« Survey Says... | Main | Obama to Consult Magic 8 Ball for Afghanistan Strategy »

Military Justice

The news that admitted terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammad will face a civilian trial in New York City has proven, once again, the naïve and hypocritical character of the Democratic Party, and once more encouraged the enemies of democracy. Truly we must seem fools to treat demons as though they were men!

The question of how to deal with terrorists has always been controversial, but of late it has resolved itself in two ways. Some consider terrorists to be criminals, whose fate should be resolved in civilian court, while others consider terrorists to be undeserving of the rights of citizens, and therefore their fate rests with the men of force, the military. It is important to understand from the outset that these resolutions are made not only by Americans, but by all nations and peoples forced to address such monsters.

The first paragraph of the American Constitution identifies the goals of the nation:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

The General Welfare

Listed in that order. The rights and powers described in the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, are accorded to and for American citizens and no other persons. Those who come to this nation as foreigners to do harm to this nation and its people, and those who plan nefarious acts from afar against us, have no claim to the protections and rights of the people they despise. Were these enemies agents of some nation which wished us harm, their rights would be defined and observed according to their nation's laws and our nation's observation of the protocols of such laws. Terrorists, as a rule, abandon nation and country in order to act independently of cultural norms and to protect their patrons from the proper consequences of their own dastardy. They have chosen barbary as their currency and may not reclaim the façade of civilization. Therefore the pretense that such creatures have the right to American standards of due process is specious and it is patently offensive to human reason, let alone American law, to treat terrorists as defendants in some polite debate on statute.

But there is more. Democrats in particular have treated the men and women of the U.S. military with scorn and disrespect. This is evident in the selection of men chosen to run for and hold the office of President. Neither the current nor prior Democrat to hold office as President of the United States ever served in any unit of the military, and the campaign platform of essentially every Democrat to run for high office includes a promise to weaken American interests abroad and abandon military commitment. Rather than finish what we promise, such men find it better to run and hide, blaming the men who suffer the cost if the ally falls when we leave.

That, I should say, is at least an honest cowardice. I believe that just as President Clinton abandoned Somalia because he did not believe we could win there, and President Carter before him abandoned Lebanon and Iran, so now President Obama believes that we cannot protect the nascent democracies built in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hopes to run from there as fast as he can, because he has no confidence in the military professionals who brought down dictators and freed fifty million people. It's a bit racist of the Democrats, this assumption that people in North Africa and the Middle East either are not ready for Democracy or cannot be trusted to choose their own leaders, that equal rights for women and protection of children should only be insured in America and a few similar nations, but that is for another post. For now it is important to see that President Obama, like President Clinton before him, did not understand what the military is and does, and why it serves the role it does. And that lack of understanding reveals an even deeper hypocrisy among leading Democrats.

Let's go back to crime. It's understood that there are different types of crime. Kids spray-painting your fence is wrong, but a misdemeanor. If they steal your car, that's a lot more serious, and if they attack you and put you in the hospital, much more serious. That's understood around the world. What is deliberate is worse than what is accidental, what does significant harm is more serious than what does little or no harm. What is planned ahead is worse than a spur of the moment offense. And this in turn determines the response from the government. Kids throwing eggs might get the police involved, but they won't be arrested in most cases, and the officers will not see a need to show weapons, much less use them. If, on the other hand, an officer arrives at a fight, he's going to make sure his pepper spray, baton, and Taser are ready if needed, because he is more likely to need them. If he pulls over a bank robbery suspect, the gun will definitely be out and aimed. If the suspects are believed to be heavily armed, a SWAT team will arrive with heavy weapons. That's just common sense. So when someone is planning or committing an act of mass violence, planning the deaths of many innocent people, the response must not be restrained. And that need for a fully severe response extends after the point of capture of terrorists.

- continued -

The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was forgotten by many people, especially after the arrest and trial of some of the culprits. That bombing was treated as a simple criminal act, a horrid one to be sure, but the nature of the act was hidden by the soothing routine of trial and sentencing. Even today, few people recall that the 1993 attack was planned by the same person who planned the 2001 attack; Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. KSM was the uncle of Abdul Rahman Yasid, an Iraqi citizen who actually constructed the bombs and who was given sanctuary in Baghdad after the 1993 attack.

