People Seem To Have Forgotten The World Trade Center (And Pentagon) Massacre. So The Obama Administration Will Now Have Provided Us With The Ultimate Reminder of Islamic Terror. Good!

I wonder what Cass Sunstein thinks about it.

Or perhaps the better question is this: Who cares about Charles Krauthammer thinks? One would think that reading marty peretz - who, even by his woeful journalistic standard, been particularly unhinged by the Hasson incident - would offer readers quite enough sour, unrepentant, neoconservatism for any deficient liberal.

It's interesting that Krauthammer seems so exercised about the faulty logic in trying Mohammed in a civilian court for 9/11 while "sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, (accused) 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."

Actually, this is quite coherent -- you plot the murder of American civilians on American soil, and you will be tried in civilian court as a common criminal. You plot the murder of American sailors abroad, you can be tried in a military tribunal since the nexus between the American civil justice system is that much more remote (and your acts are that much closer to military actions that violate the laws of war rather than simple acts of murder). For example, we didn't insist on trying Sepp Dietrich in an American courtroom for the Malmedy massacre or press civil indictments against Libyan agents who planted bombs in Berlin cafes that killed off-duty GI's. We're also not generally attempting to try non-US citizens in civil courts for fighting with the Taliban.

At first, I was agnostic about the trial, in fact since KSM was tortured viewed it as Constitutionally problematic, but the reaction of the right, in their sniveling cowardice, is unbelievable.

Yes, I suppose the Nuremberg trials were a great propaganda victory for the Germans, and we all know how the trial of Timothy McVeigh led to a great uprising of right wing lunatics (no, for that we needed to election of a black Democrat).

The trial is not supposed to have anything to do with demonstrating our superiority (the superiority is inherent in the system, provided we actually use the system), it is bringing a loathsome monster to justice, to have him face the American people not in some dark tribunal but in the light of one of America's greatest places, an American Court. In fact, I think giving him a military trial accords KSM a respect not due him. He was no soldier.

Cookie, at least Marty is in favor of a public trial. He hasn't totally gone over to the dark side.

Marty must be doing something wrong, because I agree with him almost entirely here! Except for his assessment of Krauthammer. The only thing that Krauthammer's piece persuades me of is that he is an unpatriotic coward who honestly does not believe that the United States and its values are strong enough to stand against the jihadist supermen. History, to Krauthammer, is on the terrorist's side, and all that stands between civilization and inevitable doom is our ability to prevent captured terrorists from speaking in their own defense. (Which should not be a surprise; Krauthammer numbered among the many Cold Warriors who felt that history was on the Soviets' side, based on a perverse admiration for the supposed strength of the totalitarian system versus the inherent weakness of free peoples.)

If one happens not to be a coward, or if one happens to have even the slightest bit of faith in the greatness of America and our values, one can have no reaction to Krauthammer's fearful chicken-littledom than some mixture of pity and disgust. The man, and those who join him in his craven and anti-American stupor, are contemptible cretins, and it causes me almost physical revulsion to know that such people number among my countrymen.

The trial is our vengeance, and part of our revenge against these thugs is the magnanimity with which we extend to them despite their evil the considerations that mark us as civilized men and them as barbaric animals. And when they meet our punishment, it will be on our terms through a process that demonstrates our nobility and greatness in contrast to their callous but futile evil.

Contrary to Krauthammer's defeatist epistle, the only propaganda danger would be if KSM didn't rave and plead during the trial, which is in effect a march to the gallows. Most would-be martyrs have disgraced themselves, and their causes, by doing so. Only men who face their judge or executioner with calm quiet and dignity, like King Charles or John Brown or Nelson Mandela, pose any propaganda threat.

To paraphrase perhaps the best thing George W. Bush ever said, KSM may have had the first word in New York City, but by bringing him to justice, proving his guilt, and punishing him, we his victims get the last word. The trial is our chance to demonstrate once and for all that KSM and his ilk are not the godly supermen that the terrorists imagine and that Krauthammer believes, but rather that they are tiny little men, jumped-up gangsters, men of such mean stature that their final place in history will be the oblivion of a common criminal, buried eventually in an unmarked grave in some unknown prison-yard potter's field.

Commentary about justice delayed is commentary about justice denied.

It's about time this issue got vetted around here.

I only have time for now to reiterate that the Kraut is perhaps America's best political opinion journalist and his short piece is for me entirely persuasive.

I have been waiting with bated (not as I first thought "baited") breath to discuss what a terrible, terrible decision Obama/Holder made on this one.

basman, what exactly did you find persuasive? was it this nugget? "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." The same could have been said about Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh, etc. Letting justice run its course is no farce, it is what separates us from barbarians. Not every trial is to determine guilt or innocence, or did Krauthammer truly believe there was a chance that Dahmer was going to be declared not guilty? Good lord, if Krauthammer doesn't know this, then the man is truly lost.

Finally, we don't even know it will even go to trial, KSM might be so broken he might simply plead guilty. Did Krauthammer ever once consider this possibility, not that I could see, instead he wallows in his own cowardice and proclaims it virtue.

Yes, agreed. We should prefer a criminal trial, as we did with Moussaoui, because it is fair and open and will do the job. (I believe that he's admitted the crime, and not under duress. He will likely take credit during the trial.) There is dignity in observing the rule of law when we would really rather not, and corruption in succumbing to our preference to let all that slide this time or that time. That's what it means to be ruled by law. We have heard that we can expect ranting and raving, and that KSM will try to turn the proceedings into a circus. Let him. I find it thrilling to see the great villain made ridiculous before the sober forces of a great civilization that is decidedly unimpressed. To quietly dispose of KSM under an ex post rule book would merely prove our power. To dispose of him in the light of day, according to the rule book long used for common criminals, master criminals, and, yes, terrorists alike, would justify our power.

I don't see why the Kraut is a "coward" for suggesting that this is the wrong way to go. Military tribunals, such as Nuremberg (sic), would be the better place to try these people, IMHO.

I write not just as a lawyer, but as a former intelligence officer. The lawyers for KSM, et al., will not be potted plants. There could well be the compromise of intelligence sources and methods, there was during the Blind Sheik trial in the 90s. Such compromise would be injurious to national security, and I would oppose federal criminal trials on that basis.

If we insist that people who are rounded up on the battlefield get access to US courts, does it follow that they get access to US constitutional rights? Miranda warnings? No? Why not? Your logic certainly takes you in that direction.

I also take issue with the idea that, if Tim McVeigh had been acquitted by a jury of his peers, he would have been incarcerated nevertheless. Really? On what basis? Would he not have been found not guilty, and been set free?

It's not a question of the strength of our values or system. Of course we can handle these clowns. The real question is in which forum, and I choose military tribunals. I don't think that makes me a coward, but I'm willing to listen.

butchie, ksm was not rounded up in a battlefield, the guy was in a Pakistani city in an apartment. Taliban soldiers who committed war crimes, give them military tribunals. KSM confessed to this crime while he was still in Pakistan, boasted about it. There is not a snowball's chance in hell he will be acquitted, and not to try him because of craven fear (oh, he will speak, oh suddenly jihadists will materialize and blow up the courthouse). The mutts lower down the food chain, I have no problem keeping them locked up as POW's until the cows come home, the only thing I say is move them from Gitmo to Johnston Atoll (a territory of the US).

I got nothing against military trials, nor do I assume that they will not be fair and impartial, and if you want to give the majority of the detainees military trials, go ahead. But the hysteria of so many Republicans is sickening. KSM's guilt is certain, there will be no risk of leaking classified data, the guy freaking confessed. There is no reason not to have him face American justice without the trappings and honor that is conferred in a military trial.

Butchie, I think that Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith (two guys who know more about military justice and criminal law than Krauthammer, WADR) make a pretty convincing case on the same WaPo op-ed page that an ordinary criminal court is the appropriate venue for KSM.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR200911...

here is another choice nugget: 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.

Yes, I love that article where when Jeff Dahmer was captured and the prosecutor guaranteed conviction, that Kraut indignantly wrote that the prosecutor was ignoring the possibility that the victims chopped themselves up and then cooked their own remains and made Dahmer eat the bodies. Freaking no one anywhere believed for the remotest second that Dahmer would not be spending the rest of his life in prison, not his defense lawyers, the only question for him was would it be in a prison for the criminally insane or a regular prison.

The only thing about these trials I find problematic is the torture. KSM confessed before hand, but I don't know about the other high ups. But the lesson here should be: Don't torture, not torture so that a trial will be impossible.

One more piece of idiocy: 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?

members of the resistance against Nazi Germany were well within their rights to kill German soldiers who occupied their country, and we regard them today as heroes. A same resistance fighter who sneaks into Germany and slaughters German women and children, we would regard as a monster. When we captured Iraqi soldiers we treated them as POW's, even though they themselves did not adhere to the Geneva conventions. If you flat out attack the US military in a war zone, you should be treated as a soldier provided you don't commit a ruse of war, in which case you are a war criminal, subject to military law.

KSM and Al Qaeda are not soldiers, they don't deserve to be treated as such.

Black - the feds under Holder have reportedly gone in with "clean teams" and re-gathered every bit of evidence without torture so nothing will be tainted.

It remains to be seen whether the judge will allow information on past torture, especially when this clown happily confessed again. I have no opinion on that except that hiding under the ned about ANYthing seems cowardly, get it all the hell out there. But they have emails galore, lots of evidence I hear. It should be pretty air tight, like the 300 other cases against terrorists that have been successfully tried in federal courts.

But any trial is a risk, the Keystone Cops that were the lawyers in that dirty bomb case in Chicago blew chow all over the place ( I know one of the lawyers - a seriously dumb right wing ideolouge). But there are risk free trials all over the world in corrupt countries with no credibility, some junta says what's going to happen and it does. We respect our Constitution enough to do what it tells us to do and what we've done for 200 years. Enlightenment principles matter more than fear and loathing any day.

I know this will set off our head drama queen hide-under-the-bed-torture-anyone-who-even-looks-Arab snarling fool: Marty. So I particularly relish saying that I hate when I watch the drama queens hector on - with quivering lips - about how we're "at war" with these people, I gagged when Holder said it although I know he had to. Barf.

These particular goons are vicious two bit thugs who I would never elevate to the level of a soldier or even give them some sort of grand title like "terrorist." They are stupid, dumbshit murderers, period. Low down criminals who deserve to be treated like the common dirt they are.

They LOVE being called terrorists and being treated like soldiers - it makes me sick. I won't do it anymore.

Oh and thanks for reminding me of 9/11 Whimpering Queen Marty - I WAS almost forgetting about the two friends I had that died, the fact that my husband ran for his life, the stink that came in my windows for weeks, the traumatized firemen and their families I STILL treat.

damn straight wandrey, Rep. Shedagg of Arizona went so far as to threaten Bloomberg and his daughters with kidnapping (and worse) if they trial were to be held there. I have to admire Bloomberg for his restraint because I would have launched so much profanity at that cretin from Arizona. Amazing how none of the fear is coming from NY'ers but from Repubs. that live far, far away from the venue. They are actually worse than cowards.

I'm sure it was Bloomberg's daughter who asked Dad to hold his fire, she's a class act - as is Bloomy. Let's just call Rep. Shedagg Rep Shitbag, shall we?

Even if KSM wins some kind of "propaganda victory" (I wonder what it could be? Perhaps he could convince some Arabs and Muslims and maybe Louis Farrakhan also to hate America -- whoop-de-doo!) he should still be tried in federal court as he is a criminal and not a soldier. We don't decide to prosecute or not prosecute in this country on popularity grounds -- Martha Stewart can testify to that -- and no so-called victory is going to prevent KSM from going down down down, following in the path of McVeigh and Muhammed the DC sniper.

Krauthammer has become a whiner in a suit -- he's not stupid, he knows better, but he can't bear to say anything positive about the Obama administration so he joins the GOP knucklehead chorus.

I think Holder has made a huge mistake here. There are so many potential problems it's hard to know where to start.

Perhaps the Defense requests a change of venue. Most Judges would allow that. Then if the Defense is any good they request all the documents available in the 9/11 files. Half a million pages later they delay the trial by a year or two reviewing the documents. Terror attack half way through the trial, perhaps an attack on a Juror. Confusion regarding the co-defendants and who did what. Excluded evidence from Gitmo and the prosecution reading from heavily redacted documents.

