On Monday, the Obama administration announced that alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, will be tried before a military commission at Guantanamo, Cuba, rather than in a civilian court in the United States.
So much for the Obama administration’s commitment to the rule of law.
KSM, as he is known, has admitted to plotting the September 11 bombing of the World Trade Center and is going to be convicted and sentenced to death where ever he is tried. All that is left to discuss is how it is done—fairly or not.
Dahlia Lithwick of Slate who, more and more, is one of my favorite reporters on legal issues, had this to say in response to the administration’s announcement:
Today, by ordering a military trial at Guantanamo for 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-defendants, Attorney General Eric Holder finally put the Obama administration’s stamp on the proposition that some criminals are “too dangerous to have fair trials.”
In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn’t just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It’s about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others.
Every argument advanced to scuttle the Manhattan trial for KSM was false or feeble: Open trials are too dangerous; major trials are too expensive; too many secrets will be spilled; public trials will radicalize the enemy; the public doesn’t want it.
Of course, exactly the same unpersuasive claims could have been made about every major criminal trial in Western history, from the first World Trade Center prosecution to the Rosenberg trial to the Scopes Monkey trial to Nuremburg. Each of those trials could have been moved to some dark cave for everyone’s comfort and well-being. Each of those defendants could have been tried using some handy choose-your-own-ending legal system to ensure a conviction. But the principle that you don’t tailor justice to the accused won out, and, time after time, the world benefited.
Now the Obama administration—having loudly and proudly made every possible argument against a two-tier justice system—is capitulating to it.
What she said.
Read the rest. It’s important.
In the last 48 hours, more and more people have weighed in. Among those also worth reading is this essay by law professor and Daily Beast contributor, Paul Campos who is, if anything, even harsher in his judgment than is Lithwick.
lol…..is Gitmo still open?
Hey, don’t rub it in!
Live and learn. We all make mistakes. America sure made one with this clown.
You can’t blame Americans for voting for Obama considering John McCain (really, let’s face it, Sarah Palin), had no answer to our economic problems other than to keep the same fox in front of the hen house. Things are bad right now, but I believe with a Palin/McCain white house, they’d be worse. I still think America made the right choice.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Spoken like a true partisan, guided only by the letter one has in front of their name.
We’re over halfway thru this guy’s 1st term and there is still no budget. Now the government faces a shutdown. This guy couldn’t lead his own party to pass a budget when we held both chambers, the Senate and the House.
Bottom line, we elected a 1st term Junior Senator from Illinois that had neither the knowledgde, experience or leadership ability to be the President of the United States.
I’ll quote Hillary during the primary:
“The President of the United States is not the place for on the job training”.
Oh how true those words ring.
Marston, it is because of this guy that the reps. have the house.
We would have been better off with McCain. We would still control the House and the Senate had we elected McCain. We would be able to hold McCain in check.
This guy couldn’t get shit done when we held both chambers. Wake up and smell the coffee. He’s turned independents against us. That’s why the Nov. landslide for the reps. last year.
He did give a great speech though, and we fell for it.
We would still control the house and senate had we elected McCain? Just how can you determine that?
We would be able to hold McCain in check? Why would we have to hold McCain in check if he were a better candidate than Obama?
These examples make absolutely no sense.