Even fewer people realize that the FBI had Yasid in custody briefly, but released him for procedural reasons in March of 1993, which allowed Yasid to simply board a plane and fly home to Iraq. This blunder was representative of the kind of communication and bureaucratic problems which hampered effective response to terrorism by US law enforcement.

Treating terrorist attacks as criminal matters for law enforcement to face led to serious errors in tactics. For instance, the 9/11 hijackers met resistance on only one of the four planes they hijacked, because of airline policy requiring pilots and flight crew to cooperate in the belief that this would prevent bloodshed. The CIA was not allowed access to FBI evidence in the belief that this would compromise criminal charges against individuals, even when some of those individuals escaped apprehension completely. What's worse, lawyers for the accused in the trial for the 1993 bombing subpoenaed and received details of the investigation into the bombing, including the collection of evidence, the specific damage done by the bombs, and the fights between separate government agencies. This information was used to help plan the 2001 attack, conceal the terrorists' communications and evade early discovery by the U.S. government. Certainly the same tactics will be used by KSM's legal team in this trial.

I have written earlier that Muslim extremists do not represent the faith and beliefs of Islam as a whole, but these groups do have a disproportionate influence in Middle East society, and appear to enjoy patronage from powerful families and regional governments, in a manner similar to Organized Crime in many countries, especially the Triads in certain Asian countries. It is essential, therefore, to demonstrate to the common Muslim that these groups are self-defeating, and that they can and will be brought down by those who stand for Justice and protection of the commonwealth. It is, therefore, a blunder of the most serious magnitude to grant public attention and interest to a monster like KSM; he does not care so much what happens to him, if he can advance his cause in the effort. He confessed his plans and actions not because he was sorry for them, but because he was becoming irrelevant, and he hoped the shock value of his evil would rouse Al Qaeda to renew its confidence in its Fascism.

Many people misunderstand Fascism. It's become a word handy to use in insulting one's enemies, but in fact it is a very specific word which identifies a theory of malignant narcissism used to usurp the public weal for one's own benefit. The Nazis, for example, were a striking example of a cult in which a person could assign the moral weight of his actions to a focused individual (der Fuhrer), while doing as he will to increase his own personal power and wealth. More than a few Nazis were notorious thieves, rapists, and sadists. To a degree, the same can be said for the Hashishin, a Muslim cult of the 12th Century who initially committed contract murders of political opponents, but who later expanded their franchise to murder on demand for their own benefit. This is what is happening now in Radical Islam. As controversial as some texts of Islam are, and as maddening as the culture sometimes seems to Americans, the acts of Radical Islam are generally done for the benefit of the leaders in those cults. While men like Osama bin Laden may seem to be most like the Muslim version of Charles Manson, in most cases and especially for men like KSM the comparison to Benito Mussolini is more apt. They enjoy uncontested power, wealth is irrelevant because they never pay for anything themselves, and their commerce in fear feeds their immense egos, to the point that they can order acts which harm not only Westerners, but far more often Muslims and their own people, because there is no personal cost for them to face. The leaders of such cults have no worries about the fate of their underlings who are caught, and those who are caught believe that their reputation is the whole objective. KSM is happy today, because even as a prisoner he believes he has escaped what he truly fears; the truth of his inconsequence and the sheer futility of his cause. As long as he can pretend his cause will prevail, he will pursue the same bloody doctrine, because for him that is all that matters.

There are three essential tasks to defeating Islamic Terrorism:

1. Eradicate terrorist groups, leaders, and networks wherever they are found, especially by creating democracies in place of the rat holes where they hide;
2. Educate the Muslim people through example that the faith will not be attacked, but those who hide behind the faith to perpetrate evil will be found and obliterated;
3. When a terrorist is caught, deal with him on his own terms. These are the avatars and disciples of death, who have eschewed civilization and the morals of all decent nations in order to promote chaos and anarchy in support of their despotic cause. Treat them as they chose, and reward them with the death they have already embraced.