Which is why we have Military Trials. To avoid defense mischief in a US Court.

Which is why we have presiding judges CRS9TNR.

I'm sorry, but your scenario is hysterical. It presumes no judge, no Ray Kelly's NYPD that has protected NY for eight years, no evidence gathered without torture. Um, wrong city, wrong Justice Dept, wrong reality.

CRS9: "There are so many potential problems it's hard to know where to start."

There are potential problems in everything we do, as individuals and communities and nations. Here the problems are greater by far than some things -- the Mob isn't going to bomb a courthouse where there's a trial of one of their leaders going on -- but less by far than other things, such as invading countries on weak or non-existent evidence or allowing the NRA to dictate weapon control legislation for the nation.

Some of the potential problems may come to pass in reality. Others won't. The result will be a conviction in open court for a major criminal indictment -- murder in several thousand counts, which is exactly what KSM should be on the receiving end of.

Security will be a problem, but there will also be advantages to be gained: a process that shows what we're about as a country. I believe, in fact, that the psychological relief of a conviction of the mastermind behind 9/11 will be considerable, and a vindication of our capacity as a nation to do the harder thing sometimes.

"The result will be a conviction in open court for a major criminal indictment -- murder in several thousand counts, which is exactly what KSM should be on the receiving end of.

...a process that shows what we're about as a country. I believe, in fact, that the psychological relief of a conviction of the mastermind behind 9/11 will be considerable, and a vindication of our capacity as a nation to do the harder thing sometimes."

According to wiki:

"The term show trial is a pejorative description of a type of highly public trial. The term was first recorded in the 1930s.[1] There is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant and that the actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than correctional justice.

Such trials can exhibit scant regard for the niceties of jurisprudence and even for the letter of the law. Defendants have little real opportunity to justify themselves: they have often signed statements under duress and/or suffered torture prior to appearing in the court-room."

What Irony said about a fair trial resulting in conviction is exactly what Stalin planned for his accused. Consider the facts as they are known today: that KSM's confessions were indeed obtained under "duress", that there is an expectation of conviction, that it will be a show trial.

This trial will end up disgracing the US, and not be "a vindication of our capacity as a nation to do the harder thing sometimes."

Imagine a judge presiding over a trial in a democracy like the US, knowing full well that he is supposed to direct a trial towards a conviction. How is he going to uphold the defendant's full rights without throwing the case as soon as the lawyers introduce the illegally-obtained confessions? What judge will risk his reputation and standing in overruling such an objection so foundational to your system of justice?

I heard Bill Press opine that even if KSM is found not guilty, that as soon as he steps out of that court he will be lynched. He said it approvingly. So he would rather have the law of the mob than the law a military court, in which an accused has rights, and a legal procedure is observed.

Say what you will, IronyRoad, there is an unbridgeable gap between the principle of a fair trial and what is expected of this trial. Obama's rationale in having this trial is simply undecipherable.

What's Obama got to do with it? I might be wrong, but it seems to me a decision by the AG and the Justice Dept based on their assessment of the legal and constitutional facts.

I should perhaps add that I'm not entirely dismissing your criticism, Noga, but I have to dispute its accuracy, at least in part. Where's the show trial here? This is the guy who planned the 9/11 attacks, and I'm pretty sure the Justice Dept wouldn't have gone forward with the planned indictment unless they had a lot in the storeroom. Trials aren't just an adversarial mechanism with a roll of the dice for the verdict -- they are also a way, in a situation where the evidence is clear, for laying out the what and the why of a major crime, and its consequences. I think 'show trial' is a glib phrase for which there's no basis for implying that's what we're about.

The military commissions are also capable of a not guilty verdict, incidentally, or a mild sentence, and they have taken place, e.g. with OBL's driver. But this case involves the major terrorist attack in the U.S. in modern times, and making sure it's the subject of a criminal procedure is politically important. Al Qaeda aren't soldiers and this rams the point home.

Ok, a major conviction will show the world that we are a nation of laws and that we are capable of justice.

