Notwithstanding the protestations of former United States Attorney Rudolph Giuliani, as well as some others, like Mike Lupica, New York City is the perfect place to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. First: this is the situs of his crime. Second: we deserve first crack at this killer. Third: this is how the justice system is supposed to work.
No, a military tribunal is NOT the place to try him. Zacarias Moussaoui was properly tried and convicted in a 5th Circuit District Court in Virginia, and we, as a nation, were better for it. We showed him and his ilk that even filthbags of his type can receive a fair trial under our (superior) system of justice and government.
And so it should be for Mohammed.
No, he will not be permitted to grandstand by a Federal judge. No, the court will not be turned into a circus. Yes, he shall be given a fair trial, as his Consitutional right, and he will be fairly convicted. And then he will spend a long time in Federal prison, rotting away, until he is executed, if it comes to that.
Rudy's arguments ring hollow. He was strongly in favor of trying Moussaoui - what changed since then except the President? Military tribunals, with their air of being a kangaroo court, will not suffice, especially for a defendant of this magnitude. As for the "extra risk" cited by Giuliani - what risk? That New York City is going to become a target for terror? Been there, done that. Twice. Such should not be a concern when meting out justice.
Also, terrorists, by their definition, seek to terrorize a population into changing their ways. If we change our ways to suit KSM and his alleged acts, and abrogating our Constitution in the process, are we not giving in to the wishes of those same terrorists?
Let us not permit Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and his lousy brethren, to change our ways. Let us demonstrate the superiority of our ways by giving him the fair trial he Constitutionally deserves, and then the punishment he has coming to him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The distinction, Ray, is that Moussaoui was arrested on American soil prior to 9/11. Moreover, I have no idea how liberals do not understand that KSM has no rights under the US Constitution. And you need to get over your obsession with "world opinion".
ReplyDeleteDoes world opinion take into account that we liberated Europe and the Pacific rim during WWII?
Does world opinion thank us for bearing the brunt of stopping the Soviet Union from enslaving them under Communism?
Does world opinion acknowledge the fact that we gave Iraq and Afghanistan the opportunity for democratic government after years of living under tyranny?
Is it right that "world opinion" tried to blame the US for every Al Qaeda car bombing in Iraq while the US was doing its best to wage the most humane military campaign in human history?
Does "world opinion" give us credit for the rules of engagement we've imposed in Afghanistan that deprive our troops of air support?
Does "world opinion" condemn the Taliban for keeping women and children in their base camps to use as propaganda when they get killed? Has the New York Times ever written an editorial condemning this?
Does world opinion acknowledge the fact that the US has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to slow AIDS in Africa?
Does world opinion acknowledge how the US Navy always spearheads disaster relief operations in third-world countries?
Does the "world" have an opinion as to why their citizens flock to build a better life for themselves in the United States even though we're such a racist and unjust place?
What percentage of the world opinion thought the US got what it deserved on 9/11?
Does "world opinion" apply the same high standards to terrorist barbarians as it does to the United States?
I could go on and on but the bottom line is that the United States doesn't have to prove our superior values to the "world". In fact, "world opinion" is just a euphamism for the opinion of the global leftist movement, which detests this country and everything it stands for.
And please answer me this. If, like KSM, we catch bin Laden in Pakistan, do we now have to read him a Miranda warning since there is a possibility that he might be brought into US Federal Court some day? Are we allowed to kill bin Laden on sight, or would that be depriving him of his due process rights under the US Constitution?
ReplyDelete