The military exists, specifically because people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed exist. Just as you must kill the cancer to save the body, just as you must clear your home of poisonous snakes and vermin, so too must the complete eradication of all identified terrorist groups be performed, without compunction or restraint. Giving legal rights and privileges to a terrorist like KSM is no more rational than trusting that a cobra can be best observed near your children. He has chosen hell, whatever he may call it, and it is no justice to give him anything else in consequence.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (12)

As much as I am opposed to ... (Below threshold)

As much as I am opposed to the "civil crime" application against these terrorists (at least one of them an admitted terrorist), I still fault GWB for his version of Obamadithering that kept these men in Gitmo for YEARS without addressing the charges. GWB should have insured by whatever means a swift and deadly punishment for terrorists. The PC approach is now reaping a terrible crop of front-page, and political idiocy that will cost us financially and in the world press for years to come.

Excellent post!"Wh... (Below threshold)

Excellent post!

"When a terrorist is caught, deal with him on his own terms."

They would do no less to any and or all of us.

"Many people misunderstand Fascism. It's become a word handy to use in insulting one's enemies"

Its not an insult. Its identifiying the threat to Your Children and venting against a bigger 911.

Is this a good time to poin... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Is this a good time to point out that criminal trials (instead of military tribunals) is one matter, and where the criminal is tried has nothing to do with the investigation aspects of the crime?

You seem to be trying to draw a connection between having these criminals tried in outside of military tribunals as somehow indicating that the investigation side is somehow lessened.

They aren't connected.

The nature of the crime - domestic terrorism - determines the nature of the investigative response. It has nothing to do with where the person is going to be tried.

Stopthepresses psychics (ps... (Below threshold)

Stopthepresses psychics (psycho chics) look into future and gives us a peek at Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Christmas eve, New York City trial.

Just in time for the holidays. After killing thousands of Americans on 911, Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, believes himself to be Mohammand-Claus. In an attempt to prove that the terrorist is delusional, the U.S. District Attorney today asked the Court to declare Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a Muslim terrorist and to force him to remove his beard and little red hat. The terrorist's attorney in a counter move, asked the Court to declare that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in fact Mohammed-Claus. In a classic holiday scene, the terrorist's attorney related to the judge that he has letters from people who, after cheering the death and destruction of 911, wrote letters to Mohammed-Claus, that the U.S. Post Office delivered to the court house. After the attorney hesitated the judge ordered him to put the letters on his desk. The judge was soon covered in letters, as the court room full of Muslims exploded with calls of "Allahu Akbar" and "fa la hal la la gee, gee, gee, gee......" The judge became suspicious when he noticed that the letters that covered him, all smelled like a strange mix of camels, pita bread, hummus, and baba ghanoush. The trial has been continued until Christmas Eve.

How many Muslims will be on... (Below threshold)

How many Muslims will be on the jury?

Maybe I don't know my histo... (Below threshold)
James H:

Maybe I don't know my history, but ... President Carter abandoned Lebanon?

This makes no sense KSM wa... (Below threshold)

This makes no sense KSM was already on Trail by the Military so this Just BHO changing things up in mid stream. The Military Trail was almost over with all of these guys saying they were guilty.

Hangin's too good for em,
Burins too good for em.
He should be turn into little bitty pieces
Buried ALIVE
Hanover Fiske

Brilliant post, DJ.<p... (Below threshold)

Brilliant post, DJ.

It is difficult for good people to recognize and label absolute evil. We cannot seem to wrap our minds around it, but this man is the personification of pure evil.

Our constitution was written as a framework for our country to work. It was written for the citizens of the United States. When we begin to grant the privilages and rights to people who are not citizens we enter difficult territory. The Military tribunal would be the ideal setting for this trial, as has been said here and many other sites today. The decision by President Obama to turn this into a civil case is frightening to me and many who hold our country dear.

Yes James, Carter. I expec... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Yes James, Carter. I expect you are thinking about Reagan pulling the Marines out of Lebanon following the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, but that happened because Carter pulled US troops out, then they went back in as part of a UN peace-keeping mission.

Why is there even going to ... (Below threshold)

Why is there even going to be a trial?
Khalid and others has confessed that he planned and helped carry out the attacks.

I believe this is a military matter, not a criminal matter, but other criminals would have had a hearing for sentencing long ago?

Why the special treatment for him?
It is clearly for political preening and propaganda. This will further weaken American security and those who want this know it.

With this I reply to some o... (Below threshold)

With this I reply to some of the claims made by D.J.

"Democrats in particular have treated the men and women of the U.S. military with scorn and disrespect."

This was primarily true only around the time of the Vietnam. Remember, back then the U.S. military was using napalm on children, firebombing villages, etc. Go back a bit further in history, you'll note that all of FDR's sons served with distinction during World War II. None of Chimpy's chickenhawk daughters would ever want to serve in Chimpy's War -- let other people do the dying!

Which basically takes us to the crux of the matter: it's the Republicans, not the liberals, who give the soldiers the ultimate scorn, by placing these soldiers in harm's way, in a war based on lies.

"...promote the General Welfare..." [U.S. Constitution]

Wow. That's got to just kill you all, placed in the U.S. Constitution by your beloved and revered Founding Fathers.

"...Carter before him abandoned Lebanon and Iran, so now President Obama believes that we cannot protect the nascent democracies built in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hopes to run from there as fast as he can, because he has no confidence in the military professionals who brought down dictators and freed fifty million people. It's a bit racist of the Democrats, this assumption that people in North Africa and the Middle East either are not ready for Democracy or cannot be trusted to choose their own leaders"

This, DJ, is really strange. You claim that Carter "abandoned" Iran, undoubtedly because he refused to prop up the dictatorship of the Shah, as you would have liked. The people of Iran en masse rose up against the Shah and got rid of him. So who's the hypocritical "racist" lacking the "trust" in the people "to choose their own leaders"???? Cat got your tongue, DJ?

Moreover, being the simple-minded conservative that you are, you see the choice in simple terms: either indefinitely prop up the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan or do nothing. You certainly don't consider the costs in terms of money and lives. What really separates you from the liberal, though, is you don't consider the "opportunity costs": the liberal would view the choice as "either use money and manpower to prop up the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, or do something better with these resources instead." I, for one, would use such resources on overseas development assistance -- on a per-capita basis, the U.S. is quite stingy as it is, compared to Western Europe. Or you could spend the billions that you spend on Iraq and Afghanistan instead on setting up a single-payer health care system in order to save the 45,000 lives that are lost each year due to lack of health insurance coverage.

"Treating terrorist attacks as criminal matters for law enforcement to face..."

Uh, terrorist attacks ARE CRIMINAL MATTERS, and are treated as such by the civilized world. Glenn Greenwald puts it best:

"People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes."

"It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials."

Of course, the "fears of the followers" refers to the fears that all that Torture Done in the Name of Jesus Christ would come out during the trials.

Highlander seems to have it... (Below threshold)

Highlander seems to have it all figured out. The conservatives are bad and the Liberals are good. Simple yes, but forgetting how each conflict actually came to be. The conservatives are just attempting to preserve the country you would tear down, lowdowner. I am sure your type of defense is to find out why someone hates US? And then what, agree to take their side and change your whole world to accommodate? Plus, couldn't the acts of terrorism also be war crimes?
You and your ilk would set US up to collapse in as little time as it takes Obama to triple the National deficit. Since you equivocating liberals have ham strung the death penalty we can never know just how much a deterrent a quick exit would be to the terrorists that would do US harm.
Since when is promoting actually doing it all? You say "your _____ founding Fathers" like they are the Conservatives' and not the Liberals revered and honored, is that how you feel? The condescension was dripping in case you didn't attempt to convey.
Americas Right only really fears what Americas Left will do to embolden and empower our enemies, if we had our way these enemy combatants would be eliminated on the battlefield. Don't ever forget who started this conflict highlander, I know you are personally pure and only inherited an America you do not like and wish to fundamentally 'change'. I say good luck to you, but if you dislike it so you can leave, you know. I am sure Saudi Arabia would be preferable to you, or Communist China.
And your backhanded swipe at Jesus made no sense except that I figure you are an Atheist and wish to denigrate Christianity along with the USA. Your baseless claims and unsubstantiated hyperbole hardly impugn this great country.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy