Should there be a military tribunal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

By Ian Bezek
By Josh Phillips
Updated: 03/08/10 9:20pm
  Email this article  |      Share on Delicious  Share on Digg
Tools

Possibly Related
BezekIan
PhillipsJosh

Send Mohammed to Tribunal
By Josh Phillips

Last November, the Obama administration suggested it would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal.

Naturally, I disagreed with this overtly soft and lenient decision. Now Obama’s advisors think it may be best to send the man to military court.

This is a no-brainer. Since he belonged to no transparent chain of command and conspired to murder civilians, Mohammed is clearly an unlawful combatant. He must be prosecuted to the full extent of military law. Anything less would make America’s “War on Terror” seem more like a “disagreement with terror.”

Supposedly, Obama’s reputation may be at stake if he decides to pull a U-turn. I wholeheartedly disagree. This move will show that Obama can admit he makes mistakes, and he’ll portray himself as a no-nonsense enemy of terrorism.

He may lose the “humanitarian” aspect of the trial if he places Mohammed in front of a military commission, but I honestly can’t see a problem with that.

If the charges of conspiring to murder 3,000 non-combatants on Sept. 11, 2001 are true, then Mohammed is as far from “human” as a man can possibly get. He should consider himself lucky that he faces a country so honorable and forgiving that it offers him a chance to defend himself.

If Obama sends Mohammed to military tribunal, he will be one step closer in achieving his dream of claiming the War on Terror as his own personal victory. He must make it clear that he fully intends to destroy America’s enemies rather than pussyfoot around foreign opinion and the notion of playing nicely with terrorists.

Josh Phillips is a senior business administration major. His column appears Tuesdays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com.

Bbama’s U-turn a Bad Move
By Ian Bezek

It’s very easy to be drawn to the idea that we must harshly punish our enemies. The idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is very appealing. But we should take the humanitarian high road and give Mohammed a fair trial in a civilian court.

The Obama administration originally realized this. Attorney General Eric Holder said, “I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is (…) I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheik Mohammed has to say at trial — and no one else needs to be either.”

But now we’ll never get to see that trial if it occurs behind closed doors at a military tribunal.

Why should we deny him access to a fair trial? He’s already confessed to numerous crimes and is likely to be found guilty of almost 3,000 counts of murder, one for every person who died on September 11. Why should we deprive him of his right to at least try to defend himself?

Sending Mohammed to a kangaroo military court will strip the United States of credibility and infuriate the Muslim world further.

The upside of this outcome is that it appears that in return for agreeing to a military tribunal, the Republicans will finally agree to close the despicable Guantanamo Bay internment camp, ending one terrible blotch against our foreign policy record.

Still, this decision is another terrible lapse in judgment for President Obama, who has broken his word yet again by stripping Mohammed of a fair trial.
_
Editorials Editor Ian Bezek is a senior economics major. His column appears Mondays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to letters@collegian.com._

Published March 8, 2010 in Opinion

21 comments

Tre Scott

March 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM
Flag this comment

Where would a non-religious military man not affiliated with any terrorist group be tried for the same crime? That’s where we should try him. We need to show the world we are serious and therefore hold all people of this country equally accountable.


Registered Independent

March 9, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Flag this comment

Response to Mr. Bezek,

First of all Mr. Bezek, we would never get to see the trial if it took place in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal, either. Cameras are not allowed in the federal courts. So if that is your real interest in the venue of this trial, you are out of luck either way. It was never going to be televised.

Read more …

Secondly, this case has nothing to do with “retribution” as you charged. This is about justice. The fact that you are too young to clearly remember the day that 3000 Americans were slaughtered at once does not make it any less real. Your dim memory of events does not make them any less heinous, nor any less a carefully synchronized act of war. Four planes, all manned by Al Quaeda, struck our country in a coordinated attack that day.

