Judge William Young said this to shoe bomber, Richard Reid, before sentencing him to several life sentences for attempting to blow up an American passenger plane with plastic explosives in his shoes. Here's how we treated him: humanely... including a fair trial, defense, the whole nine. The life sentences prevented him from becoming a martyr and this example of American justice did more to unite the nation and the world than just about anything since. And then, just as Judge Young predicted, we all forgot all about it.
The rest of Judge Young's speech is available here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/31/reid.transcript/ I defy you to read it without getting goosebumps... without being proud of this country and how our justice system - not "revenge" system - represents us. It's even available on Snopes.com too 'cuz apparently not too many people believe in our justice system enough to believe this story can be true. At the time, Rudy Giuliani believed in it wholeheartedly. Jeff Sessions praised the outcome as well.
A few years later, 9/11 co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, fell victim to a similar example of American justice. Again, his tirade at the judge was ignored, a jury spared him the death penalty and he too was prevented from being held up as a martyer among his supporters, and in spite of our having invaded Iraq in the time between these two trials, many throughout the world felt these verdicts were a true symbol of what America is really about: freedom, fairness, individual justice, to use Judge Young's words.
Giuliani praised both verdicts, although he did say he thought Moussaoui should have been sentenced to death, but he had no qualms with both trials being held in civilian courts. (He apparently wanted to grant Moussaoui martyrdom) As a matter of fact, Senator Sessions praised the outcomes of both trials as well. Now they've changed their minds about trying terrorists in U.S. Courts. As have a lot of others from their camp.
So tell me: what's changed other than the fact that the guy suggesting Moussaoui's boss be tried in a civilian court is an Obama appointee?
I hate to play the cynic card here but let's face it, justice IS what the American justice system says it is. Something tells me legal technicalities won't get this guy off. For that matter, military trials have their own brand of technicalities as well. Sessions is either naive or stupid to suggest we can't predict an outcome to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial. I'll give Sessions the "naive" option if he really believes otherwise, but he's stupid for forcing us to admit it up front.
So let's just admit it now: if KSM gets the same treatment as Moussaoui and Reid, (and Vegas odds say he will) and especially if the judge is able to rip off a Young-like speech at the sentencing hearing, all will agree it's a great idea. The only thing stopping some people from admitting it now is that the idea came from the Obama camp.
That's starting to get old.
Luth
Out
5 comments:
The trial should be held in Ohio, just not Columbus or Cleveland.
In the American judicial system, if one is found not guilty then they are released; given their freedom. Holder has said if Mohammed is acquitted he will remain in custody as an enemy combattant and tried as such. That is double jeopardy which is illegal in the US.
Both Obama and Holder have proclaimed him guitly and have said he should be put to death. Doesn't that make any trial now a mere kangaroo court since Obama has guaranteed a predetermined outcome?
How is this supposed to demonstrate our supposedly superior judicial system to the world?
Luth, you make good points about critic's inconsistencies, but Obama is doing a horrible job with this and holds no moral high ground. He deserves criticism.
I'm all for Ohio... Columbus or Cleveland - I think the threat aspect of it has definitely been overplayed.
I'm not claiming any moral ground here - that's kind of the opposite of what I do. The inconsistency and the fact that if this were a Repub in office, there would be no question about the decision. In fact, if O were Repub and there were questions, the folks asking would have their patriotism challenged. They'd be asked why they hate America.
Did you miss the line about justice being what we say it is? Another art of my argument is that it's one thing to know this. It's a whole other thing to force us to admit it over and over. I seem to remember this kind of assumption and expectation of not getting questioned being reversed a few years ago as well. eg we know Iraq doesn't have the infrastructure, funds, etc. to represent any kind of threat to the U.S. but we need to attack someone!! Don't question this publicly... we need it. Stop making us admit to things we don't like to admit.
Hey, I was implying Obama is trying to hold the moral high ground, not you. I know you have no morals. *insert smiley face*
Let me turn it around, if Obama were a Repub doing what he's doing, can you imagine the uproar from the Dem's? It would be deafening. They would be screaming that he was acting prejudicially and creating a kangaroo court. The liberals in NYC would be screaming to have the venue changed, too.
This is all politics. I do agree with your basic premise, but your post seems to paint one side as the bad guys giving tacit approval to the other side making them them the good guys. I'm saying both sides are all guilty of your charges.
Politics in the past generation or so has been characterized by retaliation. Repubs threw stones at Carter, so Dems threw them at Reagan. Repubs retaliated by trying to impeach Clinton, then the Dems wanted to impeach Bush. Obama is smart enough to realize if he allowed some of the Dems to press legal charges against Bush's administration, it would come back to haunt him when the Repubs retaliated against his administration sometime in the future.... say along about 2012.
When does it end?
Well, ya got me on the morals part. After all, if I'm not a church-going Christian, how could I possibly have any morals?!
But I really don't remember the Dems screaming at W for the aforementioned trials. Of course the trial Young presided over came before W made war heroes of all terrorists by invading Iraq and opening Gitmo. I guess that's what's different now. OK, nevermind, that answers the question. Thanks for helping me clarify!
Seriously though, we were just discussing at work how nasty the politics of retaliation have become. Is this pattern sustainable OR will the Palin and Bachmann calls for revolution... literally! be heeded until we all settle the F back down!
Post a Comment