Discussion:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Crowe,

What are some good legal blogs to follow this on? Not the political junk I enjoy so much, but something that might deal with Constitutional issues, evidence, etc.

As a non-lawyer, I figure the lawyers will get him off because of the things done to try and head-off other acts of terrorism. However, he may be the only person to get a life sentence for J-walking.

I bet the defense lawyers are lining up to represent him. If they are able to get him off, or reduced charges, or whatever ... every corporate crook, Mafia leader, union crook, and drug lord would have them (lawyers)on retainer.

I am not aware of any blog like that. But, I'm not a criminal lawyer. I would be surprised with all these laws on the books if they didn't get a conviction. Plus, they have enough untainted evidence even before he was caught.

You can't compare a guy like Khalid the Sheikh with some of the people in Guantanamo. Some of those prisoners were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There was no evidence against a lot of them, so no surprise you didn't get a conviction. Or you had problems.

Snowbird, you know the U.S. has never had much of an intelligence service. It's because we don't have any streetwise people in the game, and we don't act on what we know. If anything, we have an overload of information today. We don't know what to do with the information we have. We're like a vacuum cleaner sweeping up information we don't know what to do with it.

We need to worry about what's going on right here in the USA right now.

If we really are serious about getting rid of the terrorist tendency in this country, the single best thing we can do is to rigorously enforce the separation between church and state. It needs to be a rock solid wall.

There's some misguided Christians out there today who are trying to chip away at this wall. They need to understand that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Some of these other religious groups have a very high birthrate. Look at Europe and you could be looking at our future. Plus, they get a foothold, and manipulate the immigration laws, etc.

That Cross on the town square that the Christians are fighting for today could be something else one day, some OTHER religious symbol in the future. And that something else does not understand pluralism, democracy or anything like that. Keep church (mosque?) and state separated if you care about the future.

You really don't believe that the Christian right is worse than Islamic terrorists? When is the last time the Christian right killed nearly 3,000 Americans in one day?

Our intelligence service is not as bad as you think. It is not inept, but hamstrung by rules and regulations, thanks to the Church Committee. Congress never had an oversight role until they came along. [1] Also, the Church Committee got too close to one of our most significant spies in the Kremlin. Too close that they had to be revealed to Church so Church would back off (see this:[2]

The radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have been after the US for a long time, since the 1970's. See this interview here [3] to see who was the chief terrorist before Osama came along. It goes back further than him. Try the hostages in Iran.

The right wing Christians in this country are not out to kill Americans at every opportunity as people might think. How many times do you hear about a violent protest when Mohammed is depicted in a cartoon or any way shape or form? However, Jesus can be desecrated by being put in a jar of urine in the name of art and nothing happens. The separation of church and state you talk about seems only aimed at Christians. Other religions, such as Muslims, seem to get a pass.

This year, the University of MD (my alma mater) did away with the graduation invocation prayer after a group of atheists objected to it at graduation. They comprised less than 1% of the student body and it was rotated among different religious groups. The prayer was extremely generic. There was absolutely no reason for this to be done but in the name of political correctness, it was and it's ridiculous.

The Constitution doesn't say "freedom from religion". It says "freedom of religion".

Personally, I shed no tears that KSM was waterboarded. He masterminded the killing of almost 3,000 Americans and was the murderer of Daniel Pearl. I just hope that it doesn't get him cleared.

Tom

Nowhere in Crow's post did he state the Xn right is worse than Islamic terrorists.

Though the Xn right blindly supported GWB and blindly supports the military. The US military routinely kills innocent people and has been doing so for at least 150 years. 3000 is peanuts to the millions killed by the Xn supported US govt in countries that never attacked or threatened us.

You're right they're not out to kill Americans, but they are murderous towards the rest of the world.

Crow is my political sparring buddy and someone for whom I have great respect. His post can be read as you say, however, his liberal tendencies lead me to believe that the post was intended to bring to light right-wing Christians are more dangerous than Muslim terrorists. This is absolutely wrong on its face. Christian fundamentalists do not equate killing and going to heaven, at least not the ones I know. And no, I am not a member of the fundamentalist Christian movement. I am Catholic, plain and simple. I am not radical in any way.

Our military maybe run by civilians, but it is not supported by Christians, as you put say. It is supported by US taxpayers that includes Jews, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, Deists, Wiccans, etc. Further, the US military does not intentionally kill innocent people. It is unfortunate that innocent people get killed, however it happens. But, we have less blood on our hands than Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and other barbarians who have been dictators. They killed their fair share of civilians in their own time.

Let's not forget that 9/11 was an intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure. No military targets were chosen. The Pentagon is the civilian headquarters for the military as the Secretary of Defense is a civilian. The commander-in-chief is a civilian.

If you look at the history of terrorism since the late 1970's, starting with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and look at the link I provided to the interview with Larry Johnson, you will notice a pattern that is not in dispute. One of my clients, a devout Muslim, even acknowledges this is a serious problem. He even wrote a book about it and is hoping people will take notice.

Tom

Who has the most blood on his hands is also irrelevant.

The US has purposely targeted civilians for at least 150 years if not longer. When Madeleine Albright was asked about it, she said the price was "worth it". Carpet bombing cities is purposely targeting civilians. Bombing weddings, aspirin factories, goat farmers and the current drone attacks in Afghanistan are all purpose targeting of civilians. To claim the US doesn't intentionally kill innocent people is at best ridiculous. With the sheer number of people the US has killed, it's impossible to claim civilians weren't targeted.

Of course blowback received is a problem. Intelligent people don't start looking at a problem from 1970 forward. They look at the cause and the cause of the blowback is the murderous foreign policies of the US govt.

What I am saying is that right-wing Christians are busy trying to change our history, our Constitutional law, and our statutory laws to make America a theocracy. Being short-sighted, they make the incorrect assumption that the theocracy will always be a Christian one.

As I said above, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Muslims are here now. I will be crude and point out that they have a high birth rate. Other Muslims come over, and they will come over. They have a beachhead.

So, these fundamentalist Christians are busy formulating a theocracy for the Muslims to march right into one day.

You fight for that organized prayer in school? Are you ready for it to be a Muslim prayer in 100 years?

I don't want my country turned into a theocracy, no matter who is running the theocracy.

You have to look at law not just for what you accomplish for today, but for the consequences of what foundations you are laying for the future. Keep the WALL of separation between church and state, or we'll regret it.

[Anarchrist, my post was really directed at a problem I see right now in constitutional law. If I made some military comment or something like that, it was not intentional. Did not mean to offend. However, I am quite concerned about this private standing military we seem to be creating, for reasons I'd rather not discuss here (Blackwater, Z etc.).]

Actually a public defender might be able to get these guys off since they were tortured, not read their rights, did not have court approved wiretaps, and a lot of the evidence is hearsay.

You know, the US keeps saying it can't make it's intelligence public even in a trial. One of the reasons for this is that a lot of the intelligence is dated before 911, and the public will want to know why we didn't stop it beforehand.

We vacuum up all this stuff from our advanced technology, but we don't have enough people to analyze it and send it up the chain of command. Then again, during the Bush administration, the chain was rusty and had a weak link: Bush.

I will add that Clinton and his people failed to fully grasp the meaning of the Cole. However, Richard Clarke tried his best early on during the Bush administration to sound the alarm bells.

To address your points, you claim Christians support the US government, which in turn that means they support the military. This is just not true was my point. US taxpayers do and they include a cross section of people. You raised it and it became relevant.

You also indict the US military with a blanket condemnation for the last 150 years with intentionally killing civilians. That is patently absurd. I would like some proof of that claim. If you look at the 233 year history of our country, it's only been in the last 100 years that, sadly, we've had the capability of inflicting serious mass casualties with nuclear weapons, aerial bombing, etc.

I guess the enemy doesn't kill civilians either, just us.

As far as your commenting about "intelligent people" looking from 1970 forward, obviously you missed my point. I was talking only about the rise of Islamic terrorism.

If you really want to look at the root of problems today, maybe start with British colonialism. They started screwing around in the Mid-East/Central Asia in the late 1700's-early 1800's. They partitioned Afghanistan into Pakistan and Afghanistan. They didn't help matters. Let's blame the British for the heck of it.

The most liberal website, iraqbodycount.org lists at most 103,000 in this latest conflict, not millions.

It's truly awful that civilians get killed, but I doubt the military chose the wedding as an intentional target.

Crow, unfortunately I see this whole thing as a circus. I just don't see any way it can't be.

Tom

Financial support is irrelevant to my point. My claim was right wing Xns give moral/emotional/psychological types of support to the military. They are not opposed to the wars, military actions, etc. but are in agreement with them. This support/agreement may or may not grow out of any support they have for the govt. I made no reference to their support of the military coming out of their support of the govt.

Sherman's march to the sea, roughly 150 years ago. Denying civilians were purposely targeted is what is patently absurd. Knowing the dishonest nature of govt and its love of war, I'm confident examples of the military purposely targeting civilians can be found in most every war the US entered. But off the top of my head I don't know examples, thus my statement "at least 150 years".

What you guess about enemies isn't relevant to any of my points.

Blowback coming from Islamic terrorism stems back to events of US interventionism before 1970.

I do blame British imperialism for their part in the mess but it's not really relevant to my point. People in the US are not attacked because of British imperialism. The US is attacked because of US imperialism.

The US govt has killed millions before 2001. The 103,000 in the last couple years just adds to the atrocities. As I stated previously, "When Madeleine Albright was asked about it [500,000 dead], she said the price was 'worth it'. Carpet bombing cities is purposely targeting civilians. Bombing weddings, aspirin factories, goat farmers and the current drone attacks in Afghanistan are all purposely targeting of civilians. To claim the US doesn't intentionally kill innocent people is at best ridiculous. With the sheer number of people the US has killed, it's impossible to claim civilians weren't targeted."

Crow, I'm not sure what I said that made you think something you stated caused offense. None was taken.

Snowbird, did you find any blogs that fit the criteria you were looking for?

Since all you are doing is just making broad, sweeping statements about right wing Christians and the US military, it seems to me none of my points will ever be valid. You simply want to make indictments of these two groups.

The British imperialism line was tongue-in-cheek.

In our 233 year history, we have not had any real dealings with the Middle East until well after 1908. That was when oil was discovered in Iran back what is now BP. Our first big mistake in the Middle East was the CIA overthrowing the democratically elected leader of Iran and installing the Shah. Some say it was Israel, but that's garbage. While I realize you were using Sherman's March as a starting point that March was never about civilians. It was about power and demonstrating the Confederate forces were unable to protect the Southern people. They burned crops, seized ammuntion, guns and other spoils of war.

The best estimates of civilian casualties in Afghanistan (from the UN) show at most maybe 7,000. Still too many, but if you add that to Iraq, the US military and coalition forces have not inflicted nearly 500,000 deaths. If you add that to the First Gulf War, of about 70,000 civilian deaths you have less than 200,000 casualties. That's far less than your numbers.

FYI, the UN report shows the anti-government forces in Afghanistan are responsible for more of the deaths than the pro-government forces. The pro-government forces include the US military [4]. The anti-government forces have used IED's against civilians in Afghanistan. Karzai has also spoken out against coalition civilian casualties and demanded an end to them. My point about the enemy is absolutely relevant because the US military are not as horrible as you make the out to be.

The aspirin factory was in Khartoum in the Sudan and was bombed when Bill Clinton was president. It was a mistake of intelligence, like missiles missing their targets and many other mistakes made by the US in these types of airstrikes. They are avoidable but they do happen in war.

Tom

I have never claimed your points are all invalid. In fact I have stated agreement with some of them. Some which I agreed with I have not bothered stating so, but on some of those I have stated that they are irrelevant red herrings. Stating that fact is different than claiming I disagree.

What Sherman's march was or was not about is also irrelevant to the fact that he & the Union army purposely targeted civilians. My point that the US military has a long history of doing so stands. Carpet bombing cities, something the US military has done regularly, is purposely targeting civilians. Atomic bombs, the US being the only country to have used them, is purposely targeting civilians. Atomic bombing non military cities is purposely targeting civilians. Chemical warfare against rural villages is purposely targeting civilians. Bombing infrastructure, a norm in both Iraq wars as well as the roughly 10 years between the wars, is purposely targeting civilians. The civilian casualties from the US govt's actions is easily in the millions. The estimated Vietnamese dead is itself between 1 & 2 million.

Who is currently or who was president is not relevant to my point that the US military purposely targets civilians, both currently and historically.

500,000 is the number the secretary of state was asked about and she claimed the price was worth it. It is not my number, but it is a number the us govt didn't disagree with.

Claiming Jones is worse than Smith doesn't make Smith a moral or just being.

If the US invaded Iraq to overthrow the govt and if the US invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the govt, who exactly are the pro-govt and who exactly are the anti-govt forces?

I see no reason to be sidetracked by all your other claims. Many of them may be correct, but that doesn't change the fact that they are red herrings having no relevance to your point that the US military doesn't target civilians.