Why on Earth would President Obama put five suspects accused of involvement with the criminal violence of September 11, 2001 on trial in New York City, of all places? The answer is simple: It’s what the Constitution of the United States requires.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
Note how that amendment begins. It applies to “all criminal prosecutions”, including prosecutions of foreigners, and prosecutions of extremely serious and violent crimes just as much as prosecutions of shoplifting. There’s no exemption for prosecution of terrorist crimes. The trial is supposed to take place where the crime was committed.
The crimes took place within the borders of the United States. One plane went down in Pennsylvania, one plane went down in Washington D.C., and two planes went down in New York City. Most of the death and destruction took place in New York City, so if the government has to choose from the three places where the crimes took place, New York City makes the most sense, from a constitutional perspective.
There is an alternative, of course. We could completely ignore the Constitution, and our system of laws, and have a government that just makes up new rules as it goes along, creating new standards for putting people on trial whenever the people accused of a crime are especially unpopular.
This second option of rebellion against the Constitution is what Senator James Inhofe tried to enact yesterday. He attempted to introduce an amendment to a larger military appropriations bill. The amendment would have outlawed the spending of money to hold within the borders of the United States anyone who had previously been prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. In effect, this amendment would have blocked compliance with the Sixth Amendment’s requirement that a trial take place where the crime was committed.
Inhofe’s amendment was blocked by the Senate, on a mostly party line vote. However, two Democrats crossed over to join the Republicans and vote in support of the amendment. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln, both from Arkansas, voted to ignore the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment, and to make it it impossible for the American system of fair and impartial trials to be maintained.
Don’t go there on this issue.
Where? Don’t go where? To the Constitution? Don’t ask that the Constitution of the United States is respected, instead of being treated like a rag of filth?
No, I think I will go there, Tim.
This issue has nothing to do with the Constitution. Nothing. But it has everything to do with the placing of the Bush Administartion on trial. This is just cover. Deep down inside you don’t give a shit about KSM. But you do want to see Bush in handcuffs. So you will use KSM in a Federal court to expose Bush. That trial will back fire so horribily it will mark every progressive supporter as a terrorist lover, not a Constitutionist. A push by progressives on this will be a death nail to having any hope in any true change in our political system. We will be religated to the political dust bin.
Tim, people like you may indeed be able to use the politics of fear to push the Constitution out of a position of respect. You may indeed be able to incite mobs to trample on progressive values. However, until you succeed in actually overturning the Constitution, it will still be in effect as the highest law in our nation. The Constitution establishes fundamental standards for justice. The Sixth Amendment sets requirements for prosecution. How can you say that the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with how we put people on trial? That’s as ridiculous as saying that the speed limit has nothing to do with how we drive.
Why don’t you read the Constitution, Tim? The Constitution is directly relevant to this case.
isnt there a law stating that a trial can take place outside of where the crime took place if the nature of the crime had such an impact on the area that it would be impossible to find juriors for a fair trail. I think this may be one of those cases. Do you really expect these people to get a fair trial in New York?
KSM was captured OUTSIDE the US. OUTSIDE! He does NOT get US protections. So the 6th Amendment doesn’t apply. This is an Obama/Holder end run to get to Bush and appease the lunatic frindge. It will blow up in their faces and we will pay the price. I for one will not be setup as a scarficial lamb for some rabid Bush haters. Bush haters that will kill us all off to get their ends met. NO. I have contacted the Senate members and gave them my two cents to keeping KSM out of New York. I even held my nose and signed petetions in protest of the move. We can be more effective in a calm enviroment than that of a hostile one. A hostile one that puts US in the crosshairs. Forget it. This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with politics.
A trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammmed will kill us all? You have quite an imagination.
Plenty of people have been extradited to the United States for crimes committed in the United States.
It’s a sign of how far outside the rule of law that you are seeking to take the United States, Tim, that you’re accusing people who merely want the Constitution of the United States to remain in effect as a “lunatic fringe”.
I was speaking figuratively Jim….Hello….
And extradition is for individuals commiting a criminal act, not one of War. Al Queda as a group declared war against the US during the first WTC bombing. It doesn’t apply. And to add, KSM was captured during a military action, not an FBI raid….
The Constitution is not figurative, Tim.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 were crimes, not acts of war. Acts of war are of one government against another.
The Constitution speaks in the Sixth Amendment of ALL PROSECUTIONS, not some. “All criminal prosecutions” is the phrase. Go read it again.
You can’t prosecute a criminal trial against someone one the one hand, and then claim that the charges that the people are on trial for are not criminal charges. Your position makes no sense.
If these people were truly not criminal suspects, but merely prisoners of war, then they should have been put into an ordinary prisoner of war camp, and been given full protection under the Geneva Conventions, as is required. If, however, they were suspected of any crime, the 6th Amendment applies.
