At least Andrew Sullivan is honest that the main purpose of a civilian trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not obtaining a conviction of KSM. A conviction could be obtained more efficiently and just as fairly in a military tribunal.
As I posted earlier, the purpose of brininging KSM to a civilian court is to put the Bush administration on trial. Here is Andrew Sullivan’s take:
But what an open civilian case will also do – and it’s why a war criminal like John Yoo is so apoplectic – is reveal the extent to which the brutal torture of KSM was unnecessary, and led to the government’s inability to prosecute him to the full extent of the law.
It will be a civic lesson to America and the world. It will show the evil of terrorism and the futility and danger of torture. It will be a way in which Cheney’s torture regime can be revealed in all its grotesque excess at the same time as KSM’s vile religious extremism is exposed for its murderous nihilism. That all this will take place in New York – close to where the mass murder took place – is a particularly smart touch.
If only the Obama administration were as honest as to its motives.
——————————————–
Related Post:
Smearing Someone Who Knows Someone Who Knows Sarah Palin
KSM’s Opening Statement – Priceless To Him
Who We Are As A Nation – Nov. 2009 Edition
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Prof. Jacobson,
I learned about the rules of enagagement in politics from Old machine guys in Queens, NY. They followed almost word for word what Tip O'Neill wrote in "All Politics is Local,"
If the Left is using the KSM trial to go after Bush and Cheney, I fear I must throw out the old rule book and begin to call for a revolution. The Left does not want to enagge with us; they want to eraditcate us.
Orwell was indeed correct. The democrats are acting like INGSOC. What can be done to stop them?
At least the old Machine guys understood that we are all Americans, these nDean democrats don't care.
Who died and made Sullivan God? It is his opinion that treating these clowns bad was not needed. Why is Sullivan's opinion more valid than Bush, Cheney, Yoo's or, for that matter, mine?
And will I be able to sue Holder or Sullivan if their antics cause a member of my family to be hurt?