Columnist Eugene Robinson is an alarmingly naive person (11/22, Opinion, “Trial could showcase commitment to justice”). There’s no precedent or sound legal justification for trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the other terror suspects in U.S. civilian court in New York.
Robinson proposes that a civilian trial, as opposed to a military trial by uniformed men and women, would in effect help to disabuse radical Muslim jihadists of their justification to fight against our so-called “war on Islam” because it shows that the U.S. is not “afraid” of them. That is elementary school-level naivete.
The outrageous and unnecessary expenditure for what amounts to a show trial will do the exact opposite of what Robinson claims. An open civilian trial will only serve to better elucidate the “Great Satan” on his own soil, will be recognized as another triumph by the “preachers of hate” and is certainly a high insult to the 9/11 families who will have to witness such barbarians being afforded U.S. civilian legal protection.
I wonder if Mr. Robinson has ever considered that, or if he’s really that naive.
Tim Baynham
Overland Park
Recent statements in The Star by a U.S. senator (Pat Roberts), a former U.S. attorney general (John Ashcroft), and a former vice president of the United States (Dick Cheney) all display a common negative attitude toward our Constitution. All three are fearful that our ideals cannot stand up to the terrorist ideology of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed when he appears in open civilian court in New York City not far from the 9/11 site.
Who are these three leading public figures trying to kid in defending the abrogation of constitutional procedures, both now and throughout the eight years of the Bush-Cheney (read Ashcroft-Gonzales) administration of our laws? It is such a defeatist approach displayed by all three of these former high-ranking officials that scores easy victories for terrorists, whose ultimate aim is precisely to undermine the very rule of law that these gentlemen have already proved they will not uphold under terrorist pressure.
Owen de Long
Merriam
55% are against this show trial in NYC.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/new_york/55_in_new_york_oppose_civilian_terror_trials
People do not believe this scum deserves the same "rights" US Citizens have. What's next Miandizing battlefield captives?
This is the same so-called "Justice Department" that now is insisting that the fraudjulent and corrupt ACORN people get taxpayer dollars, defying the will of Congress. It is also the same so-called "Justice Department" who refused to prosecute Black Panthers that intimidated voters with clubs at some polling places.
"Justice" is hardly a word that can be applied to Obama and Holder.
Posted by: Kee | November 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM
They should just pin some paternity suit on them, make up some "arrearage" amount and then by law they could be detained indefinitely without counsel and all of their assets confiscated. Our judicial system cares little about terrorist or violent criminals. Our judiciary has morphed into a system where lawyers and judges are looking to milk men and have power to disrupt families. There are billions being made from this and causing serious dysfunction in our society, this is part of the grand plan.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | November 29, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I dont care where they try them as long as they just do it. How many years has it been? That in and of itself is evidence of a broken system.
Sure is too bad we cannot bring them to the Western Dist of MO for a sex crime frame up. Then we could throw out all the rules and have a public lynching. These terrorist will probably get less time for killing 3000 people than the massage parlor opertors got for recuiting willfull women for prostitution. This is really how it works in America.
Posted by: Stifled Freedom | November 29, 2009 at 08:01 AM