There’s nothing in the 6th Amendment that says that it applies only to prosecutions of citizens, or prosecutions of people captured within the borders of the United States, or prosecutions of people captured by the FBI as opposed to the military. It applies to all criminal prosecutions conducted by the U.S. government.
ALL. “All” is not a figurative word. It means all.
You can not pick and choose pieces of history to revise and meet your ideologies. KSM was never “charged” as a criminal. He was charged as a combatant. And FYI Gitmo WAS a prison camp. The Geneva convention WAS applied. They had all the elements of the convention standards. EVERYTHING. From religious freedoms, to visits, to legal councel to RED CROSS visits. One of the key points that he CAN NOT be tried in a federal court but by military tribunal. HELLO!
Well, we certainly will kill your figure. We “Bush haters” love to hand out donuts during our regular Satanic rites. But beyond that, I have no idea how “Bush haters” (you’re the first one to bring up George W. Bush here, how odd) “that will kill us all” ends up as a figure of speech. I’ve never heard that one at parties.
I’d like to clarify something here: are you telling me that murder is not a criminal act?
John Walker Lindh was captured by the military and put on trial, and he’s not the only one.
The U.S. Constitution does not just apply to American citizens. It is the supreme law of the land for all people under its jurisdiction.
What makes you think I’m a Bush supporter? Because my points of view don’t walk the narrow path of progressivism? How elitist.
Lynch was a US Citizen, in combat against US Forces. Different circumstances. He was tried as a traitor. Not as a direct combatant.
Murder is a criminal act…death by act of war is not.
KSM was acting in a act of war. A war he believed he was in, a war declared by his group. And a war we engaged in when we retaliated in Afghanistan.
KSM does not have the same protections, he’s an enemy combatant. Different.
You just do not have your facts straight. Show me the evidence that Lindh (not “Lynch”) was in combat against U.S. Forces. He was not. John Walker Lindh was not tried as a traitor. And show me the U.S. declaration of war. There is none.
And, um, who called you a “Bush supporter?” It’s probably not wise for you to get paranoid here, Tim, especially when you’re throwing phrases like “terrorist lover” yourself.
Countries can declare wars, but groups can not. This is just a law enforcement issue.
Ya know, this where we part ways. I can’t deal with pompus people. Arguing with close minded elitests consumes the day. You people here are not progreessives. Not in the least. You hide behind the Constitution to dish out your own brand of Americanism that is so out of the progressive stream and it borders so far left it’s meeting up with the frindge right.
You two can have fun posting all day. And on this point, I will stand against you. Fully.
Mince all the words you want to meet your point. But you will be terribly suprised how alone you will on this point and vilified you all will be when the American people will turn against progressives in general IF this comes to trial. I will have no part of it. I will go underground and continue things in my own way. YOU can take the FIGURATE bullets that will fly. Not me…I will live to fight another day.
So let’s see here…
Constitution: elitist
Facts: pompous
Libertarian: far left
Accuracy: mincing words
That’s an interesting view. I hesitate to ask what “continuing things in your own way” means. Oh, what the heck, I’ll ask. What’s “continuing things in your own way,” Tim?
Wait a minute Tim, how about you deal with the substance of what’s been said here, instead of running away when confronted with some facts that are inconvenient to your beliefs?
Is there any chance he would actually go not guilty if his confessions were tortured out of him?
I liked LRC’s take on What to Do with the ‘Terrorists’
“There seem to be two sides: the Republicans want to torture them, try them in a kangaroo court in US occupied Cuba, and kill them, since that will show “terrorists” that the US is all-powerful. The Democrats want to torture them, try them in a NYC kangaroo court, and kill them, because that will show the world what a great country this is.”
You are NOT a Libertarian….what a fucking lie….
Oh, we’re having sex now! What position?
Who? and why
You proved my point again….later kids….
…and yes, you can the last words….
I think his confessions may have been tortured out of him.
That’s one thing that a jury trial will help people know.
I don’t know much about juries.
Can the defense ask that at least some of the jury be Muslim so that he gets a fair shake from his own religion?
I still dont believe he can even get a fair trial in that state. this should be some place further away from the destruction where less people were personally impacted. You will not be able to find a non biased New Yorker
Ya but it’s been a long time since it happened. A lot Democrats there don’t trust the war on terror or Bush so in that sense they may get some what more fair trial.
I think the defense needs some moderate muslims on the jury. If you have 10 Christians convicting a Muslim, it naturally looks suspicious.
Hey Jim,
I wonder if KSM was given Miranda rights at GITMO. If not…then boom, he can’t be convicted.
Somehow I don’t think that would fly though. I hope he was given Miranda otherwise the whole thing goes to hell.
Scott Horton’s new show officially goes live in California on KPFK in Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. He’s got Glen Greenwald on to talk about the KSM trial. he show to talk about the KSM trial.
Glen Greenwald comes in at 38:30.
That’s the good part.