You seem to think I’m saying this trial will magically end the war in Afghanistan. I’m not. I’m saying it’ll hurt AQ recruiting. Maybe not by much, but in a war it’s pretty silly to give the other guy an advantage you don’t have to give him.

I sincerely think it’s preposterous that a teenage muslim boy would view this trial and grasp your cpntention that its a bold counterexample to America claims to stand for certain absolute moral principles, and then does the exact opposite.

Bear in mind of course, the high probability that this hypothetical muslim boy is being educated in a mosque, or not at all.

I hope my comments here don’t offend you, I’m not saying them to be demeaning. I honestly think this idea is just completely ridiculous and utterly unrealistic. Americans who traffic in such ideas do so because they find them comforting. But where’s the reality check on whether a teenaged boy watches TV while forming subtle philosophical and sociopolitical distinctions?

The way you reach people like our hypothetical boy is by delivering a generation of political stability where expectations are met, promises are kept, and hopes for a future with reasonable opportunity can be formed. If we can’t help willing muslims make local chaos and strife a distant bad memory, then we couldn’t win their respect by electing KSM president, never mind convicting him in a fair criminal trial.

Teens are very good at excuses. And if the pro-American adults start making excuses for our treatment of GitMo detainees this is what will penetrate their fevered brains:

1) America claims to stand for certain absolute moral principles, and then does the exact opposite. Otherwise would not be making excuses.

2) They only do this to AQ, as makes no excuses about Tim McVeigh.

The only logical conclusion anyone can draw from that is that AQ is one of the most important organizations in the entire world.

Obviously this trial won’t totally end that dynamic. But it will start.

The idiotic teenage muslim boy understands glory and jihad and martyrdom pretty well. My suspicion is that a muslim boy will gather little more than that a purported muslim hero is being paraded in a show trial, and is destined for glorious martyrdom.

In the intervening years since 9/11, I’ve heard lots of people make lots and lots of different clams about recruitment of new muslim terrorists and how various policies, statements and actions will affect such recruitment. Every one of these statements has felt to me like pure speculation designed to support the speculator’s political inclinations within whatever context the idea arose.

I don’t pretend to have the ability to predict how our actions and policies affect the perspectives of potential recruits. IMO, if we want to stem the flow of new recruits, we should stop trying to get into the heads of potential recruits and concentrate on continuing to thin the ranks of the recruiters.

I have yet to come across an argument about how our policies and actions effect potential terrorist recruits that strikes me as especially worthy of being taken seriously.

S11 is far from the only dirt we have on this guy. AQ is a paramilitary force that fights us, so if we can prove that he is a member he’s an enemy combatant. Period. His participation in a specific attack is irrelevant to that.

IMO he’s actually probably best off being tried by us. He’s also been linked to the Danny Pearl murder in Pakistan, and the Bali Bombings in Indonesia. Indonesia has already executed several Bali Bombers, and I sincerely doubt the current Pakistani gevernment would be slow to hang a friend of the Taliban.

@kk:
I agree this won’t convince Bin Laden and true believers we’re angels. But it will make it difficult for them to recruit. If you’re an idiotic teenage boy who do you join for glory — the Egyptian Army, which managed to almost beat Israel that one time, or a group that forced the US to ignore the Bill of Rights?

Get KSM out of GitMo and he is instantly demoted to the Tim McVeigh league of terrorists.

I don’t think the charge applies to you FWIW.

And I agree with everyone who thinks that there is absolutely no chance of a verdict of not guilty. But I don’t find it especially troubling. Where TL calls it predetermined, I would substitute inevitable, which is a little different. The way I figure it, with 7 years to cross the T’s and dot the I’s, the choice of trial signals only that Holder et al harbor no doubts about any weaknesses in their case.

Given the choice between a military tribunal and the course Holder has chosen, it’s pretty obvious to me at least that the criminal trial gives a better appearance to America in terms of our faith in our system of justice.

But let’s face it, we don’t really expect the trial to change any foreign minds about America, right? I mean, seriously. We don’t expect anyone to say “well I used to think that America was the Great Satan, but after the trial, well I saw how seriously they cared about justice and fairness.” I mean, come on.

So perhaps you should make allowances for diminished capacity. ;-)

blackout: I wasn’t aware of the phrase that arose, according to your link, from the “gay Maryland circle”. Its clear from my post that I’m not concerned about security, not gasping in shock, but stunned by the cheapening of our legal standards by those sworn to uphold the Constitution. I have found that any criticism of the current administration throws some supporters into a reflexive defense mode where invective replaces discourse. The “pearl” reference seemed weak to me, unless it was a play on Daniel Pearl’s parents letter (read it in the link to see where I thought it might apply). They seem to be clutching at their (Daniel) Pearl’s memory and saying there is a danger from these guys. Perhaps if I saw my son beheaded on the Internet I might say the same thing.

Nick – “unrelated charges”? Really? I supsect the Supremes will rule on this, if it happens, and decide that a person acquitted in criminal court cannot be held on the same charges as an enemy combatant. ‘

Its a mockery of our system, not a shining example of it. It is a sham.

As far as defendant’s attorneys out for self-aggrandizement what do you think would help an attorney’s career more? Saving KSM from the chair in some backwater, or losing in a large media market? If I was a really rich dude accused of some horrendous crime I’d hire the dude who saved KSM in KC over the dude who got KSM fried in NYC.

As for the enemy combatant argument, isn’t that the legal equivalent of saying “We’re gonna try him for being a drug lord, but if he gets off we’ll hold him on unrelated charges.”

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Clutching%20My%20Pearls

Disagree that venue ought to be elsewhere than New York. The Constitution requires venue to be in the district where the alleged crime took place. As to the bias of the jury, do you think KSM would get a fairer trial in, say, Nashville, Indianapolis, or Des Monies? Or maybe San Francisco or Seattle?

Agree that a military tribunal is not necessary unconstitutional and that in this case it would probaby have been a better way to go than a civilian court. The reason why is that the trial would inherently involve the finder of fact viewing confidential information.

Disagree that a courthouse and holding facility in New York City cannot be made adequately secure to hold the trial. It’ll be expensive, sure, but adequate security would be expensive in Nashville, Indianapolis, Des Monies, San Francisco or Seattle, too.