KSM and the Boys are Criminals, Not Combatants

This is really very simple and I’m not going to explain it more than once.

Despite our desire for revenge and justice and despite all the arguments of both the Bush and Obama administrations, there is only one way to look at the cases of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates who are currently on their way to New York to face trial.

Despite all the whining and posturing from international dogooder organizations, it is indisputable fact that non-uniformed irregular combatants and terrorists and terrorist conspirators and organizers are absolutely not regular soldiers and are by no means protected by the Geneva Convention. Despite the attempts to shoehorn them into a new category of “illegal enemy combatants” that does not mean that they should be tried in military tribunals, a form of trial normally reserved only for internal military discipline, though it was used for war crimes and for spies in World War II.

The truth is that once you accept that they are not soldiers under the Geneva Convention to try them under a military tribunal is to assign them a status which they have not earned and do not deserve. You effectively elevate them and their cause to a level of legitimacy reserved for agents of a sovereign state. Since they clearly did not act on behalf of such a state it makes no sense to give them that status.

Historically, groups who declared ideological war on the United States and carried out acts of terror, but did not do it on behalf of any foreign nation, like the Symbionese Liberation Army, have been treated as criminal conspiracies under the law. That is the precedent which ought to apply here. Patty Hearst, H. Rap Brown, Tim McVeigh and President Obama’s friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn didn’t face military tribunals and didn’t get sent to GITMO. They went to a regular court and a regular jail after being tried for their crimes as common criminals.

Before anyone complains that this is different because these attackers came from outside the United States, the truth is that we routinely prosecute criminals who are not United States citizens all the time, including the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who committed crimes and are now in our jail and including high profile mass murderers like late and unlamented serial killer Angel Maturino Reséndiz who was executed in Texas despite the efforts of the Mexican government to have him repatriated.

The reality is that there’s very little reason not to try terrorists in regular United States courts, beyond the convenience for the prosecutors, concern for public sentiment and a belief that military trials will be quicker and more likely to convict on weak evidence. Other arguments of convenience are also questionable. The ideology of the criminal, his violent inclinations, what role he may play in inspiring others or the possibility of reprisals all have no standing at all in the legal process. None of these is a legitimate reason to override the basic right to a trial by jury to which criminals are entitled under our constitution, under common law and as a matter of basic human rights.

Sentiment and the desire for revenge should never be allowed to override fact when it comes to the law. The fact that these terrorists were not soldiers, did not act on behalf of any nation and are functionally no different from any other common murderer or a group of murderous conspirators is undeniable. Since they are criminals they should be tried as criminals in both the state and federal courts and be punished under the laws of those jurisdictions. In this case that would mean a trip to Indiana where federal executions are carried out by lethal injection.


About Dave 534 Articles
Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and taught college history for many years. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a small town just outside Austin where he is ex-president of the local Lions Club. He is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Politics Editor of Blogcritics Magazine. You can find his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at The Scriptorium. He also runs a conspiracy debunking site at IdiotWars.com.


  1. We think that todays administration under President Obama or previous political parties had a goal of enforcing our immigration laws. But corrupt politicians intervened on behalf of the open border fanatics and special interest lobbyists. As with E-Verify that has become a spotlighted enforcement law, because it was originally nearly tabled by Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But public uproar caused them to forcibly change their decisions and fully fund E-Verify for another 3 years. WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CAVED-IN? Right now it is the–ONLY–true enforcement tool implemented, but it is only as good–IF–business owners are forced to use it. Even though hundreds of thousands of companies have now decided to apply it, yet it is not MANDATORY? It is up to the discretion of employers? In a few states Representatives have introduced it into law, as with the fed’s issuing an ultimatum that all contractors/subcontractors must use E-Verify.
    Justifiably bloggers should be either criticized for their anti-sovereignty stand, or praised for informing the unaware public of the taxpayers money needed to fund a 2009-2010 Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Rewarding the millions already illegally squatting here, with the costs to support families, children and those kin who will come here through sponsorship. THEN THE MILLIONS MORE WHO HAVE HEARD THE CALL FOR AMNESTY AND RUSH TO GET HERE FROM POOR NATIONS, BEFORE THE NEW LAW MATERIALIZES?

    House Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas) wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times today He stated that the Washington Times had slammed the Obama Administration for hardened enforcement. While the opposite reaction came from the open border advocates saying there was too much enforcement. However Rep. Smith determined the opposite? This is his statement:-

    * Rescinding of the “no-match” rule that prevents the Social Security Administration from contacting employers when a new hires name and social security number don’t match their records. “Without this protection, many employers will continue to employ individuals they know are illegal and are taking jobs that should go to citizens and legal residents,” Smith said.
    * Repeal of REAL ID in lieu of PASS ID, which makes it easier for illegal aliens to obtain a driver’s license. “This makes it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country. And it can provide terrorists with a legitimate ID – as we saw with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists, who between them obtained 30 driver’s licenses and ID cards,” Smith said.
    * Lack of funding for an airport biometric exit system that is part of a DHS proposal to monitor when foreign visitors leave the country. “40 percent of all 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. This program will show who did not leave the country when they should have,” Smith said.
    * Restricted the 287(g) program by limiting the ways local law enforcement officials can help federal immigration enforcement officials.
    * No funding for border fence, which was required by the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
    * Signing the CHIP bill making it easier for illegal aliens to get health care.
    * Reduced work site enforcement by shifting the focus away from the illegal workers and onto the businesses that hire them.
    * Allow states to provide in-state tuition to illegal aliens even though it violate federal law.

    Reading the Washington Times indicates to me, that they are pro illegal immigration, that is not in the American workers interest. They have consistently reacted to any enforcement of laws. They are obviously adverse to any immigration restriction, as the majority of the national press have indicated to us. Unlike the rural media who do not condone DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s rush to OVERPOPULATION through another BLANKET AMNESTY? Grade your Senator of Congressman/Woman on NUMBERSUSA website. Call them and reprimand them for approving another AMNESTY or anything else at 202-224-3121. The people of America have been blindsided to long and must become more involved. We all no by now we cannot trust our government anymore to do the right thing for all of us. To survive we must fight back or financially–SINK. Washington is truly a corrupt place, where taxpayers money is the bargaining chip. Read all at JUDICIAL WATCH, CAPSWEB, ALIPAC, CAPSWEB, AMERICAN PATROL & THE DARK SIDE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.