'This is a prosecutorial decision as well as a national security decision," President Barack Obama said last week about the attorney general's announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al Qaeda operatives will be put on trial in New York City federal court.No, it is not. It is a presidential decision—one about the hard, ever-present trade-off between civil liberties and national security.
Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.
Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war...
Yoo could have been the guy for whom Clark's Law was intended: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."
ReplyDelete2Anon/
ReplyDeleteAgreed LOL!
Have you seen this?
Regards/
I *did* - love that clip - it shows something sorely lacking in American journalism these days - guts!
ReplyDelete2Anon/
ReplyDeleteInteresting that it is an Australian comedy show that gets to the heart of the matter!
Regards/
Indeed - during the Bush administration I looked to British and European newspapers as a counterweight to the non-stop propaganda put forward in the U.S. press - it's quite surprising to me to see the Australian media exercising independence like that, because the Howard government seemed just as backwards and reactionary as Bush's, and Rudd's hasn't seemed much better. American journalism was gelded and brought to heel by the Right Wing many years ago - a complete lost cause...
ReplyDelete@Anon/
ReplyDeleteYou seem VERY well informed re; life down-under and please do NOT get me started on Rudd! After the Howard years we voted for a change and much the same way of 'new' labour in the UK after Thatcher, we just really end up with more of the same. If voting changed anything they would have made it illegal a long time ago!
Regards/