so let me "weigh in" on khalid sheik mohammed. now first of all the legal approach to these cases has been an insane tissue of contradictions. so: the opponents of a civilian trial say: 9.11 was an act of war, not a crime. well then, he is a prisoner of war or an alleged war criminal and must under treaty be treated as a prisoner of war or an alleged war criminal: treated according to the geneva conventions and tried in the hague, for example. but no: he's not a soldier, not a general: terror is not war (these same people say during a different three-minute slice): he's not in uniform; does not represent a state. now this combination of assertions (for short, p and not-p) is why we can do exactly anything we feel like to him at any time, for example, waterboard him hundreds of times over a period of months, or torture him continuously for years. that is, as any logician will tell you, anything follows from a contradiction.

now one of many reasons why you don't want to produce him in open court is because he can reveal highly sensitive national security info. after someone says that, see what they adduce. for example: he can reveal interrogation techniques that we use on (alleged) terrorists. now when someone makes that argument, be clear. they are saying that he will reveal the war crimes of the bush administration. that is, he possesses sensitive classified info  because he was tortured, whatever his crimes may or may not be. and obviusly, you can't introduce evidence obtained under torture, for extremely good reasons.

but really when republicans make the classified info argument they are foreseeing the trials of their own (former) leaders on war crimes charges, or at least a series of investigations. that if nothing else is why the status and the facts and the reasoning have to be utterly obscured under layers of contradictory claptrap.

at any rate. yes, try him in court. try to restore some semblance of sanity, legality, and consistency. but a million problems are going to arise. that much is right.

Comments

[THOMAS J. BIETER]

Neither court has jurisdiction over 9/11 defendants so talk of trying such defendants before an international tribunal is just wishful thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

I'm disturbed by the lack of confidence shown here in the U.S. jury system. Having tried hundreds of jury cases in my 35 years, I can assure you that jurors take their duties seriously. For example, my client got off in a case where both the prosecutor and I conceded that a crime had been committed. However, the jury thought otherwise. Boy, were we (prosecutor and I) embarrased! http://www2.mnbar.org/benchandbar/2007/jul07/lie_court.htm

[Cigar Reviews]

I do think KSM should be tried, however I don't think it will happen. I do not have a good solution to this problem... and it doesn't seem anyone else does either.

[Robert Kelly]

Yes, I'd prefer an international tribunal. The opponents (on the right) to a civilian trial would rather have the military shoot him on the spot, I'm guessing, haven't really bothered to listen. But wait until the civilian trial hands down a harsh sentence, and see them complain. I don't think they will.

[Henry]

Henry: "I think that what I was trying to say in my last comment was that the United States lacks the moral standing to try KSM"

Thomas J. Bieter: "This is an absurd statement. KSM is the alleged mastermind of the attack on 9/11. It is obvious that the U.S. has jurisdiction to try our alleged enemies."

The U.S. does have jurisdiction; that is a correct legal statement. But I was making a moral statement. It would be better to have an international tribunal try him, if only because its verdict would have more respect around the world than any verdict that a U.S. court would hand down.

[THOMAS J. BIETER]

Henry: "I think that what I was trying to say in my last comment was that the United States lacks the moral standing to try KSM"

This is an absurd statement. KSM is the alleged mastermind of the attack on 9/11. It is obvious that the U.S. has jurisdiction to try our alleged enemies.

Henry's hatred for Bush clouds his reasoning. Finally, I question anyone who argues in politics from hatred as a motive.

I detest collectivism, but I don't hate Castro.

[Ben]

I'm not a massive fan of Agamben, but I think the contradictory logic you identify here is exactly what he is talking about in 'homo sacer' and 'state of exception' - i.e. inclusive exclusion - Khalid Sheik Mohammed's legal status derives from the fact that he has no legal status, etc.

[Henry]

I posted my last comment before I read Standard Anthony's.

[Henry]

I hope that someone will comment on the substance of my remarks rather than on my presumed emotional state.

[Standard Anthony]

How does this make Henry a hater of American values? I thought holding everyone accountable for a crime committed was exactly how the constitution was supposed to be enforced. Even Michael "Dirty Hands" Walzer agrees with this.

[THOMAS J. BIETER]

Henry, you surely are a hater of the U.S. I've always been skeptical when those on the right accuse some on the left of "hating" their country. But, when I read what you have written above, their accusation rings true.

[Henry]

I think that what I was trying to say in my last comment was that the United States lacks the moral standing to try KSM. Perhaps we should turn him and Bush over to the Hague and let them sort things out.

[Henry]

I don't think that we should try KSM unless we simultaneously try the people who waterboarded him 183 times and the people who made waterboarding and other torture official U.S. policy (i.e., Bush and his cronies). And, if we don't try KSM, then we should release him; if Bush gets off, then so should he (not that, having been waterboarded 183 times, he can ever "get off").

The worst thing that has happened to this nation since 9/11/2001 is that it has become a dictatorship instead of a republic. The President has gained the power to arrest people (including American citizens, such as Jose Padilla) in the United States, torture them to the point of insanity or death, and keep them imprisoned indefinitely. That is now the law, and it has become so because Congress and Obama continue to allow Bush to get away with it. Obama is a more benign dictator than Bush was, but he is nonetheless a dictator; he has the power to imprison and torture me for posting this comment. If we had to choose between trying KSM and Bush, then we should choose the more serious criminal -- Bush -- because trying him would turn this country back into a republic.

[Simon]

clarity.