Republicans say the darndest things! Or rather, the DUMBEST things

[Drake Tungsten]

They're actually going to get convicted.

Of course. No judge or jury in the country is going to let KSM off, regardless of how convincing the admissible evidence actually is.

That doesn't change the fact that Holder just announced to the world that the trials are a sham (not that they couldn't have figured that out on their own).

[KrazyHorse]

Do you honestly believe that these trials will be seen as MORE of a sham than some half-baked military tribunals?

[DinoDoc]

Holder obviously doesn't think so as those trials are still going on.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you honestly believe that these trials will be seen as MORE of a sham than some half-baked military tribunals?

Yes. Military tribunals already have a long history of use by the U.S. in dealing with enemy combatants. They don't offer the same protections as civilian courts, but they never have done so. If people want to ***** about the fairness of military tribunals, they're free to do so, but the trials themselves wouldn't be any less fair than those given to countless other wartime enemies of the United States.

Using our civilian courts to hold show trials for terrorists, on the other hand, will compromise the ideals and sully the reputation of the U.S. judicial system. I don't see the benefit in doing that when we already have an alternative system for trying these people.

[Ramo]

That's ridiculous. Civilian courts have had far greater experience dealing with terrorists than military courts. We're making up rules for the latter on the fly.

For example, the combat status review tribunals were such a joke that the Supreme Court sharply rebuked them in Hamdan, etc. These are not well tested processes that withstand international scrutiny.

[KrazyHorse]

That is tortured (hah) reasoning. The key point is this:

They don't offer the same protections as civilian courts

These guys will get more of a chance to defend themselves than they would being tried in Gitmo, isolated from the press. This squeamishness about "sullying" civvy courts is just so much hogwash.

[Drake Tungsten]

These guys will get more of a chance to defend themselves than they would being tried in Gitmo

No, they won't. Holder's already admitted that they're not getting off no matter what. We're being guaranteed the same result as that of a military tribunal, but with an increased risk of exposure of classified sources and methods and a greater megaphone for al Qaeda propaganda.

I'd have a lot more respect for Holder and the Obama Administration if they actually did allow KSM and Co. a fair day in court. Letting them into the civilian courts at all is stupid, but if you're going to do so you should at least be fair about it. That would entail actual risk to the Administration and the Democrats, however, as they would be guaranteed to lose a couple rounds of elections if the mastermind behind 9/11 walked. As such, we've gotten this farce that will sully the civilian courts while delivering the verdict we could've gotten just as easily from a military tribunal.

[Drake Tungsten]

The only good reason to try KSM in a civilian court is for the optics provided by allowing our worst enemies the full legal protections of our justice system. When you come right out and say that those protections are irrelevant because KSM isn't getting off, no matter what, you completely undercut the reason you had for trying him in civilian courts in the first place whilst sullying the civilian courts in the process. It's moronic, from a national perspective at least. It's probably less moronic for the Obama Administration, who must think there will be some kind of political benefit from this.

[Ramo]

The government's position is that it has a right to detain enemy combatants, and the status determination be made by an appropriate tribunal. This is the authority by which it is detaining scores of other people. KSM obviously passes the test. If they rejected that authority, that would call into question its authority to hold these other people.

KSM is not being tried for his enemy combatant status, but his participation in a certain terrorist action (or a similar charge). His innocence regarding these actions does not necessarily revoke the status determination.

A good case could be made (and no doubt would be made) to revoke that status determination if nothing sticks (and the government has said they have other charges lined up if this trial falls through), but we all know that's not going to happen.

[Drake Tungsten]

Holder has decided to combine indefinite detention with trials in civilian courts, which is clearly inferior to the current policy of indefinite detention with trials in military tribunals for the reasons I already outlined. The real alternative to the status quo is to abandon indefinite detention and offer trials in civilian courts, but the Administration won't do that for fear that a terrorist might actually go free, hence the moronic half-measure.

[Ramo]

Your reasons are absurd, as I already pointed out in the post you ignored. I repeat, civilian courts have far more experience dealing with terrorists than military courts. Look at how Moussaoui was dealt with. The Supreme Court laughed at the CSRTs. Our criminal justice system is vastly more credible than the ad hoc framework we've tried to constructed through the military over the past several years.

[Drake Tungsten]

Our criminal justice system is vastly more credible

And now you're gung ho on tossing that credibility away with show trials.

[Ramo]

That's inane. Again, KSM is being tried for specific criminal actions, not his combat status. No credibility is being lost.

Just like how the Moussaoui trial didn't "toss away" the credibility of the criminal justice system (there's no way he would've been released either).

[Drake Tungsten]

Again, KSM is being tried for specific criminal actions, not his combat status. No credibility is being lost.

That's inane. If you're going to treat KSM like an enemy combatant (a prerequisite for detaining him indefinitely), then try him in a military tribunal like the U.S. has traditionally done with enemy combatants. If you're going to treat KSM like a criminal, then feel free to try him in civilian courts but let him go if he's found not guilty. To do anything else harms the credibility of our civilian judicial system.

[Ramo]

If the government has no authority to hold him after he is declared innocent of a specific crime, the government has no authority to hold any other enemy combatant. Because the status determination is the legal basis for the detention. Not the trial.

]In any case, I repeat, the government has made it clear that it would use other charges as a basis for detaining him.