Not true. The prosecution is seeking the death penalty. Even if the defendants plead guilty, there will probably be a trial to determine whether the sentence should be death or life in prison. A similar process was used for Zacarias Moussaoui.
I still don’t get why the chief White House press guy has to be afraid of “teabaggers”. Just give a politically good answer and denounce the shills.
He’s not *afraid *of them, he just would rather not be bothered with their nonsense. What’s the value of feeding them? A “politically good answer” will be unnoticed by the responsible media, and ignored by the teabag media.
IMHO, that’s a poorly written article. The actual quote from Holder is much more mealy mouthed.
Yes, it’s poorly written. They’re reading too much into Obama’s statement, too, implying that he has already judged KSM guilty.
Suggesting deportation or Gitmo.
So, now that the question, posed directly to the Justice Department has elicited the same answer, you will…
…not acknowledge it in any way. So why did you insist on asking the Justice Department, if it really didn’t make any difference?
Now, I’m not objecting to trying him because he could be acquitted. I’m objecting to the notion that even if we try him, we won’t release him if he’s acquitted. Kinda like your “ask the Justice Department” objection, it seems that this trial is meaningless. If he’s convicted, great. If he’s not… why, we don’t let him go anyway. This seems like a peculiar notion of ‘trial’ to me.
The purpose of the trial is to legitimize his eventual execution. Nothing more. Nothing less. It does have a certain Judge Roy Bean feel to it.
According to AG Holder:
If that’s true, what is the rationale for using the federal criminal system?
Are we going to use the federal criminal system if we have a strong case, and the military commissions if we have a weaker case?
It would strictly be a policy decision. Your reason is as good as any other. A cynic might say to grab the spotlight away from the commissions.
I will say the current verion of the Military Commissions are very good. They closely resemble a courts-martial, as required by law, SC cases, and the Geneva Conventions ‘mirror image rule’ (only applies to POW’s, but still). The Ft. Hood shooter is being tried in a courts-martial. There are differences between civilian and the military commissions, but there are pros n cons on both sides.
re: jurisdicition. You can be tried in both. I’m not sure it’s ever been decided whether, if found not guilty in civlian system, you could be re-tried by a military commission. I would guess, no, but we haven’t used military commissions since WWII.
On another note, AG Holder saying “the 9/11 attacks were…an act of war” couldn’t have been timed better for the “Was 9/11 an act of war?” thread.
Prior to 9/11, could an ‘Act of War’ be perpetrated against a nation, by an individual, or a group of individuals unaffiliated with another nation?
No.
So what changed that day, then? Anything besides the fact that we got much more scared and angry than we do at most criminal acts, and were thereby willing to ignore the niceties of being civilized?
I think a combination of two things:
(1) The massiveness of the crime. It started to look less like a crime, and more like an act of war. Two skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and another building were targeted for destruction on one day. There are Nations that can’t do that, or if they did, it would no doubt be an act of war.
(2) The decision that law enforcement could no longer deal with the problem. You can’t wait for the “crime” and then go arrest them. Not when it’s that type of crime. So, a military response was used to deal with the threat, and the President has more powers during a time of “war” than during peacetime when using military force overseas.
The fact that (2) was abused is a shame.
There are two things to keep separated; 1- Can you be at war against non-state actors? if so, 2- Should the President have the same powers as if this were a war against State actors.
No?
NO??
Um… there is at least one tiny, insignificant prior historical precedent. Archduke Francis Ferdinand and Gavrilo Princip. But it didn’t amount to anything big.
Well, the offended party chose to believe that Princip was acting as an agent of… was it Serbia? And then they put out a list of impossible to meet demands, IIRC, that if not agreed to would result in a state of war between the two countries. Penis ensued.
Maybe a better way to state the question is whether an act that was agreed by all parties to be individuals not acting at the behest of a state could be considered an act of war.
And when I asked about ‘prior to 9/11’, I didn’t really mean that specific date. I know that all kinds of goofy laws have been passed since then. It wouldn’t at all surprise me if what was formerly considered a criminal act or conspiracy by individuals is now an act of war by… whoever.
I don’t think that assassination, in and of itself, qualifies as an act of war.
Now, my WWI history is not good, but we’ll have to assume the Astro-Hungarian Empire was a nation and have to exclude Serbia as a nation for it to be an act of war committed by a group of individuals unaffiliated with any nation. But that’s hard, because I believe this guy was in effect fighting for a free Serbia who was under Astro-Hungarian rule. Serbia was a “nation,” but just under the empire’s rule.
I would say the assassination was one of many casus belli’s, or a justifications, that led to a Declaration of War against Serbia. A casus belli doesn’t necessarily have to be an act of war, just a reason for you to justify going to war with them.
If you see the goalposts that used to be around here somewhere, let me know.
I’m not sure I follow.
The question: Could an ‘Act of War’ be perpetrated against a nation, by an individual, or a group of individuals unaffiliated with another nation?
I don’t think the assassination of a person is an “act of war,” in and of itself. I think the assassin (or his group) was not unaffiliated with another nation, that being Serbia.
I may or may not be right because my knowledge of WWI is basic, but I don’t think your example fit the description in the question asked.