KSM never set foot in America and was abducted in Pakistan by the CIA/Military. This means the evidence against him is circuimstantial. The prosecutors will need to build a case for average Americans where every single piece of evidence needs to be translated from Arabic to English. Every association with co-defendents will need to be explained in terms of Arab customs. All travel will need to be put into context of training camps and meetings which will seem millions of miles from New York.

This confusion and challenges to this type of case will be reported and will lead to more confusion.

Imagine KSM in the Plexiglass Box and the trial of Saddam Hussein.

The AG told the world, probably a year or two before the trial that failure is not an option. Any eventual conviction will be dismissed by the rest of the world.

What seems to have gotten completely lost in this federal v military court argument is that the Obama administration is finally planning to prosecute these criminals. I find this to be a refreshing and much needed development.
As I listen to radio comments from the usual No crowd, and gag through another peretz approved Krauthammer pile, this point seems to have been completely lost.
What I have seen from Obama, in health care, climate change, and with this issue, is that his administration appears to be resolved to settle issues, rather than kick the can, to use the phrase of the moment, down the road, awaiting another election, the "better moment" etc. Garry Wills, in a fine piece in the latest NYRB, comments on this Obama quality and how it could jeopardize his chances for a second term.
Also, on a side note, it is unsettling to read from these comments, how little faith there is in the American system of justice. How sad.

IronyRoad: I still don't get how you can reconcile the notion of a fair trial with a certain conviction. I have noticed that in the case of Hasan you go to great deal of trouble reminding us all that there is a presumption of innocence in this country of yours. you have
explored every aspect of what legal innocence means in your attempt to stick to this assumption, for Major Hasan. I also notice that this consideration is completely absent in KSM's case. If a fair trial is your suit, shouldn't you be taking pains with maintaining that presumed innocence premise, as well? Shouldn't we talk about KSM's mental state and any other mitigating circumstances, such as the fact that his confessions were extracted during more than 200 waterboarding appointments with his investigators?

I can easily foresee a mini-trial within the framework of this trial in which the efficacy of torture will become the issue to be resolved, with the prosecutors contending that torture is indeed useful in obtaining essential life-saving information. And the judge will be called upon to make a decision condoning it within the law.

And if the nightmare result will take place and his case will be thrown out based on that single technicality, wouldn't you be blaming the Bush administration for the failure rather than those who decided to give him a trial in which he is fully entitled to be exonerated?

BTW, do you really think Obama had nothing to do with decision?

CRS9TNR - as I eat my challah bread and honey for breakfast, I can only marvel at the hysteria. What you mention sounds like 20 minutes of court testimony, maybe 30. I'm sure any of our outstanding federal judges in New York will, as judges do, keep things moving along, just as they have with these cases many times under several Presidents, including W.

Why do plexiglass boxes cause you so much anxiety and fear? They make New Yorkers yawn.

I'll go so far as to say most of us won't pay much attention to the trial. I might because I love the law, but most of us have lives to live.

You need to man up, friend - get in touch with your inner Queen Mary who refused to leave London with actual bombs killing actual people raining down around her. This cowardice is an embarrassing display and it only makes New Yorkers more determined to show what we're made of. And what people in other place are clearly not made of.

As far as annoyong speeches by an idiot thug? Why don't I speechify a bit for you right now so you'll become numb to it:

"Hate America, yadda yadda, imperialist dogs, yadda yadda, Caliphate, yadda yadda, death to Infidels, yadda yadda, Allah Akbar, yadda yadda" repeat. Scary stuff huh? We should definately trash the Constitution to avoid it.

(I was just thinking he same thing his morning Cookie - Obama's ornery integrity may cost him, Americans are simply not used to it, probably don't want it and may not even recognize it. I admire him so much).

"as I eat my challah bread and honey for breakfast, I can only marvel at the hysteria."

Challah is bread. To say challah bread is redundant. It's like saying egg bread bread.

And what's your challah got to do with your marvel at the hysteria? Is there any mystical and tenebrous connection between challah and marvel? Is a challah an antidote for hysteria?

sorry noga, my baker will kill me. He's on Amsterdam.

challah is soul food and I love it. I love Jewish food, I have some of the best in the world here. We eat it constantly.

Curiouser and curiouser: "...my baker will kill me. He's on Amsterdam."??

Its called friendship noga, you might want to look it up.

Mr. Cookie, KSM Prosecutions started in June, 2008 in a Military Court, which is where KSM wanted to plead guilty.

President Obama did not just start this. He stopped it. Now he is restarting this in his own way. Had his administration not stopped the proceedings shortly after their election, this probably would be over by now.

test

I believe NYC and the Federal Judiciary can handle this so-called "trial of the century." Why so-called? I suggest the REAL "trial of the century" was the Rosenberg Atomic Secrets Trial. Remember, Judge Irving Kaufman, from the bench, accused the Rosenbergs of responsibility for the Korean War, by giving secret atomic bomb information to the USSR.

The Rosenbergs were the first to be executed by the USA for espionage. If Judge Kaufman is to be believed, than it follows that the Rosenbergs were responsible for the death of 54,229 American servicemen and 103,248 wounded; not to mention the South Korean and allied death toll.

The Rosenbergs were Jewish-American Soviet spies and KSM is an Islamic terrorist. I don't wish to compare apples and oranges, but the comparison does pose the question, "Who posed the greatest threat?"

In the hysteria of the moment, Drs. Kraithammer and Peretz, may be engaged in hyperbolic ventilation. If the Foley Square judiciary could handle the Rosenberg case, it can successfully prosecute KSM. After all, the entire weight of the International Communist movement sided with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and apparently justice prevailed. Do the jihadists pose a greater danger to our country than did the agents of Stalin?

Noga, if we were to proceed on your grounds, we'd never have had the Nuremberg Trials or the Eichmann trial.

I'm not sure what you mean with your reference to Hasan -- most of what I commented on in that connection was investigating the roots of that case, not trying it. As far as the latter goes, I am assuming that he will receive the normal court-martial proceedures: an Article 32 hearing, followed by a General Court-Martial. Nothing abnormal there.

In re KSM in court, I have confidence in the federal judiciary, and -- unless things turn out very badly, which still wouldn't make it a wrong decision -- I don't believe the AG and the Justice Dept would go into court with a weak case.

I'm pretty sure Obama didn't have much to do with the decision, but obviously I don't know. However, he clearly didn't want the CIA investigations, and the AG went on with those anyway, so the evidence points to a hands-off relationship with Holder.

Noga, something completely different:

Unbidden, the word "noganote" popped into my brain a little while ago. That was from the CR board, right? And it wasn't something you used but rather was a directed comment to you from . . . whom? The poster who lived in Seattle or WA somewhere and taught ESL, was that it?

Irony, finally, somebody brings up the Eichmann trial. I was scrolling down and about to name-check him, but you got there first. In his "plexiglass box," no less--props to you, Wandrey.

"Noga, if we were to proceed on your grounds, we'd never have had the Nuremberg Trials or the Eichmann trial."

Each of these two cases aroused strong objection at the time and after. In fact according to Arendt, the Eichmann's trial was so flawed that she wrote an entire book about it, showing how a perfectly guilty as charged man did not receive a fair trial. Her main beef with Israel's judiciary was that the trial served Ben Gurion's propagandistic interests more than any notion of justice. The same accusations were leveled at the Nuremberg Trials. So as you can see, there is nothing new in your quoted statement above. Only reiteration of what has been already known and disputed for a few decades now. You won't find me agreeing with Arendt even though I would not object to her insight into Ben Gurion's schemes aimed at boosting Israel's nation building and ethos of never again. He had as noble a reason for turning this into a show trial as the architects of the Nuremberg trials. What is Obama's excuse?

"...a process that shows what we're about as a country."?

Or is it more like ...a process that shows what Obama is about? (Sorry, I know you can't deal with any criticism of your chosen leader but I really think he is making a grave mistake in this decision and for such a calculated cautious person as he is, I wonder what could his reasons be.)

_______

The poster you have in mind was eM. He lived in Seattle and was a poet , author, and he also sometimes taught English. He addressed me as you recall but he used the same formula to address others as well.

I took something rather different from Arendt's book.

But did you read the point I made about the evidence -- i.e. not just my opinon -- tending to show more of a hands-off relationship between the WH and Justice?

It seems to me you're the one with the fixation on Obama, Noga.

_____________________________

Ah yes. eM.

Also, a "show trial" is a court process, usually carried out under an authoritarian or dictatorial system, in which people are indicted on either trumped-up or purely ideological charges before a political judiciary.

Neither Nuremberg, nor Eichmann in Jerusalem, nor the proposed KSM trial were or are "show trials," and to suggest that that is what will take place in NYC is truly scraping the bottom of the argument barrel.

"...and to suggest that that is what will take place in NYC is truly scraping the bottom of the argument barrel."

IronyRoad, I usually try to keep my own personal feelings about some of the arguments you advance out of my conversation, because I do not wish to give offense. You, it appears, are not bound by similar constraints. Since you cannot be bothered to take my arguments seriously and understand what I'm trying to say, which is somewhat unusual for someone as thoughtful as you, I can only conclude that your tender Obamic loyalties have been touched. Once Obama is criticized, you cannot hold yourself back from personal insults. And yes, I consider your comment that my arguments are dregs a personal insult.

I got the measure of Obama and can no longer be surprised or bemused by any of his decisions. If you think this is fixation then sure, I have a fixation on Obama. It is no more than your fixation on George Bush, when you disagreed with every tiny movement he made. Except you called it "legitimate criticism".

noga
"Obamic"? Humm, is this a play on "Islamic"? If so, then whatever respect I had for you as an Obama critic has evaporated. I am certainly cognizant that someone who reads and appreciates the Spine would not be a big fan of President Obama. But if you're one of this guys (gals?) who subscribes to this Obama is a Kenya Muslin brand of criticism, then you do not deserve respect from irony or anyone else. I hope that I am wrong because I appreciate your posts - you reminded me that there was a [belated] military tribunal started, your score - and would like to think that you are not an unhinged sly bigot.

I merely wondered if you'd actually read the point I was making, Noga, that Obama may not have had very much to do with the AG's decision, as evidenced by the CIA investigations which he wasn't keen on, but Holder went ahead and initiated anyhow. Clearly you haven't. Or perhaps you have. It's difficult to say, as you make an assertion, I respond to it, and you don't address my response but rather repeat the original assertion.

I do consider the "show trial" rhetoric to be scraping the argument barrel. Sorry. It wasn't meant to be a personal insult (I see you as more than your arguments), and I took your comment seriously enough to outline why I think the term is, at the very least, inaccurate.

I didn't always disagree with Bush, incidentally, and even though I did oppose him 98% of the time, I found the left hyper-obsession counter-productive and definitely loopy at moments. I thought he was a general disaster as president, and Cheney more so, but everyone has their moments.

Oh, and feel free to tell me if you think my arguments are particularly weak, and, most importantly, why. I don't regard that as hostile, if it's done in a reasonably courteous tone. I think it's a legitimate area of discussion, and sometimes it can be very useful -- I mean, I think I generally summon up a good case but certainly I've stretched things at times too, and rethinking one's pitch isn't such a bad thing.

"...if you think my arguments are particularly weak, and, most importantly, why. I don't regard that as hostile, if it's done in a reasonably courteous tone"

As in:

"is truly scraping the bottom of the argument barrel."??

____________

As for cookie,

It takes an especially nasty and idiotic understanding to infer from "Obamic " that I mean it as a "a play on "Islamic" and that I am "one of this guys (gals?) who subscribes to this Obama is a Kenya Muslin brand of criticism". I mean, talk about a paranoidic conspiratorial mindset! Scary stuff. Apparently Obama is not to be laughed at!

As for "whatever respect I had for you as an Obama critic has evaporated" -- I never solicited your respect nor would I consider any respect from someone of such weak and mean grasp of language as anything but degrading.

A friend of yours, IronyRoad? Nice going.

Yes, the argument about Obama being behind the decision and, as you have already "taken the measure" of his presidency and found it coming up short, said decision is therefore a bad one, is weak. Barrel-scraping, in fact.

The argument that some people (who? Neonazis? Intellectuals of one stripe or another) have think the Nuremburg Trials were "Siegerjustiz" and the Eichmann trial was a piece of political theater mounted by Ben Gurion is not especially stronger. They happened and their legacy is an important one.

The argument that a conviction will amount to a "show trial" as it's a foregone conclusion has something to it, but the use of the term is loose and seems designed for polemical purposes, and thus the point gets lost in the noise.

I've seen you do a lot better. But I have to say that the good arguments -- and there are some -- seem to be getting lost in the threnody of fear-mongering coming from the Republicans. I think the security argument is obviously one that has to be considered, but I cannot believe -- and I doubt you do either -- that this decision was reached without some serious thinking about the implications and getting input from the security professionals, including the NYPD.

Sorry! delete "have" in the first sentence of para 2

What can be learned from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials in relation to the decision to prosecute KSM in Federal Court? There was propaganda value in each, including the Rosenberg trial. They were not "show trials" in the 1930s Stalinist sense of the word. Justice was done, in the main.

Was the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials turned into three-ring circuses like Kraithammer predicts the KSM trial will be? Why such disdain directed at the Federal Court system. Most of the federal judges are Republican appointees.

The idea of a military trial respecting the law and the rights of the accused seems to be overstated. What makes a military trial such a perfect court of justice? Have there been no miscarriages of justice under military law?

I believe the hysteria directed at this trial has to do with the definition of the "War on Terror" and terrorism itself. We are at war with Islamic fundamentalists, worldwide. The attack on the WTC was an "act of war." By holding the trial of KSM in a Federal Court, the Justice Department is acknowledging that the horrible WTC attack was less than an "act of war." It was a crime, but not a military crime. The decision to try KSM undercuts, in Dr. Kraithammer's opinion, the rational of the "War on Terror" advocated by the previous administration. The Justice Department is saying KSM is an criminal, but maybe not exactly a war criminal. It is a thumb in the eye of former President Bush and his concept of terrorist as military combatant.

The Nazi leadership including Eichmann committed crimes against humanity. KSM, it will be proven, rightly belongs with this group of misfits and monsters.

Dr. Kraithammer and former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani are battling for partisan advantage. I'm sorry that Martin Peretz has joined their ranks. How silly to proclaim that NYC is not able to rise to this historic occasion. They sound like weak, old men, afraid of their shadows.

LG: "Why such disdain directed at the Federal Court system[?]"

A very interesting question.

What about the pragmatic argument here -- which I don't think anybody has acknowledged -- that the civilian courts are a safer bet, legally speaking, for those whose guilt is easily proved, and so more effective. The Goldsmith-Comey Washington Post op-ed that wildboy linked to makes the argument that the military tribunals are susceptible to legal challenges that they are kangaroo courts. Goldsmith and Comey believe that a military tribunal in some form would be legal and constitutional for KSM -- others disagree -- but that the area is murky and subject in any event to challenge on all the untested particulars. A civilian trial, so long as the tried and true procedures are followed, is beyond reproach and not subject to similar challenges. So, when it's easy to convict in a civilian court, it's the safer choice. And lest you think that a conservative Supreme Court would always back whatever tribunal is chosen, remember that the conservative Supreme Court rebuffed several of Bush's choices in just this area. I'm not an expert on all that, but Holder and other lawyers in the Justice Department are.

The fact that Holder (and apparently Obama) is supremely confident that there is sufficient evidence to convict KSM does not remotely undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor is not supposed to presume evidence. It is the judge and/or jury that is to presume innocence. The prosecutor's role is to use all means consistent with due process to prove guilt.

As to federal court vs. a military commission, I am still working through that in my own mind. But a response like that of Comey and Goldsmith is more helpful than the overwrought, partisan response of Krauthammer. And I agree with Cookie that the more salient point is that KSM and the others are in fact going to be indicted and tried, rather than imprisoned indefinitely without being charged or tried.

A bigger issue is the disposition of the detainees we don’t believe we can convict but who we believe are too dangerous to release. There currently is no constitutional basis for holding them indefinitely without charging and trying them. Obama indicated many months ago that he was going to explore whether he could construct a constitutional justification for “preventive detention,” where such detention would be subject to initial and ongoing review by the courts and/or Congress. That would be better than simply leaving it to the executive branch to determine that some detainees could be held indefinitely without being charged or tried, but I am interested in what the constitutional argument would be.