Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Question for Cheney:The former vice-president on Hannity: I don't know what's going to happen in those trials, the thing that's disturbing is I don't know what the Justice Department does either. If it's an absolute certain thing, then Holder has the problem of saying we're going to have a balanced trial, and they'll have the opportunity to defend themselves and so forth. If it's not a certain thing why are you bringing him here. I mean we know [Khalid Sheik Mohammed is] guilty. He's responsible for the death of thousands of Americans, and he ought to be punished as such. So, why didn't you execute him?
posted by Quiddity at 12/09/2009 10:44:00 AM
3 comments
Well, once we waterboarded him, he spilled his guts to save his life and never stopped spilling them. Fact is, the torture worked. We flipped him and turned him into a valuable asset against Bin Laden.
Why execute him and end that cooperation? Having that trial means that he is either executed, or given prison with execution taken off the table, which will end his cooperation. (Why would he continue cooperating when he is guaranteed not to be executed?)
U.S. counterintelligence efforts are best served by keeping him imprisoned with summary execution openly left on the table as an option. It's a strong incentive for KSM, an illegal combatant captured on the battlefield and specifically exempt from the protection of the Geneva Conventions, to continue to tell as much of the complete truth as he knows.
Until Bin Laden and his inner circle are killed or captured, KSM should stay right where he is, in exactly the legal situation -and peril of life - he is been in since his capture.
And we'll return to "24" on Fox after this word from your local station.
Touche!
I never watched the show. Was that scenario part of the plot?
|
