Trying KSM in NYC

Thursday, 19th November 2009

On the whole I'm sympathetic to the Obama administration's desire to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City. That is, dealing with this kind of terrorism is a matter of law-enforcement as well as, in other respects, a military matter. And yet, despite all the talk about how putting KSM on trial is an affirmation of superior, civilised values and all the rest of it, I'm not sure that the trial will be quite the propaganda victory some think it may be.

Ruth Marcus happily spares one the job of dealing with a typically atrocious Michael Gerson column which alleges, ludicrously, that the ACLU is now running the Justice Department and that the Attorney-General's interpretation of the Constitution is, amazingly, some kind of "suicide pact". But in doing so Marcus also, perhaps unwittingly, undermines the case for these civilian trials:

Federal law contains sufficient safeguards to protect sources and methods, and you can be sure that the Justice Department made a careful assessment that it could obtain a conviction without harmful disclosure. The risk of acquittal is negligible, although I think that word may be overstating things. More important, even if Mohammed were somehow acquitted, it’s not as if he would saunter off to brunch in Tribeca. He’d no doubt be indicted and held on other charges, or preventively detained.

Quite. And so, while the verdict can hardly be said to be in much doubt, it's not a proper trial. It is, as perhaps it must be, a Show Trial since, as even the scheme's supporters admit, there is no possibility that the accused can be released, even if cleared. Now, sure, this is all somewhat hypothetical but I can't help but feel that far from demonstrating the superiority of American justice, this plan cheapens and undermines that justice since, in the end, it also mocks it. KSM is guilty, but that doesn't mean this game isn't also rigged. And that, I'd wager, is how it will be seen in other parts of the world.

In that respect, then, for all the temptations to the contrary, I wonder if a military tribunal might not have been a better, or at least no more imperfect, option.

Filed under: Al-Qaeda (48 more articles) , Law (122 more articles) , Terrorism (298 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Sir Graphus

November 19th, 2009 6:19pm Report this comment

He’d have a lot of his own ammunition in a show trial, principally the use of evidence obtained under torture.

Snowman

November 19th, 2009 7:19pm Report this comment

Does anyone truly believe that the Muslim world will begin to warm towards us because the anointed one has dragged KSM to a civilian court? The massive expense of the show, the security headache, and the inconvenience to those near the court house and New Yorkers in general is to satisfy the pseudo-liberal tossers, who would have insisted on ‘due process’ even for Adolf, and wouldn’t have been at all displeased if he got acquitted, or at least spared the death penalty.

ndm

November 19th, 2009 7:23pm Report this comment

I is the right thing to do and should have happened a long time ago - except that the Bush Administration comprised a bunch of cowardly bullies.

Beafeater

November 20th, 2009 3:49am Report this comment

So, you are sympathetic to the idea of civilian due process afforded to a foreign enemy fighter captured in war? But because it will be a Show Trial, you're not so sympathetic? And you think that the military tribunal may be better, because it is not a Show Trial, but a real trial, even though due process is reduced? This is confused.
KSM was going to plead guilty in the military tribunal.
Now the defense lawyers get to strut their humanitarian stuff. That will be the Show. Perhaps there'll be another Lynne Stewart among them.

Post comment