Most people on the right feel that KSM and the others scheduled to be tried in federal court in NYC should be tried in military tribunals instead.  This stance is not bourne out of some crazy bloodlust as the hysterical left would claim, but out of the belief that 9/11 was an act of war, not a criminal act.  Throughout this nation's history, the perpetrators of war crimes have been tried in military tribunals.  

There are several problems with putting KSM on trial in federal district court as an ordinary criminal.&nbs p; First, as KSM was treated as a POW, as opposed to a criminal suspect, I sincerely doubt that he was Mirandized upon capture or afforded any of the other Constitutional guarantees that a criminal suspect (but not a captured soldier on the battlefield) would customarily be afforded.  Therefore, it may be problematic to introduce as evidence any statements that he made in custody.  These statements would be admissible in a military tribunal.  Second, KSM would be entitled to the receipt of classified information via the discovery rules, as was the case in the trial of the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing.  Even though the defense in that case was under strict instruction to keep all classified material confidential, somehow those classified documents found there way to an Al Queda safehouse in Afghanistan, where they were later discovered by US troops.  Somethin g like this is likely to happen again.

Finally, if memory serves correctly, weren't the Nuremberg trials military tribunals?    ;    &n bsp;     ;  

by tccesq on 11/19/2009 11:33:23 AM EST