Skip to main content

I am 100% aware that this issue, and even this angle, has been covered here, in depth. This is just my take on the matter.


So a few days ago Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged "mastermind" of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, was going to face trial in New York City federal courtroom. From the New York Times:


WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a decision that ignited a sharp political debate but took a step toward resolving one of the most pressing terrorism detention issues.

The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., could mean one of the highest-profile and highest-security terrorism trials in history would be set just blocks from where hijackers for Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people.

Mr. Holder said he would instruct prosecutors to seek death sentences for Mr. Mohammed and four accused Sept. 11 co-conspirators who would be tried alongside him.

Now reasonable people might disagree over capital punishment. (I'm not a fan.) But if any case warranted invoking it, I would think that seeking death in a U.S. court of law for someone who helped coordinate an attack on this country that violently ended nearly 3,000 American lives, and ruined legions of others, would be relatively non-controversial.

Of course pants-pissing Republicans have other ideas.

First of all, the GOoPers positively agog because the Obama administration did something . . . anything.

Second, isn't Eric Holder black? A black Attorney General?!?! They're not sure about "that one."

Furthermore, Republicans claim that this move is soiling their drawers because apparently, they're worried that putting a guy like Mohammed on trial, and sentencing him to death, would somehow damage national security . . . an argument so rusted, so moldy, and so reeking of decay that it collapses into obscurity the second it's uttered. (From the same link):

"We should not be increasing the danger of another terrorist strike against Americans at home and abroad," said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York.

Now let's be honest . . . nobody knows what the fuck this moron, Representative King, is talking about. I suppose we are to take it as a matter of faith that somehow, putting alleged terrorists on trial hurts national security. But in spite of the fact that no one has a fucking clue what he's talking about, "Representative" King was apparently unmoved to elaborate any further. And this jagbag isn't alone! Just ask Senate Minority Leader Douchebag (R - KY):

"Our past experiences with terror trials in civilian courts have clearly been shown to undermine our national security," [Mitch McConnell] added.

The senator for Kentucky argued that if convicted and imprisoned in the United States, the Guantanamo detainees would have the right to remain in the country upon their release.

Now folks, if you actually believe that the United States government is going to release Khalid Shaikh Mohammed into the general population, and you are currently wetting your pants because you're afraid of the big bad terrorists, please do us a all favor:  kill yourself.

I'm serious. Eat some fucking lead. Have a cyanide cocktail. Drive of a cliff. Get you a rope and find you a tree . . . whatever needs to happen. You are a fucking moron, and a pathetic coward, and this nation and this planet would be better off without you. I'm not joking. Take a deep breath, and make it your last. Oh right. You're a coward. And at the very least suicide takes some fucking gonads, and you have none.

One might think that the so-called "patriots" - who are so into America that they get a stiff-peckered every time they hear the national anthem at a football game, and who come in buckets of red* white & blue** at the "home of the brave" crescendo - would have a little faith in our criminal justice system. After all, these are the same scum who generally support life imprisonment without parole for adolescents, and locking up potheads for twenty years at a time. They don't seem to have much of a problem with the criminal justice system when it comes to destroying the lives of black and brown Americans for non-violent offenses. What's more, aren't these the assholes who just one year ago - when President George W. Bush's "administration" was still in power - were routinely telling Americans that questioning any governmental function was akin to treason? I mean, don't they have any faith in our so-called "Justice System?" Gosharoonies. I guess they must be traitors.

Apparently the GOoPers' blind faith in the inherent benevolence of any and all incarceration doesn't extend to imprisoning alleged terrorists in US prisons.  Perhaps Islamic terrorists are the wrong kind of brown people.

There are two ways to look at why RepubliCons are poopy-pantsed over the prospect of trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others in a court-of-law. Either they're actually so stupid and cowardly that they really are afraid that somehow, for whatever reason, trying alleged terrorists is going to damage national security and fan the flames of terrorism. . . something that we must understand the Wars on Iraq and Afghanistan never ever did, by the way; or perhaps there's something else going on here.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and gingerly suggest that maybe they don't want a courtroom trial for the likes of Mohammed because they know that in such a trial, his lawyers might argue that the man was waterboarded 183 times; and that waterboarding is torture; and that therefore some of the evidence against him is inadmissible. (I don't usually link to Fox News, but you gotta check out this link. Dig the  . . . ahem . . . tortured logic of the Fauxies as they try to back up a headline that reads: "Despite Reports, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times".)

Maybe, just maybe, leading RepubliCons don't really want a whole big national discussion about who tortured whom and, when; because you know the whole "why are we torturing people" question makes them a little uncomfortable. Don't get me wrong, I'm the FIRST ONE to assume that leading Republicans are stupid cowards. But let's not forget the venality and blood-lust either. I'd say it's possible, just possible - call it 95% possible -  that RepubliCons can't stand the idea of the likes of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed going to trial because it would understandably be a huge media spectacle, and because the issue of "who tortured whom" would again rise to the surface of the national conversation. As far as these soul-less scumbags are considered, the status quo is just fine - torturing alleged terrorists in far-off countries and trying them at distant military outposts if they ever go to trial at all. Letting these people die in prison of old-age without ever facing justice is a keen option, as far as these guys are concerned.

You know, Americans are far from perfect. We've got our ups and downs, just like any other nation. But as a whole - and thank God at long last - I don't think we're very comfortable with the idea of torturing people  . . . not even terrorists or alleged terrorists. These GOoPer-poopers can wax cowardly all they want about their phantom "threats to national security." It's crystal clear these people don't want a spotlight shone on the torture they enabled for much of the Bush Administration.

And thank God again (and I'm agnostic) for people like Representative Jerrold Nadler - (D - NY), who has really been proving himself to be one of the good guys lately:

"New York is not afraid of terrorists," said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, adding, "Any suggestion that our prosecutors and our law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue."

*Yep - that's blood.

**No idea what the blue is. This rant wasn't totally thought through, I'll admit it.

Originally posted to daveinchi's World on Sun Nov 15, 2009 at 06:17 AM PST.


Should Khalid Shaikh Mohammed be tried in a civilian court?

81%54 votes
15%10 votes
0%0 votes
3%2 votes

| 66 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site