KSM Trial

Bob Kerrey makes a rather foolish presumption that KSM should be tried in the US judicial system. And completely ignores that KSM would get off immediately on technicalities.

By now, we all know the basics. Last Saturday, KSM told a Combatant Status Review Panel that he was responsible for more than 30 terrorist attacks and plots, including the 1993 and 2001 attacks against the United States. It is likely that - because, among other things, KSM basically announces that he is a sworn enemy of the U.S., at war with us, in the transcript - the panel will decide he has been properly designated as an enemy combatant, setting the stage for a trial before a military commission.

This would be a big mistake, for three reasons. First, our civilian criminal courts are well equipped to handle an accused mass murderer like KSM. The 10-year history of terrorist prosecutions in federal and state courts has established procedures that protect national security while speedily bringing those accused to justice. This has happened without weakening the rule of law, making the accused international heroes or damaging the case against other terrorists.

Two of more than 20 successful prosecutions are worth noting. On Jan. 25, 1993, Mir Aimal Kansi shot five CIA employees as they waited in their cars on their way to work. Two of them died. Kansi was captured in Pakistan in 1997, brought back to the United States, tried for capital murder in Virginia courts, and executed by lethal injection in 2002.

Ramzi Yousef, suspected of having led the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, was arrested in Islamabad, Pakistan, in 1995, extradited to the United States, and tried in New York City in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York. In 1996 he and two others were convicted and sentenced to 240 years, during which they can have no contact with the outside world.

Both of these cases should give President Bush, the Congress and the American people confidence that justice can be secured and national security protected inside U.S. courtrooms.

So, you think the US judicial system would suddenly ignore things like Miranda rights? Where would the prospect of his interrogations be placed? I would bet that much of the evidence is good for the average reasonable person, but seeing as Lawyers will be involved, I'm thinking that the twisting and spindling that will occur with that evidence would make it irrelevant.

Kerrey completely misses many points on law that frustrate the police and the public so extremely with normal law enforcement in this country. How many technicalities would you think exist in a case like this? The cases he states as proof of our judicial system being capable are of a completely different scope. Those terrorists were taken with in the country and within the legal system from the start. KSM was not.

The second reason to try KSM here is that he is a most important source of information about the details of the conspiracy that led to the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the United States. The independent 9-11 commission on which I served, which produced the definitive report describing the details of that conspiracy, was denied direct access to KSM and other important detainees. The families of the victims and the people of the United States deserve to know more about what is true and false about his "confession" before U.S. military personnel. Right now, all we have is a 26-page transcript released by the Department of Defense.

"True and false" about his confession? And why is there quotes on confession? Is Kerrey trying to position KSM as the victim here of our evil military? Or is his little quip on conspiracy trying to move this to a different point? Instead of looking at the monster that the military has restrained, Kerrey appears to be positioning the military in the role of antagonist. This is another reason why it shouldn't be placed in US courts, because it will be a certainty that the MSM and the lawyers will be making us out as the monsters, and not the one on trial.

The third reason is that a military tribunal in Guantanamo, which by its nature would withhold from public scrutiny many critical pieces of evidence and deny the accused the rights usually afforded to defendants, could make this murderer into the kind of hero to the Sunni Muslim world that Saddam Hussein became following his hanging. This is not an academic matter. The sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia is taking a terrible toll on innocents, not only in Iraq but across the Muslim world. We do not want to risk making matters worse. These three reasons are cause enough for President Bush to intervene and ask Congress to modify the Military Commission Act so that the alleged 9/11 mastermind can defend himself - and, quite likely, find himself convicted - in a U.S. court.

This one is just blind to reality. Kerrey seems to think that KSM's trial by the military will make him more of a martyr than if he was condemned in court in New York. KSM is already on the martyr's list for those that want to use it that way. In fact KSM would be afforded a very loud voice in the US judicial system to move his own propaganda desires forward. Does Kerrey honestly believe that KSM wouldn't claim extreme tortures and other violations just for propaganda purposes?

And Kerrey seems to believe that KSM deserves the rights afforded to citizens of this country. How that is is beyond me. He willfully planned the mass murder of US citizens and for some reason should be afforded the safety of constitutional protections? Should all enemy combatants be afforded the evidence rights that Kerrey seems to be demanding for KSM? How would that even be possible, since no doubt many of those who were involved in their confinement could be questioned and doubted due to time and circumstances.

The Congress has legislated a method of prosecuting these enemies of the US. There is no need to bring them within the US judicial system to satisfy the whims of those who believe that the victims will get a fair shake by protecting the aggressors.