Pat Buchanan

If we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.

We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?

Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.

When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.

Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.

When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?

When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?

Is the Obama administration aware of what it is risking by not turning KSM over to a military tribunal in Guantanamo?

How does Justice handle a defense demand for a change of venue, far from lower Manhattan, where the jury pool was most deeply traumatized by Sept. 11? Would not KSM and his co-defendants, if a change of venue is denied, have a powerful argument for overturning any conviction on appeal?

Were not KSM’s Miranda rights impinged when he was not only not told he could have a lawyer on capture, but that his family would be killed and he would be waterboarded if he refused to talk?

For the rest of Pat’s column, please go here:

Face Forward Comments:

Pat Buchanan ask the question that the decision to bring this terrorist to trial rest on.  Are we at war or not?  If you ask any sane person they would say of course we are at war.  We have soldiers in another country being killed by people that want to see America destroyed.  I believe that would meet any “sane” person’s criteria of being at war.  However, it’s not our (we the sane people) criteria that must be met.

Remember this is the president that has taken the first year of his presidency and gone on a world apology tour for being an American, gave away the CIA interrogation secrets, bowed (groveled) before foreign dignitaries and has an administration that is more concerned with politically correct talk rather than protecting our troops at home.  I truly believe that in his eyes, war is a concept that he cannot tolerate and is at a lost why his personal charm has not stopped all conflicts. 

So, if Pats Question is to Obama, then no, we are not at war.  I believe Obama called it a overseas contingency operation.  That of course meant that the 9/11 attacks would have been an unplanned building demolition by a foreign religious group. To answer your question Pat, yes the vast majority of Americans believe we are at war with radical terrorist.  Unfortunately, that guy in the White House doesn’t.