Mohammed criminal court trial-- right or wrong?

It's fitting. Two blocks away from where his diabolical plot killed 3,000 people, Kalid Shaikh Mohammed will be put on trial. Some find it fitting the self professed mastermind behind 9/11 will face the citizens of New York once again. Others find it sick and twisted that a person responsible for 3,000 deaths can be given the same rights as an American citizen. Personally, I am torn.
I do find it fitting that the trials, or whatever method used to bring Mohammed to justice, are being held in New York. Not only does it make sense from a logical standpoint, but it makes sense from an emotional standpoint as well. Logically speaking, the crimes committed by Mohammed were committed in New York City, hence 9/11. Therefore it is only logical that the trials be held in New York City as well. From a more emotional standpoint, it is only fitting that the city who suffered the most from the 9/11 attacks get the first taste of justice by eliciting a conviction in their own courts. That is of course, if there is a conviction.
For the most part I agree with liberals on matters like these. We should not think ourselves to be so high and mighty we are above the rule of law in our country. However, in this case justice is no longer a term to be thrown around lightly-- it is a necessity. If the self professed mastermind of 9/11 were to be let off the results would be nothing short of disastrous for the American people. Is that disastrous result worth the glorified and didactic moral justice the Obama Administration seeks to obtain?
Sure, it is some statement to make to world. It shows the world hat we no longer belive ourselves to be above the rule of law we expect other countries to abide by. After eight years of hypocrisy-- eight years of breaking international and U.S law in the name of justice-- it is always important portray ourselves in a different light. Trying Mohammed in a criminal court does just that. However, does a conviction, and all the glory that comes with it, really justify the risk we take of getting an acquittal? Shouldn't we be afraid of a modern version of an OJ Simpson trial? A highly publicized trial which leads to a high publicized acquittal. Shouldn't we try to avoid that scenario by all means?
Luckily for us, generally self confessed criminals don't do well in court. Furthermore, it is not like we have not tried terrorists before. Terrorists such as Omar Abdel-Rahman (Blind Shiek), Richard Reid (Shoe bomber), and Zacarias Moussavi , who was convicted of 9/11 conspiracy, were all successfully tried in criminal courts and face life sentences. Conservative pundits and politicians seem to think sending Mohammed to prison gives him a recruiting opportunity; that holding a trial in New York will put it at risk of another terrorist attack, that the trial will only motivate more terrorists. They are wrong. However, one point they make I can understand. Conservatives argue that Mohammed should be tried in military court. Despite all the evidence that Mohammed will be convicted the conservative point begs a question out of me: Why can't we try Mohammed in military tribunals? Technically, they are "enemy combatants" or even prisoners of war. It would be legal to try them in military tribunal.
The problem with trying Mohammed in a criminal court, despite the overwhelming evidence against him, is the very way the government obtained that evidence. Through illegal torture. It is a very huge possibility that the judges will not turn a blind eye to the methods used by the Bush Administration to collect information let alone the defense attorneys. Yet, despite this overwhelming possibility Attorney General Eric Holder claims he has the evidence necessary, without or without the judge noticing the "enhanced interrogation techniques" for a conviction.
Yet despite Mr. Holders comforting words, I still can't help but be reminded of trial in 1994 where a college football star gets a away with murder in a highly publicized trial despite overwhelming evidence which point to the contrary. Why take the risk? With the help of some suppressed evidence Khalid Shaikh Mohammed could very well be the next OJ Simpson. What would happen then? Hopefully, we won't ever have to answer that question.

Muslims in Military?

We came across this astonishing post. What do you think?

It it is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday's massacre is living proof. And yesterday's incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.

Of course, most U.S. Muslims don't shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we'll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you're right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it's used, and we'll welcome you back with open arms.

This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.

And don't give us reassurances about the oaths that Muslim soldiers take to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hasan took that oath, and it proved meaningless. In fact, the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to lie to you through his teeth, since lying to the infidel to advance the cause of Islam is commended, not just permitted, in the Koran.

It's time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.

And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.

What egregious generalizations. It is amazing how ignorant some of the Christian right is of their own past. Equally remarkable is how easy it is for the right to target a whole group of people. Good grief...

Glenn Becks Connections

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The 11/3 Project
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis