MSNBC Lineup Takes On “Terrified” Republicans Over Mohammed Trial

by Robert Quigley | 9:10 am, November 17th, 2009

video

Last night, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow all took to the airwaves to criticize Republican lawmakers for their reluctance to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried before a civilian court in New York.

The trial seems poised to become the media spectacle we predicted it would this past weekend — but why? Do the left-right battle lines along which this seems to be falling even make sense?

First up: Chris Matthews, who spoke to Illinois Representatives Judy Biggert (R) and Jan Schakowsky (D). When Biggert voiced her opposition to the trial, Matthews, who has apparently been rewatching HBO’s John Adams miniseries a lot lately, lectured her on American history: (at about the 2:30 mark)

Matthews: Back in the beginnings of our country, we had a trial for the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre, and we gave those soldiers a real trial, and John Adams was their defense attorney. And a lot of them got off. Do you think that was a mistake to give them a real trial, or should we have just executed them. What should we have done?

Biggert: Well, I’m talking about having a real –

Matthews: Was it wrong to give a real trial to people who shot down our people in the Boston Massacre, or was that a good emblem of the kind of country we were going to be, a country of laws?

Biggert: I think –

Matthews: John Adams was their defense lawyer. Should he have not taken that job? Not defended the enemies of our country, and shown that we have a good system of law in this country? Was that a mistake?

The difference between then and now, of course, is terrorism. There’s a big difference between trying soldiers who are members of a clearly defined opposing army that fights according to a set of accepted military rules and trying terrorists who are members of a murkily defined network that has no qualms about killing civilians in any way possible.

Next page: Olbermann’s and Maddow’s takes

Pages: 1 2

share this post

filed under

Chris Matthews, Guantanamo Prisoner Trial, Guantanamo Trial, Jan Schakowsky, Judy Biggert, keith olbermann, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial, Mohammed Trial, msnbc, Rachel Maddow, Rudy Giuliani, Sheikh Mohammed Trial, Terror on Trial, Terror Trial

4 comments

m says:

November 17, 2009 at 9:48 am

Terrorism is criminality. A terrorist act is a criminal act. It’s not conventional warfare. It’s not standing armies. They don’t wear suits, they don’t wave flags, they don’t adhere to any political nation, they aren’t aligned with any specific foreign relation, they don’t abide by the rules of warfare – I can go on and on about this.

Fighting terrorism is best done through intelligence gathering and proper police work. The successes racked up by the NYPD and Feds these past years, all while the strategic failures of Afghanistan (terrorist-haven Taliban still exist) and Iraq (serving as a terrorist breeding ground) prove this.

You don’t setup Nuremberg courts to prosecute terrorists, you use the regular justice system. It’s the most American thing you can do.

germ says:

November 17, 2009 at 11:41 am

I agree with 90% fo what you said.

Being ex-army intelligence myself, this is a whole new ballgame. I saw what these POS humans did to their neighbors and family if they showed even the slightest hint of US support while in Iraq. It makes the SAW movies look like a child’s CareBear movie. It makes waterboarding seem like a spa treatment.

The problem with fighting this war with intelligence then having a civil justice case is that our entire intelligence network of evidence and how we gathered the evidence is completely open to scrutiny, not only by the American public, but by our enemies as well. The Terrorists on trial will be able to see our methods and tactics on capturing that evidence. A normal servicemember would normally have to have an extensive FBI background check and a high-level TOP SECRET clearance in order to see the evidence, most won’t ever see how it was gathered, yet we are offering it to the terrorist organizations on a silver platter.

If you want our intelligence networks to remain effective, a civilian court prosecution is not the way to go.

stewbaby1986 says:

November 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm

The bad part is that he is representing himself which means he will have access to some very important information. You can not tell me that the information that he receives will get out to his buddies overseas somehow. These terrorists have so many connections in this country that they can get all this information over there in no time.

I have little no faith in our justice system. Most of all it is a waste of tax payers money. Haven’t we wasted enough of our money over the past year or two? There is so much corruption in this system I wouldn’t trust them with a jay-walking charge. As corrupt as it is I bet he won’t even receive the death penalty. A military tribunal seems most reasonable to me.

TfT says:

November 17, 2009 at 3:29 pm

I believe that Rudy also made the distinction that in the case of the 93 bombing, those individuals were arrested right here in the good old USA. That is not the case with KSM and Rudy made that distinction.

Did Chrissy, Rachel or Keith go after the Governor of NY as well? he blasted the White House for this decision as well, or did they limit their criticism to republicans (rhetorical question).

If you would like to comment, please login or register:

» Login » Register

» Or connect with your Facebook account:

Enraged, Maddow Explains ‘Racist History’ Tea Party Is Embracing

9:58 am, Tuesday

video

Wow. Rachel Maddow will not be giving the Tea Partiers any sort of free pass and once you watch this you may understand why. Specifically, Maddow is criticizing (actually, she's eviscerating...no joke) what she calls the Tea Partiers "embrace of racist history" -- in this case, a call for the return of segregation-era literacy tests.

» 36 comments

Stephen Colbert: ‘Sarah Palin is a F***king Retard’

10:06 am, Tuesday

The usually reliable Keith Olbermann's inability to nail Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin on Limbaugh's use of the term "retard" has been pretty frustrating. Sure, he has posited Palin as a hypocrite, but several times he has repeated Rush's and Palin's dueling assertions that he was "quoting" Rahm Emanuel, or that he was being "satirical," without really challenging it. Luckily, Stephen Colbert actually knows what the word "satire" means, and deployed a pile of it on Palin and Rush last night.

» 14 comments

More TV headlines: