[Bret L]

(( The obvious answer is no and no. Bret.))


Is America a Serious Nation?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

"Are we at war—or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial
in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he
entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional
protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him
locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial
implies—that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit
in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces
to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them
has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a
crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a
right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to
bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of
their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are
at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on
U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed as many Americans as
the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an
enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.

When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold,
was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged.
When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish
Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on
the spot.

Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States
for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit
atrocities are shot when caught.

When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial
by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators
like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at
Ft. McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after
being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a
military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme
Court. What makes KSM special?

Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning
KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?

How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far
from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized
by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue
is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on
appeal?

Were not KSM's Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told
he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed
and he would be water-boarded if he refused to talk?

And if all the evidence against the five defendants comes from other
than their own testimony under duress, do not their lawyers have a
right to know when, where, how and from whom Justice got the evidence
to prosecute them? Does KSM have the right to confront all witnesses
against him, even if they are al-Qaida turncoats or U.S. spies still
transmitting information to U.S. intelligence?

There have been reports that in the trials of those convicted in the
first World Trade Center bombing, sources and methods were
compromised, weakening our security for the second attack on Sept. 11.

If the trial is held in lower Manhattan, how much security will be
needed to protect against a car bomber who wants the world to see a
mighty blow struck against the Great Satan? And if, as some suggest,
the trial should be held on Governor's Island, would that not make the
United States look like a nation under siege?

What do we do if the case against KSM is thrown out because the
government refuses to reveal sources or methods, or if he gets a hung
jury, or is acquitted, or has his conviction overturned?

In America, trials often become games, where the prosecution, though
it has truth on its side, loses because it inadvertently breaks one of
the rules.

The Obamaites had best pray that does not happen, for they may be
betting his presidency on the outcome of the game about to begin."

http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091116_serious_nation.htm