Why didn't the United States agree to have Khaled Sheikh Mohammed tried in an international war crimes tribunal? Perhaps because the U.S. does not want to lose control of the proceedings. If control were lost, certain little-discussed aspects of the case might come out -- such as the fact that the CIA has been holding KSM's young children hostage for years. As a released document revealed, the CIA told KSM that his children would be killed.
Given the circumstances, we may expect a quick guilty plea. Certain right-wing pundits are screaming that KSM could engineer a successful defense. Such claims are pure propaganda.
6 comments:
We all know trying the terrorists in international courts was never on the table. That would be too awesomely cool.
After a year, we can see that Obama has a seriously defective table, in the sense that the cool stuff never gets onto it. It doesn't get get taken--it never shows up in the first place, and Obama simply acts like everything is on the level.
What a flaming fraud, huh?
Single-payer was never on the table. Restructuring the banks was never OTT. Withdrawing from Afghanistan was never OTT. Investigating Bush-Cheney war crimes was never OTT. Chicago Blue Dog No. 1 desperately needs a new table.
The sad part of this is that there are some out there who will applaud the holding of the children and the death threats.
Makes you wonder if Obama is trying to capture some of the Bill Clinton magic by holding the trial in NYC.
Shades of the Blind Sheik.
I don't think it was even a possibility to take this into international court had we wanted to, as I am unaware of any international court with jurisdiction in these matters.
(The new one created in the aftermath of 9/11 doesn't have jurisdiction for matters occurring prior to its formation.)
And besides, it is typical for such perpetrators to get multiple trials in lesser jurisdictions in serial fashion, such as when Timothy McVeigh faced Oklahoma state charges after the federal charges were brought in federal court. Multiple bites at the capital punishment apple: if the federal trial doesn't result in the death penalty, perhaps the state trial may.
So some trial in the US would be the norm even if there was also an international body trial.
XI
I will be very curious to see what evidence the state can assemble that is actually admissible. The FBI has acknowledged that it has insufficient hard evidence to indict Osama for 9/11.
I will also be curious to see how tolerant the court will be of a broad defense.
The 5 to be tried in NY (civil court) have all without wavering said they will plead guilty. They want to "die as martyrs."
Meanwhile, stopping the military courts has left dozens of innocents - so called, i.e. expected to be released - in a new, extended limbo.
Probably worse for them than before.
News about the Gitmo and other prisoners being simple bodies snatched and sold is now coming out in the mainstream (not in the US), as usual at least 5 years too late.
see for ex. J Harding's review in the London Review of Books of Fletcher and Stover's book on Gitmo.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n21/jeremy-harding/terrorist-for-sale
Ana
What IF they weren't the ones who planned 911?
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
Post a Comment