MSNBC Lineup Takes On “Terrified” Republicans Over Mohammed Trial

video

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

» 5 comments

Olbermann and Maddow went further than Matthews in essentially calling Republicans wimps and scaremongers for their position. Maddow largely focused on Rudy Giuliani‘s reversal from favoring criminal trials for terrorists in 1994 after the first World Trade Center bombing to favoring military tribunals now. Olbermann went rah-rah and said that mainstream Republicans had strayed far from “defending, or even remembering, the real American way” for thinking of the American justice system as “a last resort.”

The American people seem inclined to split the difference between Republicans’ safety concerns and Democrats’ concerns about civil liberties. A CNN poll released yesterday found that “sixty-four percent of those surveyed said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court, while only 34 percent agreed with Obama that the civilian judicial system was the best way forward;” however, sixty percent of Americans agreed with his being brought to trial in the US versus thirty-seven percent who did not.

It’s debatable whether Giuliani’s switch is politically expedient. It’s worth pointing out, though, that the forces we’re up against are a lot different now than they were in 1994, and that despite Olbermann’s posturing, his position has more mainstream acceptance than the MSNBC bloc’s.

Pages: 1 2

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

m

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

@m

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

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

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).
StewartIII

MSNBC is completely full of it.

Rasmussen: 51% Oppose Decision To Try Terrorists in New York City
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2009/51_oppose_decision_to_try_terrorists_in_new_york_city
*
CNN Poll: Americans want KSM tried in military court
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16/cnn-poll-americans-want-ksm-tried-in-military-court/
—
NYDN — Gov. Paterson: 9/11 mastermind Kalid Shaikh Mohammed shouldn’t be tried on NY soil, near Ground Zero
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_gov_paterson_911_mastermind_.html
*
THE HILL: Daniel Pearl’s family opposes Justice decision to try KSM in federal court
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67801-daniel-pearls-family-opposes-justice-decision-to-try-ksm-in-federal-court
*
Hot Air — Video: Hillary’s less-than-enthusiastic endorsement on KSM trial
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/16/video-hillarys-less-than-enthusiastic-endorsement-on-ksm-trial/