You just don’t remember September 11th very well, as you were probably attending your 9th grade classes that day. Neither are you old enough to know anyone who was affected by what happened that day. But there are millions of us who remember it as clearly as if it were yesterday, since we watched it happen live, horrified as the 2nd plane hit Tower 2, and the thousands of people running for their lives in the streets below. Right through to seeing both towers collapse in a matter of seconds, with thousands more doomed people inside them.

Yours Truly happened to have a friend who worked on the 26th floor of Tower 2 that day.

And then the Pentagon itself was hit by the third hijacked plane. A major factor, that “civilian trial” proponents are determined to sweep under the rug. I also happened to to have been a great admirer of Barbara Olsen, a first-rate lawyer and political commentator who was burned alive when her plane smashed into the Pentagon. She was saying goodbye to her husband on her cell phone when her plane hit the building. Her husband was Ted Olsen, the Solicitor General of the U.S. at the time. Through cell phone contacts, many of the people on planes 3 and 4 that day knew that they were going to their deaths in their last minutes. By then the whole country knew that it was a coordinated military attack on us.

These were all real people that died that day. Not just a fatality statistic you read somewhere.

And then the 4th plane went down in the field in Pennsylvania. Only because heroic Tod Beamer and others decided to sacrifice their own lives, and take the plane straight down rather that allow it to reach it’s intended target. Which was on course to hit either the White House or the Capitol building.

September 11th was obviously a highly coordinated, military attack operation. Not a couple of lone nut cases going off on their own.

The Twin Towers in New York were the heart of America’s financial center at the time. Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that the Towers also housed a large group of CIA offices as well. But Al Quaeda knew it. Those CIA people all died too; their tower offices took a direct hit. Then the Pentagon itself was attacked by plane 3 smashing into it sideways. And the 4th plane was heading for Washington D.C. as well. This was clearly a coordinated attack by Al Quaeda on our “command and control.” They weren’t aiming to just kill people, they were aiming to put us out of operation.

And they were somewhat successful. The stock and bond markets were completely shut down for four days. The markets didn’t recover to their pre-attack levels for a year. Fire, police and other major communications in New York City were knocked out, since their main antennas had been atop the World Trade Center. Hundreds of CIA personnel in the Towers and military people in the Pentagon were killed. Not just civilians. Obviously the public could not be told exactly how disruptive this was to ongoing operations. Plane travel dropped to nothing, and the airlines all lost billions. Shopping malls stood empty for weeks, as people avoided going out. Which caused billions more in losses.

For some reason Mr. Bezek, you are confused by the fact that Al Quaeda does not wear uniforms. That is an irrelevant detail, that does not make them any less of a military group hellbent on destroying America and what it stands for. Al Quaeda’s entire reason for being is to make war on the west in general, and upon the United States in particular.

September 11th was a coordinated military attack on America, and all facets of the case belong before a military tribunal.

And that disingenuous, transparently duplicitous Attorney General Eric Holder needs to be fired immediately. Before he does even more damage than he already has to our system of justice, to our ability to protect ourselves, and to this president’s tarnished reputation.

*******************************************************************************


Registered Independent

March 9, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Flag this comment

RASMUSSEN PRESIDENTIAL TRACKING POLL, MARCH 9, 2010:

54% of Voters Disapprove of Obama’s performance.

Read more …

41% overall Strongly Disapprove.

44% at least Somewhat Approve of Obama’s performance.

22% Strongly Approve.

  • Notice that there is now a full 10 point spread between those who Disapprove of Obama’s performance (54%), over those who at least Somewhat Approve of him (44%).
  • And in fact there is now only a 3 point gap between the 41% who Strongly Disapprove, and the whole 44% who at least Somewhat Approve.

Promptly firing that jackass Eric Holder and replacing him with a real Attorney General who understands that his job is to represent the United States, might help.

***************************************************************************************


Arvensis

March 9, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Flag this comment

The trial should be held in civilian court. The only reason this is not going to civilian court is because the entire cover up story put forth by the 911 commission will be dismantled. By bringing forth facts and evidence in civilian court, it will come out that the attacks were planed and orchestrated by operatives within our government. FYI, KSM was a well known CIA asset in the 80’s.

The powers that be will never let this trial take place in the eye of the public.


Registered Independent

March 10, 2010 at 7:11 AM
Flag this comment

Arvensis,

About our government’s supposed plot to fly jumbo jets into our own Pentagon, and into our own CIA offices in the twin towers, killing 3000 Americans in the process: this was to achieve what goal, exactly?


jimmy

March 10, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Flag this comment

Arvensis,

Whether KSM was a CIA informant or not is irrelevant. Suggesting that people in our government had a hand in killing thousands of Americans is ridiculous. Even Bill Maher admits that the 911 Truthers are crazy. Come on man don’t start drinking the kool-aid now…


CSU Vet

March 10, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Flag this comment

The decision for a military tribunal for KSM has nothing to do with ‘retribution’ against KSM, and nothing to do with denying a public trial.

Instead it has EVERYTHING to do with protecting the men and women serving overseas and especially with protecting sources and methods involved in intelligence gathering operations. With a public trial all evidence against KSM must be disclosed to KSM’s attorney’s and therefore KSM himself. This would effectively make all methods and people used to gather information against KSM public knowledge.

Read more …

When Ramzi Youssef went on trial after bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 (also funded by KSM) it revealed many methods used to gather intelligence which led to his conviction. It severely damaged the ability of intelligence organizations to gather information about future threats to the US.

This is the reason a military tribunal is so important for the trial of KSM. If the Presidents administration goes forward with a civilian trial they will be directly endangering the lives of Americans serving overseas and making it harder for intelligence services to prevent future attacks.


Arvensis

March 10, 2010 at 2:04 PM
Flag this comment

As of now Regy, I do not know the true motivation for operatives within our government (not our government) to carry out this 9/11 tragedy, but the evidence against the commission report is astounding. A new investigation needs to take place.

One theory: war is a racket and highly profitable. Not for our country of course, but those who are controlling our country through the unconstitutional banking system. Financing war is very profitable. Other theories are quite diabolical, but if you look at the events that have progressed since the attacks, it is easy to see that the controlling interests have used the patriot act and homeland security against US citizens. We are begging big government to strip us of our civil liberties because we are so afraid of bogey men. What happened is a tragedy, but our rights should not be taken away to protect us.

Read more …

I knew this would ruffle some feathers, but I have spent countless hours of research on this topic. In the beginning of my awakening, I thought this movement was full of fools and cowards. At that time, I was not engaged in the political system and had faith in the government. When we found out that there were no WMD’s in Iraq, I didn’t understand why we didn’t pull out – we are still there today. We have killed more than one MILLION Iraqi’s and who knows what percentage of them are innocent women and children… FOR WHAT? Chasing some bearded diabetic who planned the attacks from a cave in Afghanistan?

It has been reported that OSB has been dead for years…Have you ever bothered to look at the FBI’s most wanted fugitives? You will find that the man we blamed for the 911 attacks is not even wanted for that crime! Must be a typo…http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Also, Al Qaeda was created by the CIA through Zbigniew Brzezinski.

As for the operatives, I can tell you that there are many powerful people in our governmental ranks that have dual citizenship with Israel – a popular one is Rahm Emanuel who actually served in Israel’s military. Some of the more notable dual citizens include: Jonathan Jay Pollard, Ariel J. Weinmann, Michael Chertoff, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Henry Kissinger, Ari Fleischer, James Schlesinger, Steve Goldsmith, and the list goes on and on. I am not pointing a finger at Israel, but their true loyalty is highly suspicious. Why are so many of these people serving in our government? Is it not unconstitutional to have dual citizens in our government?

I don’t really know what happened on 9/11, but I know that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. Have you ever wondered how building 7 fell in its own footprint at a free fall speed but was never hit with an airplane…how does a fire on the upper level of that building turn the entire structure to dust? Please watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM. Larry Silverstein took out a huge ‘acts of terrorism’ insurance plan months prior to his building coming down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

Reg Indy and Jimmy, you are both intelligent people. I don’t think you have given the alternative a chance. Perhaps you can watch a few videos of the buildings coming down. Look into the properties of steel and question whether jet fuel burns hot enough to melt the entire support structure of the buildings. How did they find passports laying in the street, when everything else in the buildings was pulverized? They never found so much as an office phone fully intact.

It has been painful waking up, but it is empowering to seek the truth.

BTW – Why is somebody seeking the truth crazy? Taking an independent stand against brainwashing and lies is not crazy; it is what free thinking humans should do. I will not be a slave.


Registered Independent

March 10, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Flag this comment

Arvensis,

Hmmmmmm . . . . .

Read more …

We have innumerable areas of disagreement here. A whole boatload of them. So let me just limit myself to one point for consideration. The Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was one of the very few Acts of Congress to have been written with a “sunset” provision on it. Meaning that it had an expiration date, beyond which it was no longer law. This was because it was intended only as a temporary emergency provision, immediately following September 11th. To assist our intelligence community in preventing another September 11th type attack, for as long as we are actively at war.

That “sunset provision” in the Patriot Act kicked in recently. Meaning that The Patriot Act was about to expire, and our intelligence divisions would no longer be assisted by it for intelligence gathering. It would no longer be law.

This democratic Congress just a week or two ago voted to extend the Patriot Act for a little longer. And this new president signed it into law. It has been extended, but only temporarily again.

The original Congress that passed the Patriot Act following September 11th was Republican dominated. The president at the time was also Republican.

Now we have a Congress that is completely controlled by the Democrats. And a president who belongs to the democratic party. And they all just extended the Patriot Act for a while longer.

Do you really believe that all of these thousands of people, right-wing Republicans and leftist Democrats alike, are all part of the same huge conspiracy to limit our rights and freedoms for no good reason?

Or could it possibly be true that the provisions of the Patriot Act have been an invaluable tool for our intelligence community, in protecting us from terrorist acts since September 11th.

Maybe, just maybe, the cry of “the Patriot Act is Stealing Our Freedoms” was just a campaign rallying point. Because now that they are in charge and privy to the intelligence briefings themselves; the democrats have done an about-face and decided that perhaps the Patriot Act wasn’t such a bad idea after all. Very quietly, of course.

Keep in mind that several would-be terrorist conspirators in Colorado, New York, and other places around the country have recently been arrested prior to carrying out their violent plots. Just in the last few months, you will recall. But prior to doing us any real harm. They were all caught at the “conspiracy” level. Which legally requires only, a) a conspiracy, and b) “some act in furtherance of” the conspiracy. Meaning that the conspirators can’t just be talking about blowing something up. They have to actually go buy the fertilizer, or lots of peroxide, to make an explosive device.

Here is my thinking on this. First of all, the fact that the Patriot Act has always been temporary, the fact that it has always had a “sunset provision”, is an extremely good sign. There are always some temporary curtailments of freedom during war time.

Secondly, the Patriot Act has been effective. Look at these arrests that have been made of these terrorist conspirators who might have been living right next door to us. And since Americans are such a trusting, accepting people; we had no idea in the world that anything was amiss until the FBI arrests were made. And the conspirators have just been quietly whisked away to where they can be no further threat to us.

With a fair trial first, of course. The intelligence community has to make sure that they have the goods on these people before they pick them up. The Patriot Act allows them to get the evidence they need on these people, without bothering the rest of us.

Thirdly, Arvensis, you can rest easy. The Patriot Act does not mean that our intelligence community has any interest in you, nor intends to curtail your, or my, rights. We are completely irrelevant to them. They are not looking for earnest American conspiracy theorists (you), nor Obama critics who by a circuitous route, wound up on the white house enemies list (Yours Truly). That is all domestic politics, the usual stuff about which they couldn’t care less. They are not looking for this country’s citizen critics; they are looking for its real enemies. And they are trained to know the difference.

Here’s who they are looking for: people who have decided to stockpile surface-to-air missiles in the shed in their backyard. People who have certain Yemenis (who are coincidentally on the “watch list”), on speed dial on their cell phones. And of course anyone who advocates the violent overthrow of the United States government.

On the other hand, people who merely advocate throwing the bums out in the next election are not under suspicion.
After all, we are legion.

The people our intelligence community are looking for with the Patriot Act


Registered Independent

March 10, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Flag this comment

Whoa there, strike that last line of my last posting. Must have been an, ahem, chardonnay-influenced editing error.


Arvensis

March 10, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Flag this comment

@ Reg Indy

That is a nice breakdown of the Patriot Act, but its use is against citizens is not justified. The truth is, the intelligence community IS interested in me and millions of other Americans. Surely you recall Big Sis (Janet Napolitano) issuing the DHS report last year; which listed the largest threats to the US? That list included: returning veterans, gun owners, Ron Paul supporters, NRA members, militia members, Bob Barr supporters, constitutionalists…etc. I fall under several of these categories. So, according to the Department of Homeland Security, I am a potential domestic terrorist. Why in the hell are veterans considered potential domestic terrorists? People willing to sacrifice it all for the country come home and are labeled enemies?!

Read more …

If you think the Patriot Act is the answer to fighting terrorism, I suggest you look into information provided by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer with respect to the ABLE Danger program. He is a highly decorated, CIA trained intelligence officer. Months before 9/11, he and his Able Danger unit identified 4 of the hijackers in the United States. His requests to to pursue and apprehend the high value targets was halted by Special Operations Command. His information was put forth to the 911 commission, but they failed to include it in their published document. Intelligence KNEW what was going to happen, but the higher chains of command allowed it to occur. His book “The Dark Side of the Force” is coming out soon.

I do not want the patriot act, I do not need the patriot act. I feel no threat from muslim terrorists. It is more likely for me to be struck by lightening that be a victim of true terrorism. I am very capable of defending myself and my family. I am not a threat to muslim extremists, but apparently I am a threat to the growing tyranny that has poisoned our government.

Lies need to be told over and over again to cover the truth; the truth needs to be told only once.

So aside from the patriot act, what else do we disagree on? Did you go to the FBI’s website? Did you watch any videos of the buildings being demolished?

Best regards.


Registered Independent

March 11, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Flag this comment

Arvensis,

One thing we can agree upon is that Janet Napolitano is breathtakingly incompetent, and her public comments thus far have been patently absurd. She is perhaps the biggest idiot in the Obama administration. But there are several contenders vying for top honors. The competition is pretty fierce.

Read more …

However neither you nor I, nor the veterans, are going to end up on the “no fly” list.

Moving on to your main theme, suffice it to say that we are not going to agree on your September 11th conspiracy theory. The failure of our intelligence community to “connect the dots” prior to September 11th in no way implies that this failure was deliberate. It has more to do with the Clinton administration’s de-emphasis of external threats, than anything else. They did not take the first Al Quaeda bombing of the World Trade Center seriously enough, in 1993. Nor their later bombing of our embassy in Kenya in 1998 (which killed 224 and injured 4500), nor their attack upon the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and injured 39.

These Al Quaeda attacks were each mistakenly viewed in isolation, as they were each a couple of years apart and occurred primarily overseas. They were not understood to be precursors to a much larger and more deadly attack in the making. (Things always look so clear in hindsight.) So prior to September 11th, it was not generally recognized just how organized and viciously determined Al Quaeda was. That was our wake up call.

Of course you don’t feel personally threatened by terrorists. Because CSU and environs is obviously not a “high value target”. But that has nothing to do with American interests as a whole.

Pax.

*****************************************


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 10:38 AM
Flag this comment

With all due respect, you are skirting the main theme. My questions were direct and you are taking comfortable angles you are well educated on. I am challenging you to look past your convictions.

You are far too intelligent to go along with this. If you actually look at the evidence for yourself, I know you will begin to question the main stream story. It is not conspiracy theory; there is far to much evidence put forth by thousands of specialists, and the movement is growing.

Read more …

I understand the target value of my community, but I do not feel that the majority of America’s homeland is threatened by any militant group from the middle east. The greatest threat to the people of this nation is the tyranny within.

How do you justify the killing of more than 1 million people? How many were actually insurgents? How about the mercenaries with stories of rape and torture? Is that what it is to be American? Soulless thugs with no moral code, killing for a paycheck.

What was Al Quaeda’s motive for attacking us? They hate our way of life so much, so instead of minding their own business in their own country half the world away, they need to send us a message? Not very logical. It’s like teasing a pissed off pit bull tied up with fishing line.


Registered Independent

March 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Flag this comment

Arvensis,

These “truther” myths have been around since 2003 or 2004, and no they are not gaining any traction. It may look like “new” information to you, but it’s just the same old nonsense making the rounds as it was 6 or 7 years ago. There is no “newly discovered evidence.” It’s just new to you. And already rejected by everyone else, previously.

Read more …

Are you aware of the fact that Al Quaeda is quite annoyed about these “truther” claims? Al Quaeda thinks it is a plot deliberately cooked up by their tribal enemies to rob them of their great “victory” over America on September 11th. To rob them of their one claim to fame.

Here they are, reduced to hiding in caves in the mountains of Pakistan nine years later, and here you are trying to steal their thunder. Diminishing their street cred. They are hiding underground from NATO planes and American special forces, from drones overhead coming in for that second, deadly pass, and from the Pakistanis themselves, who have taken to finking on their whereabouts left and right.

And tch, tch; here you are trying to take away the one thing that Al Quaeda had to hold on to, their one moment of past glory; September 11th. So it was all for naught. Such a sad tale of martyrdom going unrecognized. I’m tearing up here.

Congratulations. You and Iranian president Ahmadinejad are pushing the exact same story about September 11th, which is to the effect that America is responsible for attacking herself, but she just doesn’t know it. Terrific, rational company you are in. Are you a holocaust denier like Ahmadinejad is, too? That story isn’t gaining any traction, either. Want me to walk you through that history point by point, as well?

Take it from someone with a history degree: don’t major in history, or you’ll never graduate.

************************************************************


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Flag this comment

I clearly remember in the spring of 2004, my roommate shared with me, released surveillance video of the pentagon on 9/11. There was no evidence of an airplane – just an explosion. This information, as you label, ‘myth’ is not at all new to me. It has taken years to digest and I have been deep into the rabbit hole. At first I was hesitant, but my curiosity and thirst for understanding has taken me to where I am now.

There most certainly is a growing number of people getting the courage to come out against the 9/11 commission report. Russia Today has done numerous stories, including a recent interview with Richard Gage. Why is it wrong to question government and demand a new investigation? Have you read the 9/11 commission report? Do you accept it as fact and truth?

Read more …

Al Quaeda is a CIA creation – this is admitted in their own documents. Yet you claim they are upset with Americans investigating what really happened because it takes away from their victory? Give me a break. What was their motivation? Pride? Envy?

It is clear you are not going to take an objective approach to my questions. In all sincerity, I am sorry for your loss on that tragic day. Are you truly comfortable accepting that those responsible for the tragic events cower in a cave in a far off land? Sending mercenaries to rape adolescents and kill innocents doesn’t make any of it right.

You may have a history degree, but that doesn’t put you in a superior class of historians. I consider myself a disciple of history, but my knowledge hasn’t come from the esoteric.

“Knowledge is power.” But, a slave with knowledge is a threat to power.


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Flag this comment

That’s exoteric. :/


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 10:38 PM
Flag this comment

That’s exoteric. :/


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Flag this comment

That’s exoteric. :/


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Flag this comment

That’s exoteric. :/


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 10:39 PM
Flag this comment

That’s exoteric. :/


Arvensis

March 11, 2010 at 11:11 PM
Flag this comment

Hmmm :) not sure why that posted 5 times!!

 

Comments are closed for this item.

Powered by Detroit Softworks