The real reason we're trying terrorists in civilian courts

Ed Lasky
Monte Kuligowski and others at American Thinker, indeed all across the country are asking why did Attorney General Eric Holder decide that five of the (alleged of course, except for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who has admitted guilt) 9/11 terrorists should be tried in civilian courts and five by the military?

Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) who is also "a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Army ranger" answered the question America is asking.

WALLACE: ...Military commissions have been reformed by Congress. Attorney General Holder announced Friday he is going to use them...REED: Right.

WALLACE: ... as a legitimate legal forum to try five of the other Guantanamo detainees. Why not use them for the alleged 9/11 conspirators?

REED: Well, first of all, these 9/11 conspirators are heinous criminals, terrorists. The damage they've done to New York and the nation are significant. And they have to be treated, I think, fairly but with all due process, but with great, I think, sensitivity to the crimes they've committed against America.

Let's go over that again. They may be "heinous criminals, terrorists" but basically they're criminals who have "to be treated. . .with great. . .sensitivity to the crimes they've committed against America."

WALLACE: But they could have fewer constitutional protections in a military commission.

REED: They could have if they were tried under military law under the provisions we set up. But they're also criminals. And I think this debate about are we playing into the hands of terrorists - all of these, particularly the sheikh, Mohammed, wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihadist.

And if we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want. These are heinous murderers.

So the US has to worry about KSM's enhanced image in the Islamic world; our image in other parts of the world. Our image--not to mention safety and security--in our own citizen's eyes is seemingly of lesser importance. Reed further expands on this, when, after Wallace discusses the downside of a civilian trial in New York, asks for the upside.

REED: The upside, I think, is you are vindicating this country's basic values. And it's not to condone terrorism. But it is to stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represents, blind violence directed at those they dislike.

This is an opportunity to show that we're better than they are, we're much better than they are.

In other words, the US is on trial, the US has to "vindicate this country's basic values," and "stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represents..." because the US finally has "an opportunity to show that we're much better than they are." All this was not known up until now?

In other words we have to endanger a large chunk of the country and our citizens in a show trial to give the world a giant civics lesson on the rightness of the US. And then, maybe then, they'll like us, they'll really like us and stop trying to terrorize us--when they're not asking for our money and aid that is.


Monte Kuligowski and others at American Thinker, indeed all across the country are asking why did Attorney General Eric Holder decide that five of the (alleged of course, except for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who has admitted guilt) 9/11 terrorists should be tried in civilian courts and five by the military?

Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) who is also "a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a former Army ranger" answered the question America is asking.

WALLACE: ...Military commissions have been reformed by Congress. Attorney General Holder announced Friday he is going to use them...

REED: Right.

WALLACE: ... as a legitimate legal forum to try five of the other Guantanamo detainees. Why not use them for the alleged 9/11 conspirators?

REED: Well, first of all, these 9/11 conspirators are heinous criminals, terrorists. The damage they've done to New York and the nation are significant. And they have to be treated, I think, fairly but with all due process, but with great, I think, sensitivity to the crimes they've committed against America.

Let's go over that again. They may be "heinous criminals, terrorists" but basically they're criminals who have "to be treated. . .with great. . .sensitivity to the crimes they've committed against America."

WALLACE: But they could have fewer constitutional protections in a military commission.

REED: They could have if they were tried under military law under the provisions we set up. But they're also criminals. And I think this debate about are we playing into the hands of terrorists - all of these, particularly the sheikh, Mohammed, wants to be considered a holy warrior, a jihadist.

And if we try him before military officers, that image of a soldier will be portrayed by the Islamic community. That's not the image we want. These are heinous murderers.

So the US has to worry about KSM's enhanced image in the Islamic world; our image in other parts of the world. Our image--not to mention safety and security--in our own citizen's eyes is seemingly of lesser importance. Reed further expands on this, when, after Wallace discusses the downside of a civilian trial in New York, asks for the upside.

REED: The upside, I think, is you are vindicating this country's basic values. And it's not to condone terrorism. But it is to stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represents, blind violence directed at those they dislike.

This is an opportunity to show that we're better than they are, we're much better than they are.

In other words, the US is on trial, the US has to "vindicate this country's basic values," and "stand as a symbol in the world of something different than what the terrorists represents..." because the US finally has "an opportunity to show that we're much better than they are." All this was not known up until now?

In other words we have to endanger a large chunk of the country and our citizens in a show trial to give the world a giant civics lesson on the rightness of the US. And then, maybe then, they'll like us, they'll really like us and stop trying to terrorize us--when they're not asking for our money and aid that is.