Reason Morning Links: Taxes, a Treaty, and a Trial

• Washington pushes for a tax crackdown in Hong Kong.

• Don't expect an international climate pact this year.

• Prominent Republicans scream in pants-wetting terror express their concerns about the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.

• The Obama administration wants to federalize subway safety.

• For dessert, try the Viagra special.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • What the||

    Anyone else having problems with this site the past few days? Freezeups, script warnings, pages that will not load...

  • Kyle Jordan||

    It's got to do with their fundraising thing. Others have complained about it.

    And why the fuck aren't the tags here orange like in the Chapman story Reason!? LAME!

  • Kyle Jordan||

    Nevermind...

  • What the||

    I would add that lost comments due to the new spam filter are annoying to say the least. And why am I getting low-memory warnings? Sheesh.

  • Slut Bunwalla||

    Oh good, I'm not the only one.

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    Housing Bust: Sowell Series Starts Today
    Following up on the well-received series by Thomas Sowell on "The Economics of Medical Care," IBD today begins excerpts from Sowell's latest book, "The Housing Boom and Bust," a chronicle of the biggest economic disaster of our time....

  • Rimfax||

    Saw a bit of Geraldo (GERALDOOOO!!!) tearing apart Alberto Gonzales over his paranoia over the upcoming trials, on FoxNews of all places. (Isn't Geraldo "too liberal", and spineful, for FoxNews?)

  • ||

    I have trouble understanding why the Neocon types like Ghouliani are so scared. First, aren't they the toughest guys in the whole fucking world? Second, what about the invasion of Iraq--the glorious "flypaper strategy", "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here"? Whatsamatter, aren't the terrorists stuck to the flypaper any more?

  • Jim Treacher||

    Let's put the flypaper right next to Ground Zero. Good luck with that.

  • Rich||

    The [KSM] trial would be open to the public

    For the sake of transparency, this circus should be televised live, preferably on ABC.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    More like Al Jazerra.

  • Rich||

    Jared Fogle for Subway Czar!

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Or subway car! Am I right? Too late? No one will read this...

  • ||

    I can only assume that Obama is hoping for a conviction of the 9/11 suspects in time for his re-election campaign. I also assume that the defense will effectively put Bush/Cheney and America's enhanced interrogation techniques on trial.
    I wonder what will happen if the get a sequel to the OJ jury and get not guilty verdicts?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Some Democrat on the Chris Wallace show was saying that if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gets a not guilty, or his case is kicked they can still detain him.

    If that is the case, then what is the point of even skipping the Article 3 process, having a trial outside of the brand new spiffy Guantanamo facility or anything else?

    Sounds like judicial stimulus is the objective, not justice.

  • JB||

    It's crazy to try KSM in civilian court.

    Hopefully someone will off the guy before he even gets there.

  • Mike M.||

    If that is the case, then what is the point of even skipping the Article 3 process, having a trial outside of the brand new spiffy Guantanamo facility or anything else?

    Sounds like judicial stimulus is the objective, not justice.

    Especially when you take into account the little fact that KSM confessed to the crime and actually asked to be executed a while ago.

    The real point of this upcoming farce is to appease Obama's hard left base, with an added opportunity to embarrass our intelligence agencies as a side benefit.

    As is the case with so many other damn things, Bush fucked this up royally. If he had tried these guys in military court and had them executed years ago like he should have, these scumbags Obama and Holder wouldn't be in the position to do this now.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Awa

  • Rich||

    I wonder what will happen if the get a sequel to the OJ jury and get not guilty verdicts?

    Another "If I Had Done It" book and another attack, at the very least.

  • anarch||

    Just so everyone knows the origin of the name passion fruit, which is not what you might assume.

  • ||

    Did I miss a memo? Is this, religious iconograghy monday?

  • ||

    The inside of a passion fruit looks like the basement Sutherland stumbles into with all the pods in Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

  • ||

    Sideways was an hour and a half I'll never get back. Yawn.

    Why would the 10 petals represent the apostles? I can understand excluding Judas, but why Peter?

  • ||

    Sideways was an hour and a half I'll never get back. Yawn.

    You're just in the pocket of Big Merlot.

  • ||

    Terrorists are scary. And they have crazy terrorist superpowers which will allow them to magically become huge slavering monsters who will rip the heads off everybody in the courtroom.

  • ||

    Cool! I hope it will be televised. And I have a list of people I hope will be in the courtroom when it happens.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Terrorists are scary. And they have crazy terrorist superpowers which will allow them to magically become huge slavering monsters who will rip the heads off everybody in the courtroom.

    Ha ha, 9/11!

  • The Gobbler||

    The whole point of moving the trials to NY is to have a news-cycle distraction always at the ready.

  • Barack Obama||

    Gobbler, stop over for a beer sometime soon.

  • ||

    “They must have reason to believe this is a target-rich environment and a very significant amount of tax evasion is going on there [Hong Kong],” said Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor now at DLA Piper LLP in Washington.

    GIMME ALL YER FUCKIN MONEY!!!!!!

  • Attorney||

    Subway accidents happen while the feds are not in charge of subway safety. Result: We need to put the feds in charge.

    Subway accidents happen while the feds are in charge of subway safety. Result: Just think how bad things would be if the feds weren't in charge.

  • ||

    Here's what i liked from the subway-safety article:

    "The administration has concluded that the government's ability to insure transit safety is weak at a time when ridership is increasing and state budgets for maintaining and enforcing their own regulations are tightening."

    So if the states can't afford it, the fed can just handle it. National Debt? Whats that?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    There is already a Federal Transit Administration, separate from the Federal Railroad Administration.

  • The Gobbler||

    Great joke on Conan:

    While in China, the president is going to field questions from Chinese citizens. The first question asked will be - why would anyone want two daughters?

  • ||

    If the KSM is aquitted, he will still be held as an enemy combatant. Essentially then any trial is a show trial. How can you call something a trial when the accused stays locked up no matter what happens? Given that fact I fail to see how we are showing the world how wonderful we are by having a trial.

    I don't think we should forget how stupid and insolated Obama and Holder are. I think they think they can have it both ways. They can put KSM on trial, get a conviction and show they are tough on terror and then also so how bad the evil Bush was for torturing him. If they are lucky they can get a soldier or a us official extradicted to Europe. That would be a double bonus. The problem is that no one outside of the derranged swamps of Libertarians and get the US out of North America liberals is going to care how they treated KSM. If anything people are going to be surprised at how well he was treated considering what he is. And further they are going to be surprised at how much good information they got out of him, although I would imagine Holder will do everything to keep that information secret while putting out as much "poor KSM he was a victim of water boarding" stuff as possible. They chose the wrong guy to be poster boy for anti-torture. KSM is an animal that everyone but the most self loathing liberal would gladly cut his balls off.

    The problem with having a trial is that the judge, prosecutors and jury are more likely to actually suffer a death sentence than KSM is. The next logical move for Al Quada is to kill off a juror or two after the trial is over as a warning to anyone else who gets the idea that convicting a terrorist is a good idea. Those people are going to be living with that risk for the rest of their lives. Why the hell do that?

    The sollution to KSM has always been to put him on a small plan over the Atlantic and kick him out at 30,000 feet. You can then apologize for the incredible breech of security that allowed him to have a martyrs death. Seriously, he has no more valuable intelligence and his being alive serves only negative usefulness.

  • ||

    The trial is indeed pointless. The plain fact is that the government just doesn't know what to do with these guys, and as others have pointed out this trial will be a mockery of the rule of law.

    I was wondering, though, about the "good information" you speak of. Isn't that info classified? If so, how do you know it's good?

  • ||

    No comment.

  • ||

    Ooooooooo, here comes the innuendo.

  • ||

    I have no direct evidence of what they got from KSM. Just informed gossip. But, even in open source, everyone seems to agree that they got a lot of good information out of him. He was the number 3 guy in Al Quada, it seems unlikely that they wouldn't have gotten a lot of good information. If Al Quada captured the SecDef, would you doubt it when they said they got lots of good information about the military?

  • ||

    As if KSM would really get a truly fair trial anywhere in the U.S.

    We convicted people involved with the WTC bombing in 1993. NY has tried terrorist before, this isn't something new.

    Bush could have had them tried during his time if he wasn't trying to reinvent the wheel.

  • ||

    Japan expert to ABC: Yes, Obama’s bow made him look like an idiot

    Obama’s handshake/forward lurch was so jarring and inappropriate it recalls Bush’s back-rub of Merkel.
    “Kyodo News is running his appropriate and reciprocated nod and shake with the Empress, certainly to show the president as dignified, and not in the form of a first year English teacher trying to impress with Karate Kid-level knowledge of Japanese customs.
    “The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms….The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part.
    http://hotair.com/archives/200.....-an-idiot/

    But he really is smart. He was editor of law review back in law school I heard.

  • Attorney||

    But he's the first Pacific president!

    And he wants all the cool foreigners to know that the U.S. is sorry.

  • JB||

    He's smart for an Affirmative-Action recipient.

  • ||

    The Chicao Way:

    Cops: Body found in river tentatively ID'd as school board chief

    A body tentatively identified as Michael Scott, president of the Chicago Board of Education, was found in the Chicago River near the Merchandise Mart this morning, police sources said.

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.....ntown.html

  • JB||

    Wow.

    I so laughed when all the cunts were like 'Obama = hope and change' during the election campaign. I was like 'do you know where the fucker is from? Chicago, where the politics are extremely dirty.'

    Their response? Blank retarded fetus faces.

  • ||

    Did he have "fed" or "Skool boss" scrawled on his body?

  • Warty||

    John, and he's pretty cool too. He speaks the rad lingo of today's kids, nigga.

  • ||

    Since these people won't be released if acquitted, these are show trials. I don't see how anyone with any respect for the rule of law can support show trials.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Thus the demand by the current administration for the show trials. They mist out on the Mao and Stalin administrations, you see.

  • ||

    Does that apply to any show trial, or just the civilian ones?

  • ||

    John, Obama needs a get back coach. Someone to remind him of all the little etiquette details so he doesn't embarrass himself like that. Bush certainly must have had one. Clinton was pretty smooth and I bet even he had a get back coach.

  • ||

    Isn't there a Chief of Protocol of the US? Shouldn't she have told Obama after the Abdullah fiasco that he should not bow to foreign monarchs? Are her emails bouncing off his account or something?

  • ||

    They have legions of people in the Whitehouse and State who do just that. But, the President has to make the effort to talk to them and actually listen. The fact that he fucked this up says that he is arrogant and won't listen to the people below him. I mean when you are a messiah, what do you need with protocal lessons?

  • John Tagliaferro||

    She is waiting for the appointment of the Protocol Czar before making any bold moves.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Isn't there a Chief of Protocol of the US? Shouldn't she have told Obama after the Abdullah fiasco that he should not bow to foreign monarchs?

    What makes you think he'd listen?

  • guy in the back row||

    The problem with having a trial is that the judge, prosecutors and jury are more likely to actually suffer a death sentence than KSM is. The next logical move for Al Quada is to kill off a juror or two after the trial is over as a warning to anyone else who gets the idea that convicting a terrorist is a good idea. Those people are going to be living with that risk for the rest of their lives. Why the hell do that?

    This idea was in an article in the Daily News this morning. I don't get it. If it's so simple to identify and kill someone on a jury then it would be the height of simplicity to stage more terror attacks in NYC. Yet there have only been one or two which we know of that were more than just mental defectives being led on by a government agent. I really don't think AQ has the reach and operational ability in the west as they have in Afganistan and Pakistan.

  • ||

    It is easy to just kill one guy. But what is the point? AQ does have operatives in the US. But what is the point of wasting them by just killing a few people? It is better to use them for a bigger attack. That is what they are trying to do, but but big attacks are hard to do. But, killing a juror is different than shooting some random guy on the street. That might be worth wasting an asset for.

    Also, they don't necessarily need the reach. Just issue the fatwa and some loser wanna be like Hassan goes and does it for them.

  • ||

    You want to know what would put the judge and jury's lives in danger? An acquittal or a dismissal of the case. It's far more likely that KSM beating the rap would lead to murders by red-blooded Americans than that a conviction would lead to murders by al-Qaeda.

  • ||

    Really? Just like there were 1000s of murders of Muslims after 9-11 instead of just some dumb asses who killed a Sikh of all people in Arizona.

    It is amazing how Americans are always portrayed as murderous animals. But, Islamists are always misunderstood complex people.

  • ||

    Oh, I have no doubt that al-Qaeda is going to continue murdering people as long as they exist. What I'm skeptical of is that they have the capability of murdering judges and juries on American soil.

  • ||

    A bet a week or two ago you would have been just as skeptical that they could walk onto an Army post in the US and shoot 12 soldiers. Again, they don't need to plot these things from some command post in Pakistan. They just issue the fatwa and let the wanna be losers do the rest.

  • ||

    Murdering jurors or judges would not be wise. Al Qaeda is sharp enough to let us have the trials and then they can point to them and say the trials were a sham. That the defendants were(if convicted) not given a fair trial. KSM becomes a martyr for the cause and fundraising and recruitment hit an all-time high. It is like a gift from god.

  • ||

    Martyrs are a dime a dozen. I don't buy the "we just make them stronger by killing them" arguement. The problem is by making such a spectical out of trying him and eventually killing him, we let him have his own jihadist theater and make his death less effective. Trial by tribunal followed by a quiet hanging a few years ago would have prevented all of that and made him much less effective a tool for AQ.

  • ||

    John, we are talking around each other. KSM is a big name and thanks to AG Holder, he gets the world stage for his martyrdom. His will be the trial of the millenium and our reputation will take a big hit from the media circus. Think about all the anti-Bush ravings that will be spewed forth by the legal consultants during this trial. It is, IMO, the mother of all fuck-ups from the Obama administration.

  • JB||

    It shows just what a stupid cunt Obama is.

    Yes, he really is this fucking stupid.

  • ||

    Look at it this way, when liberals look back on the Obama administration after they don't get Obamacare, cap and trade or amnisty, they can look back and say, thanks to our commitment and work for Obama, a mass murdering international terrorist got to have a trial in New York.

  • ||

    John, I'll have to wait and see what the democrat controlled congress can hustle through while America has its nose pressed to the teevee during The Trial Of The Millenium.

  • ||

    "Think about all the anti-Bush ravings that will be spewed forth by the legal consultants during this trial. It is, IMO, the mother of all fuck-ups from the Obama administration."

    "all the anti-Bush ravings that will be spewed forth by the legal consultants during this trial."

    Why would one think this would then be a f-up by the Administration from their vantage point?

  • ||

    RC, would there be a Supreme Court challenge to follow, then, if these guys are acquitted and then detained? Seems like a can of worms we don't want to open.

    We may never know, though. It seems implausible they would be acquitted. It seems impossible that they could find someone who hasn't heard of 9/11 and scary terrorist Muslims, so the jury will have people on it that want to convict some living scumbag for the acts of the dead scumbags.

  • ||

    The fact that they guy bragged about it and also is the guy who beheaded Danial Pearle might help in the conviction. He is not a "scary muslim". He is murderous homocidal scumbag who would gladly slit your throat or mine if he had the chance.

    I don't get the snark about the "scary Mulsims". You might have missed it but there are some Muslims out there you really don't want to meet.

  • ||

    You don't want to meet most people who are in a maximum security prison, yet we still try them in open court.

  • ||

    True. But we don't have to go to Pakistan and use the NSA to catch those people. If KSM had moved to the US and had been robbing ATMs to support his jihand habit, then fine try him in open court. But, when you have some international scumbag who plots the murder of 3,000 people and is running around the battlefield in Afghanistan and escapes to Pakistan, you just get whatever infomration you can get out of him, give him a tribunal to make sure that he is who you think he is and hang him and be done with it. In any other time in history, this dirtbag would have been long hung. Only now in our current state of insanity do we allow him to live this long and make a spectacle of himself.

  • ||

    I'm still not clear on what your standard for not being subject to a public trial is. If it's fleeing to a foreign country, then that means Roman Polanski should get a military tribunal. If it's plotting to kill thousands of American civilians, why the heck wasn't Werner von Braun hung instead of getting a cushy R&D job at NASA?

    And this is even leaving aside the questions striking at the heart of the whole legal approach to the war on terror: we have declared entire countries to be battlefields; treating non-state organizations with unclear leadership structures using laws intended for state armed forces with uniforms and hierarchies; we are applying laws that were intended for wars with a clear beginning and a clear end to a war whose end is ill-defined.

  • ||

    Afghanistan is a battlefield. For the longest time, people who pretended to be civilians, didn't wear uniforms or fight for a specific country, were sumarily executed. We did that becasue we wanted to protect civilians. If combatants hide among and pretend to be civilians, then civilians are placed in much greater danger. The idea was to make sure people wore uniforms and didn't fight as partisans.

    KSM is not Warner Von Braun. Von Braun worked for a nation and did not hide among enemy civilians for the purpose of killing them.

    Today thanks to your type of thinking, we have made it pay to be a terrorist. If you are a soldier and wear a uniform, you are either shot on sight or locked up in a POW camp for the duration of the war no questions asked. But if you are a terrorist, you get to move freely among the civilian population and if you are caught get a gold plated trial in New York before anyone can do squat to you. Asymetric warfare and terrorism is much more effective than playing by the rules. Terrorism pays. And the more we bend over backwards to treat them as criminals, the more it will pay and the more it will become the preferred method of warfare. That is not a good thing.

  • JB||

    Agree completely.

    Tulpa's way promotes more terrorism.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Why did we ever abandon traditional legal practices?

  • ||

    You're right. You don't get the snark.

  • Jim Treacher||

    I don't get the snark about the "scary Muslims".

    Consider that the people who sneer at terrorism tend to be the same ones who think we're all going to die because Al Gore says so.

  • ||

    That's another thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the defense lawyers immediately move for a mistrial since there is no possibility of getting an unbiased jury in NYC, or for that matter anywhere under federal jurisdiction (so a change of venue wouldn't help).

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Move for mistrial? That comes way after the change of venue to San Francisco.

  • ||

    That comes way after the change of venue to San Francisco Berkeley.

    FTFY

  • ||

    I have no legal schooling, in fact I am just a simple-minded high school graduate.

    How do you hold someone without legal representation and subject them to CIA enhanced interrogation and then decide to give them a public trial in an American court?
    How much of the state's evidence will be banned due treatment of the suspects while they were in custody?
    How much of the state's evidence is classified info? Does the prosecutor get to use it and show it to the whole world?
    Is there a high likelyhood of aquittal based upon the previous questions?

  • ||

    From what I've seen, the Obama administration is only allowing suspects with enough evidence obtained through legal means to be put on trial.

    The ones they don't think they can get a conviction on because of the evidence being obtained through questionable means such as torture, they are planning on just holding indefinitely without trial.

    And yes, that makes no sense. Just repeating what the administration has said, in the tradition of the MSM.

  • ||

    Mistreating the guy, would just keep out that evidence. If there is evidence outside of that, then that still gets in. Also, KSM is a lunatic who very well may get up and brag about the whole thing. He bragged a lot about it. They may have intercepts and the like of him bragging about it. They probably have a lot more evidence than just what they got out of him by waterboarding him. And it won't take much evidence to convict him.

    But, you are right, it is possible that they will aquit him. But it is unlikely. An aquitell would be a disaster for Obama. Obama isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer but he didn't get out of Chicago politics without knowing how to fix a trial.

  • Shorter brotherben||

    I have no legal schooling, in fact I am just a simple-minded high school graduate, living on the dole.

  • ||

    Yes. Quite true. I am pretty sure everyone that is a regular here is familiar with me. Yet they still are able to engage me in intelligent conversation on a variety of subjects without assailing me with personal attacks.

  • Abdul||

    You may be but a simple high school graduate, but those are the central questions. Evidence obtained illegally must be excluded at trial. Even without waterboarding or stress positions, these guys were subjected to custodial interrogations. That alone would get your evidence thrown out in a normal courtroom.

    Classified evidence could be handled "in camera" i.e., only the judge can see it. However, when you involve a jury, the prosecution has to balance how important the evidence is against the risk of 12 people going all blabbermouth (plus court personnel). Courts famously flub this rule. In Kobe Bryant's botched rape proceedings, the court accidentally posted the accuser's name on their website for days, even though it was supposed to be confidential.

    Obama seems confident that these issues won't derail the conviction. However, the nation's top defense attorneys will be on this case for the free publicity. I would not like to put money down on any result other than "Complete circus that makes the US look worse and terrorists look better."

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You may be but a simple high school graduate, but those are the central questions. Evidence obtained illegally must be excluded at trial. Even without waterboarding or stress positions, these guys were subjected to custodial interrogations. That alone would get your evidence thrown out in a normal courtroom.


    Did these interrogations happen outside or inside the U.S.?

  • guy in the back row||

    Wasn't there a medical marijuana supplier who was recently convicted in federal court becasue his lawyers weren't allowed to bring up the simple fact that his business was legal according to California law? If that can happen then KSM will be prosecuted and convicted.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Very simple.

    the CIA is not a police agency, and the interrogations were on foreign soil, so KSM can not claim a violation of constitutional rights.

    A court will not suppress evidence obtained on foreign soil just because it was obtained in a manner that would be unconstitutional in the U.S..

  • ||

    Did the interrogations take place on an American military base? Aren't such bases considered American soil? If so, do temporary bases on foreign soil qualify?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Washington pushes for a tax crackdown in Hong Kong.

    Guilo!

  • Rich||

    IANASOI. What would Sharia justice for these guys entail?

  • ||

    RC, would there be a Supreme Court challenge to follow, then, if these guys are acquitted and then detained?

    Nah, Justice has a whole bag of charges they haven't brought yet. They'll just keep filing charges and keep bringing them to trial until they do get a conviction.

    You know, due process.

    From what I've seen, the Obama administration is only allowing suspects with enough evidence obtained through legal means to be put on trial.

    So, if we think we can convict you, we bring you to trial, and keep bringing you to trial until we get a conviction.

    If we don't think we can convict you, we just keep you locked up.

    Which reminds me: Hows that whole liberaltarian thing coming along?

  • ||

    Having a military tribunal that looks at all of the evidence under relaxed rules of admisibility, would have been the Dark Night of Fascism RC. Better to it the way you describe and destroy the entire justice system.

  • ||

    """Nah, Justice has a whole bag of charges they haven't brought yet. They'll just keep filing charges and keep bringing them to trial until they do get a conviction."""

    Like Gotti Jr., he's on trial #4.

  • ||

    All for a two bit gangster wannabe. How fucking incompetant do you have to be to lose four trials? The feds are amazing.

  • ||

    You are assuming he did what they are claiming. He might not have, he could be innocent of the charges. On the other hand, he might have done what they said, but brought the case prematurely since they have a hard on for him.

  • ||

    If he is innocent, that makes them incompetant. A prosecutor gets to pick all his fights. He should accordingly rarely lose them.

  • T||

    Nah, Justice has a whole bag of charges they haven't brought yet. They'll just keep filing charges and keep bringing them to trial until they do get a conviction.

    Exactly. It's why, in multiple homicide prosecutions, the defendant is often charged with only some of the homicides. The prosecutors are keeping the other ones in their back pocket in case the first trial goes south. It's also how the courts get around double jeopardy. When any action can result in in multiple criminal charges, it's not double jeopardy to keep trying you for different things.

  • ||

    Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

    This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the "blind Sheikh"), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

    In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

    Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....32850.html

    That is a pretty good explination of the dangers of doing this in open court. You may not agree with it. But it deserves a better response than Jesse's name calling above.

  • ||

    You don't think that AQ wouldn't have already dropped said plans when KSM was taken? That's basic operational security. I don't think that we should assume that the people we're dealing with are idiots.

  • JB||

    Many of them are quite stupid.

    The guy they nabbed in NYC with bomb-making materials? They got him because he emailed one of the guys picked up in London awhile back.

    You would think a smart terrorist would pay attention to when people in his network are arrested and not email them.

  • ||

    That reminds me of an episode of Cops I saw. The police busted a guy at home for selling pot. They stayed in his house and started selling his confiscated stash. They arrested iirc another 23 people that showed up at the house to make a purchase. One guy came inside and asked for some dope. Cop says how much you want. Dude says I have 62 dollars. Cop says that's good for a half pound. Dude buys a half pound and goes to jail.

    Oh, yeah. Their was 2 black and whites out front and 2 of the cops in the house in plain view were in full uniform and several outside had on t-shirts with the word "police" on the back.

  • ||

    They caught the guys who did the first WTC bombing because they tried to get the deposit back on the Ryder truck they rented and blew up.

    A few years ago in Europe they nabbed some terrorists who thought they were covering their tracks by buying new cell phones and moving their old SIM cards into them.

  • ||

    Either al-Qaeda is full of idiots who don't know rule 1 about running a terrorism operation, or it's an existential threat to our society that justifies shredding the Bill of Rights and living in a state of war for all eternity over.

    It can't be both, guys.

  • ||

    But it could be neither.

  • ||

    I'm not arguing for "shredding the Bill of Rights," but sure it can be both. Weren't Germany and Japan existential threats in WWII? They both made some brilliant strategic moves, and some really dumb ones. Al Qaeda is similar, with some smart operations/operators and some dumb ones.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Tulpa thinks you have to be Lex Luthor to be dangerous. Which is a comforting thought, right up until the moment it isn't.

  • Mike M.||

    Odd that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, aka the guy who tried to sink the USS Cole, is getting a military tribunal, as are some others, but KSM isn't.

    There doesn't seem to be much consistency as to how these cases are being tried.

  • ||

    O, what a tangled web we weave,
    When first we practice to deceive!

  • ||

    If these guys have no constitutional right to a trial because of the weirdo combatant non-uniformed military status, wouldn't the best course of action to ship them off to wherever they were originally discovered and have some ghost put a bullet into them a week later? That way, they are dead and they don't get a show trial, and we can say "hey, we just let them go...not our fault they ended up dead."

  • ||

    I've been thinking the same thing for years. And don't forget that accidents and unexpected health issues happen to people all the time.

  • T||

    I don't think that we should assume that the people we're dealing with are idiots.

    It's worked well for me so far. Oh, wait, you aren't referring to the current administration?

  • Nike Dunk High||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement