. Like Ned: sure he thinks KSM is a “sack of shit” but I’m willing to bet he could listen to evidence and entertain the idea that the evidence might not be sufficient to convict KSM. Could you see yourself reading the “not guilty” verdict? That’s a much harder question.
Moral of the story… McCain, Lieberman et al. don’t make good jury members.
More like saddest sack of shit ever:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/07/AR2009110703449.html?nav=hcmodule
Also is Rudy saying he doesn’t think he should get a trial, or that he shouldn’t get a trial in New York? It sounds to me like the latter.
He called 9/11 “an act of war” (which, of course, it wasn’t) so I’m guessing that he doesn’t want civilian trials at all.
You are as much of an idiot as the fool, Mr. Eric holder.
How will it be decided what rules of law must be set aside, just for this case, because an investigation that expected a criminal trial does not exist? Which normal rules of law and procedures should be adhered to and which should be discarded to allow a fair trial for both sides?
How will we prevent national security related information, like methods, contacts, networks, informants, and agents, from being exposed to defense related evidence and probing?
What kind of safety can we assure everyone involved in the case, including judge, jury, lawyers, witnesses, and officers after they’ve been paraded in front of the entire world – efforting to successfully prosecute these Muslims?
What if they defendants are not found guilty – which is very possible given the amount of unique issues and obstacles that will come up because of the unique nature of the crime, the investigation, and even the way in which the defendants were apprehended?
Do you actually want to see your nation’s national security compromised?
Do you actually wish to allow for the possibility of these mass-murderers walking free?
Do you really think we should endanger more American lives while this trial invites revenge and terrorism upon everyone involved?
Are you really so obtuse, or just a total jackass?
Dirk
@Dirk:
You’re terrified of … what, exactly? What do you think is going to happen to the people involved of the trial of “these Muslims” (class touch, by the way)?
And for the record, you’re the one advocating setting aside the rule of law. I just want the criminal justice system to do its job. And if you had bothered to actually read my post, you probably would have noted that the odds of KSM getting off are virtually nil, or the Obama administration never would have brought him to trial in the first place.
Also, this.
@Ned,
I read your points and even agreed with several. I think you are right in that only the sure-to-be-executed will be selected for civil trial. I also agree that it is unethical if not criminal to cherry pick sure win defendants; I do not support such uneven distribution of justice. I found it more significant that your focus relates to the logistics of the issue – like the selection-for-civil proccess; unnecessary obstacles that only exist because of political motives: the rogue, ambitions of these scoundrels in the white house eclipses all honesty and integrity. Yes they know they’ll get a conviction. They also know that they will get one hell of a shot to strike a blow to their political opponents, particularly the previous administration. And they also know that this is a monumental opportunity to show their contempt for American culture – as the terrorists on trial will not doubt enjoy absurd levels of accommodation. I have no clue why democrats lay on the adoration to enemies and Islam, to such an absurd degree that blindness wouldn’t even explain it. I know it really pisses many non-democrats of – at least those interested in reality and truth. If there is a reason beyond this, I have no idea what it might be. But, the Fort hood shooter suffers from secondary post traumatic stress. And the harassment piled upon him didn’t help matters. In the pretend thinking of today’s democrat, the only things that didn’t contribute the latest mass murder, are the exact things that did. And the trial of these 911 defendants who killed 3000 people in the name of Islam and because they are Muslims with no respect for human life, will enjoy a similar obfuscation of their motives and true intent. This trial will be an act. It will be no more than an opportunity for democrats to show off how obnoxiously correct and pro-Islam they can be. My initial reaction to your post was to think that , to worry about the civil logistics and issues instead of being more concerned with the choices and motives would consider the civil option to begin with, is absurd. Pretend. It’s like presenting an argument for how to go about robbing a store, while not finding it more significant to argue whether or not the store should be robbed.
Dirk
FYI – view the source of this page. looks like someone put a bug on your page – unless you meant to have a thousand viagra links hiding on this page?
Dirk
@Dirk: Well it’s nice to see how upfront you are about arguing deciding to argue with a bunch of straw men instead of actual people. Let’s pretend for a second that you’re right about Islam being inherently anti-US (which is ridiculous) and that the left loves them some terrorists (also ridiculous). Why should I give a shit? What does that have to do with whether or not a murderer should stand trial in a civilian court?