My point about exceptionalism was that those who trumpet it the most are those least interested in meeting their own standards for it. It was an observation of hypocrisy. The crux of my argument is the latter point, and the subsequent posting.

” If our legal system purports to be just … why doesn’t he deserve a fair trial? ”

Go back to the article and read the “trial by jeers” section. This man can’t even get a fair trial.

I haven’t yet heard a lawyerly treatment of a large issue we laymen know as jurisdiction.

If KSM was captured “on the battlefield” in Afghanistan, and his acts of war were committed “on the battlefield” over there somewhere, what makes anybody, federal lawyer or no, with whatever court in the US you might name, think they have jurisdiction in this matter? I think it’s easy to see there is none.

However, Holder(a lawyer, but he’s a special kind of lawyer, you see he was an assistant AG under Clinton)doesn’t sweat about little barriers like jurisdiction, nor does his Lawyer-in-Chief and former chief of Harvard Law Review Obama. The two of them see political opportunity in creating chaos, turning ACLU loose on the Bush White House, CIA, FBI, for years, with no certainty of conviction for a man who’s already plead GUILTY. And whom they’ve already insured the people will be found guilty. All the ACLU has to do is submit in evidence Holder’s assurances of yesterday, together with Barak’s overconfident condemnations, and KSM will be acquitted in a red hot minute.

That will leave law abiding Americans wondering where the justice system went, anyway. We handed it over to people who hate America.

Dylan & Adam: Did you guys say the Pledge of Allegiance when you were in school?

All of you suggest that the only way to try KSM in our “justice system” is in criminal court. The military tribunals set up by Congress for this exact purpose in Gitmo are also part of our “justice system”. We didn’t have them available for previous trials of terrorists. There is precedent on both sides of this argument. There is no precedent for 9/11. That was an act of war. If that is not clear to you all then this discussion is pointless. The US is now sending a signal that terroism is a criminal activity. This will make it harder to protect ourselves. If we tell the world that an act of terrorism against the US is considered an act of war, that is a different signal.

Was KSM given his Miranda rights at his apprehension? Wouldn’t this cause an immediate mistrial in criminal court?

Adam, you argue that the exceptionalism of American justice is a fallacy. Then you argue that trying KSM in New York would demonstrate that exceptionalism. Choose one or the other. Also, you have no idea what these maniacs will try to do in New York or other places so don’t disparage those concerned about the safety of their children or homes. It will definitely be different when “Mohammed is in town”. If what you say is true then we will need no extra security during the trial, now THAT is ludicrous!

And Adam, I agree.

If our legal system purports to be just … why doesn’t he deserve a fair trial?

From an ideological perspective, we subscribe to the notion that our principles of “justice” set us apart as not only exemplary, but indeed “exceptional.” The fallacy in this thinking notwithstanding, I find it odd that those most likely to extol the virtues of the “American way” are also those most willing to sacrifice it to suit what Chief Justice William O. Douglas once called “the passion and clamor of the time.”

More importantly, from a geopolitical perspective, the trial will mark a visual departure from the waterboard era and help bolster the credibility of our security postures. This is not a moot point to be lost on even the most pessimistic reader, as I am one myself. The fact is that the credibility of a unipole’s guarantees–both to its allies and its enemies–is the crucial factor in preventing unnecessary conflict. Abandoning deeply held internal legal principles for the sake of expedience is: (1) a way to make allies less comfortable with our not-so-deeply held security guarantees; and (2) a signal to disenchanted states that U.S. hegemony is unbridled. This raises the costs of not proliferating and makes obtaining a nuclear weapon more desirable.

Finally, the recent argument that the trial will somehow facilitate the kidnapping of elementary school children is ludicrous. Whatever the risk for this is, it is no different whether or not Mohammed is in town. Moreover, I live in Manhattan and can attest to the fact that any mass-fear of this sort is not grounded in any kind of reality.

Simply put, with the trial we will have cathartic justice without undermining the national myth or our security posture. With another war tribunal, we will undermine both.

Tyler, I understand your perspective, but killing 3,000 people is an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it takes 5 years or 5 hours. His trial belongs in a military court. The most disturbing facet of all of this to me is that the CIA and FBI will have to reveal to KSM how they obtained their evidence. If that isn’t a threat to national security, I don’t know what is.

I don’t live near New York, but I was down there three weeks after 9/11…and honestly, that is as close to a war zone as I ever hope to see. Try KSM in Gitmo (note: give him a legitimate military trial), give him a life sentence so he can’t be a martyr, and let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. No one attacks the United States and gets away with it.

Tyler Bilbo, when smoke fills the skies over your hometown and kills your friends and relatives, then tell us it wasn’t an act of war. They don’t have a flag but that doesn’t mean we can’t be at war with them.