« Feds engage in Islamophobia | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

Breaking: Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Face Trial in NY Civilian Court

This has "terrible mistake" written all over it. The AP is reporting the news:

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.

The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

It is also a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method - waterboarding, or simulated drowning - was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Holder will also announce that a major suspect in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will face justice before a military commission, as will a handful of other detainees to be identified at the same announcement, the official said.

My first question is why is KSM being tried in a civilian court while Abd al-Rahim an Nashiri is facing a military commission? I don't know enough about civilian versus military trials regarding these two men to offer any intelligent analysis, so I am waiting for Andy McCarthy to weigh in. As I'm sure many of you know, Andy McCarthy successfully prosecuted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. I'd like to hear if Andy thinks, as I do, that this a terrible idea to try KSM this way because it would put at risk so many national security secrets regarding how KSM was captured.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37321.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking: Khalid Sheikh Mohammad to Face Trial in NY Civilian Court:

» Wizbang linked with Military Justice

Comments (75)

This is only a guess, but I... (Below threshold)

This is only a guess, but I wonder if KSM is being tried in a civilian court because he essentially committed mass murder of civilians on US soil, while the attack on the Cole was an attack on the US military in foreign waters. In other words, 9/11 was a heinous crime, but it wasn't directed at the US military and it took place within the US. The attack on the Cole was a military action that took place in an area that US civilian courts have no jurisdiction.

Kim,Good post. I'm... (Below threshold)
RB:

Kim,

Good post. I'm doubly concerned. One, for the reasons you state. Second, for the reason that a trial could greatly increase the security threat to New York City as it drags on.

Another Yoo memo said that ... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Another Yoo memo said that U.S. military forces could use any means necessary to seize and hold terror suspects in the United States.

So why not try them here? And what makes you think any security secrets will be brought to light? Any proof of that? But that POS should be worm feed a long time ago.

This is only a gue... (Below threshold)
Eric:
This is only a guess, but I wonder if KSM is being tried in a civilian court because he essentially committed mass murder of civilians on US soil, while the attack on the Cole was an attack on the US military in foreign waters.

Good theory, but forgets that the Pentagon was also a target of 9/11.

In a civilian court, the de... (Below threshold)
hermie:

In a civilian court, the defense will be able to demand the release of all information regarding how the evidence against their client was obtained.

If Holder does so, then all records of the CIA and FBI operations will be available for Al Queda's attorneys to review and pass along to other terrorists.

If Holder does not, then the terrorists will be able to get off because of this withholding of 'evidence'.

This is Obama's and Holder's way to sabotage any further actions against terrorists by placing it in the hands of a civilian system that can easily be manipulated by attorneys.

doot doot doodle-doodle-doo... (Below threshold)

doot doot doodle-doodle-doot-doot do-dooo...

Let the circus begin.

The bottom line here is tha... (Below threshold)
recovering liberal democrat:

The bottom line here is that KSM and his fellow terrorists are being given the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution as an American citizen. It's not unbelievable that the "O" administration thinks this is the right thing to do. It's that they are going to actually do it. The SCOTUS will be deluged with aspects of this case for years. If "O" is able to appoint any more justices to the SCOTUS we will have lost the war on terror.

Muslim terrorists and their... (Below threshold)
MPR:

Muslim terrorists and their supporting governments are celebrating just as they were on 9/11. Dark day for the U.S.

I would have looked for a w... (Below threshold)
James H:

I would have looked for a way to funnel them through courts martial rather than through the civilian courts OR the military commissions.

The first step towards defe... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

The first step towards defeating terrorism is to stop allowing yourself to be terrorized.

Try them anywhere you want. Quit cowering in fear. The off-shore plan was flawed from the beginning. Try them in New York with New Yorkers as their jury.

I can't believe you guys still wet your pants so easily.

Vic

We need to keep it simple a... (Below threshold)

We need to keep it simple and safe from pinheads like Holder and Obama - shoot the bastards instead of capturing them and no trial is necessary.

Yeah just kill them, let t... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Yeah just kill them, let them reduce our society to the level of quarreling desert tribes.

As to "why is KSM being tried in a civilian court while Abd al-Rahim an Nashiri is facing a military commission?":

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is expected to announce those decisions 11 a.m. on Friday. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia, and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the press conference has not yet taken place.

The civilian target puts them in a civilian court. The military target puts those criminals into a military court.

If you have any problems with that I'm sure John Yoo will be happy to explain it to you... or write whatever memos you need to cover the question.

Vic

If Barry blows this, he'll ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

If Barry blows this, he'll be an instant lame duck.

Vic, if they are released d... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Vic, if they are released due to some technicality and are released. Will you call that justice served? Do you realize what damage will be done to this administration if KSM were to be set free? Such an act could trigger a violent revolution where people like you would find themselves in dire straights. You liberals are too stupid to know what is good for you. You are tolerated by the majority of us but when roused to anger, I predict you will find that tolerance in short supply. I think we are very close to finding out why the second amendment was put in the bill of rights. Vic, there is a line in an old Led Zep song called "how many more times" it goes something like this. "Ain't no place to hide, ain't no place to run, cause I got you----. Be afraid, be very afraid.

our courts in new york, at ... (Below threshold)
cathymv:

our courts in new york, at this time, are having a difficult time convicting gotti...hes on his 4th trial!!!! and there is nothing but trouble with the jury

and I don't see anything different happening with these terrorists... they will make a mockery of our system... they will be portrayed as victims of american imperialism... they will demand proof that they were doing anything wrong.. and they will have access to extremely sensitive documents that will be opened in the court proceedings... they will be defined as victims by their defense and this country will be on trial.. not these terrorists... they will whine about harsh treatment ...claim that they were tortured - as they have always been advised to do - and then the kicker.... they will want the trial and charges dismissed because:........... wait for it................ because they were not merandized....

and the NYT has already started to make these terrorists victims http://sweetness-light.com/

see ya
cathy :)

re: "if they are released d... (Below threshold)
Hank:

re: "if they are released due to some technicality and are released"

Or incredibly enough, found not-guilty, what then?

"Vic, if they are releas... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"Vic, if they are released due to some technicality and are released. Will you call that justice served?"

Since the chances of that happening are the same as a snowball's chances in hell it doesn't warrant an answer.

It's just something terrorism victims will say to each other as they huddle and cower in fear.

I refuse to allow myself to be terrorized.

See, they lose when that happens.

Vic

Obama has reverted the nati... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Obama has reverted the nation to it's 9/10/2001 status. Maybe he figures that Muslims have learned their lesson about attacking American's on our own soil and will refrain from taking advantage of dropping our guard. Personally, I think it's a stupid bet. Not only would another 9/11 magnitude attack kill thousands of civilians, it will demonstrate to the vast majority of voters that progressive liberalism is fundamentally handicapped in dealing with the real world dangers this nation faces. Given Cheney's warnings, the political consequences to Democrats will be staggering and long lasting.

There is a vast gulf betwee... (Below threshold)
Grace:

There is a vast gulf between crime and war crimes. By allowing a trial in civilian court in the U.S. for a war crime, Obama and this administration are making terrorism a criminal offence. It is a sad day in the country when thinking people cannot see the difference.

I weep for our country under this leadership, but I rejoice that the mistakes being made are so egregious and transparent that they cannot possible hold onto power during the next election cycle.

Our country received a huge wake-up call on 911. Our politics has been and will continue to receive a huge wake-up call until this democratic majority in the White House, Congress and Senate are sent packing for a long, long time.

Vic, you take your useful i... (Below threshold)
recovering liberal democrat:

Vic, you take your useful idiocy to new heights daily. Keep it up.It gives stark contrast to reason and common sense. Thanks.

Mac: if you could be certai... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Mac: if you could be certain that another 9/11 would forever purge liberalism from federal American political power, would it be worth it?

And as for this: "the political consequences to Democrats will be staggering and long lasting." Don't you mean would be staggering and long lasting? Or are you already betting on the terrorists?

Grace: isn't Donald Rumsfeld wanted for war crimes by those sissies at the Hague? That's probably not a can of worms that you want to open. Pretty sure war crimes are supposed prosecuted by international courts and I bet you're the type of person who would rather not trust a foreign lawyer to mete out the justice you rightfully demand.

Yeah VIC, let's not fear te... (Below threshold)
Nancy's Nazi:

Yeah VIC, let's not fear terrorism. And there's not a snowball's chance in hell he'll ever be released.

I can hear the defense attorney now; "Your honor, my client's confession was gained through illegal coercion and torture"

The judge responds "I rule all information obtained from the defendant as inadmissible"

Nope, no reason to fear terrorism.......oooops, I mean "man-made disaster"

btw VIC, I wonder if the folks involved in the Ft. Hood attack fear terrorism?

Vic blovated: "Since the... (Below threshold)
Lysander:

Vic blovated: "Since the chances of that happening are the same as a snowball's chances in hell it doesn't warrant an answer."

Since the underpinning of a fair trial is a chance for EITHER party to win, are you saying you do NOT want a fair trial (that is, you WANT a show trial)? You cannot have a 'fair' trial with a guaranteed outcome, unless, of course, you are delusional.

Also, what is this fetishization about granting extraterritorial protections "under the constitutions" to foreign nationals that were nabbed outside the territorial limits of the US? The US Constitution does not protect "the world" at large, so why suddenly do enemies of the Nation gain such legal protections simply because they seek to wage war against us. Either, under the international treaty that governs such things, they are uniformed members of a national military, entitled to POW status, or they are irregulars that, even under such conventions can be shot summarily. There is no middle ground. Transforming military personnel or irregulars into common, civilian, criminals is, if the laws and rules that govern this sort of thing are followed, NOT Allowed.

Hey guys, I wonder how the ... (Below threshold)
Nancy's Nazi:

Hey guys, I wonder how the families of the WTC attacks feel about this?

Naaaahhh, they probably shouldn't fear terrorism either.

Can't wait for KSM and his peeees get on the stand and mock us.

As is well as long as the lefty shitbirds are happy. They're the REAL americans.

VIC,If KSM is convic... (Below threshold)
howcome:

VIC,
If KSM is convicted in civilian court after being in GITMO, would that not be a dangerous road for the American Justice system to travel? This needs to be tried by a military tribunal where it was originally supposed to be handled.

...supposed to be pr... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

...supposed to be prosecuted, that is.

"Also, what is this feti... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Also, what is this fetishization about granting extraterritorial protections "under the constitutions" to foreign nationals that were nabbed outside the territorial limits of the US?"

Sorry - nice try though. Criminals who are captured outside of the U.S. are tried as criminals because of the crime, not because of where they are captured.

That's stupid, just plain stupid, to suggest that someone who robs a New York bank but is captured in Paris is tried in a military tribunal because they are outside the US when captured.

I can't stop laughing at the idiocy of that....

Our system of justice does not bend with the political wind, although the GOP and Yoo and Bush decided they could rewrite the rules as they saw fit, the current administration is not inclined to break the law that way.

"The US Constitution does not protect "the world" at large, so why suddenly do enemies of the Nation gain such legal protections simply because they seek to wage war against us."

Countries wage war. Individuals who commit crimes are criminals.

Was it a trick question?

Seriously. Do you not know the difference between the acts of a country and terrorist acts committed by criminals?

"Nancy's Nazi", your "name"... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

"Nancy's Nazi", your "name" is puzzling. It suggests that you are someone named Nancy's own personal Nazi. You might want to be more careful with certain morally loaded words in the English language, given how much you struggle with grammatical structure.

Do you mean to say Nancy is a Nazi? You'd still seem like a really stupid person but at least you'd come across as someone who speaks a bit of English.

Its official!! Vi... (Below threshold)
914:

Its official!!

Vic, SAUD and Stevie Wonder have no moral compass.

Lysander-

"You cannot have a 'fair' trial with a guaranteed outcome, unless, of course, you are delusional"

Or You are OJ Simpson, or have formerly have resided in Gitmo.

Hyperbolist, 21Pleas... (Below threshold)
Grace:

Hyperbolist, 21
Please don't guess what "kind of person I am". You have no idea. You are correct that I would not trust the war crimes tribunal to put Rumsfeld on trial. They would be criminalizing policy of the U.S. not a person.

But, I just might trust them with this trial. This just was NOT a crime it was state sponsored terrorism planned and carried out specifically against civilians. Just a slight difference in the two cases.

The only reason I would not trust them with this trial is that the U.N etc., are filled with anti-U.S. persons. I do not believe he would receive a fair trial there, but again it would be the U.S. policy put up for scrutiny and derision.

Vic, quit being so disingen... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Vic, quit being so disingenuous with your accusations that we're afraid/peeing-our-pants/cowering-in-fear everytime this is discussed. I've come to expect this kind of hyperbole from you, but it does get tiresome. If you think you have something of value to share in a civilized manner - meaning a manner sans vitriolic attacks on everyone's intelligence or character - I might begin to think about taking you seriously. Until then, I will continue to think of you as that five year old at the adult party acting like an idiot for attention.

Irony - thy name is Oyster.... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Irony - thy name is Oyster.

Sorry - that is too funny - taking Vic to task for "vitriol" in light of your own vitriolic remarks.

Vic is right. You let the terrorists when when you wet your pants in fear about matters such as this and allow it to drive your decisions.

But you guys have been allowing the terrorists to pull your strings for 8 years now. Sarah Palin even turned that fear into a campaign strategy, telling you cowards that Obama "pals with terrorists" so you would cower in fear of the approaching winds of change.

It's sickening - seeing the extent to which this country was lead into war because of conservative cowardness over a handful of terrorist thugs. Its' even more sickening to seee that some haven't outgrown that yet.

But "Irony of the Week" goes to Oyster for this vitriolic attack:

"Vic, quit being so disingenuous with your accusations that we're afraid/peeing-our-pants/cowering-in-fear everytime this is discussed. I've come to expect this kind of hyperbole from you, but it does get tiresome. If you think you have something of value to share in a civilized manner - meaning a manner sans vitriolic attacks on everyone's intelligence or character - I might begin to think about taking you seriously. Until then, I will continue to think of you as that five year old at the adult party acting like an idiot for attention."

Feel free to start anytime, Oyster.

"If you think you have some... (Below threshold)
914:

"If you think you have something of value to share in a civilized manner - meaning a manner sans vitriolic attacks on everyone's intelligence or character - I might begin to think about taking you seriously. Until then, I will continue to think of you as that five year old at the adult party acting like an idiot for attention"

Exactly!

Hyperbolist, 28There... (Below threshold)
Grace:

Hyperbolist, 28
There you go again, trying to assign what kind of a person someone is...do you not have anything of value to contribute?? I guess if you did you wouldn't just get on the thread and hijack it.

If Holder does so,... (Below threshold)
Thor-Zone:
If Holder does so, then all records of the CIA and FBI operations will be available for Al Queda's attorneys to review and pass along to other terrorists.

This is the worst idea our so called leaders ave come up with in a long time. I don't see how giving our enemies all of our secrets helps us fight them. Oh that's rignt....Obama doesn't really want to fight them.

"D28. Posted by hyperbolist... (Below threshold)
914:

"D28. Posted by hyperbolist | November 13, 2009 12:32 PM | Score: -2 (4 votes cast)

Do you mean to say Nancy is a Nazi? You'd still seem like a really stupid person but at least you'd come across as someone who speaks a bit of English."

Negative vote count to be updated shortly!

I have nothing to add to Your French like idiocy.

hyperbolist,<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

hyperbolist,

Mac: if you could be certain that another 9/11 would forever purge liberalism from federal American political power, would it be worth it?

My crystal ball is in the shop for upgrades, so I can't foresee the ultimate benefits of "forever purge liberalism from federal American political power" vs. the consequences of suffering another 9/11 magnitude attack. However, given Democrat's propensity for out of control spending, distain for Tea Party protesters, and rising unemployment it seems economic issues may go a long ways toward purging liberalism from federal American political power apart from any terrorist attack.

And as for this: "the political consequences to Democrats will be staggering and long lasting." Don't you mean would be staggering and long lasting? Or are you already betting on the terrorists?

Taking part of a sentence out of context is one of your favorite tactics, yet one that's totally ineffective in any debate. My post is a single paragraph that asserts that Obama is betting the danger from further terrorist attacks is past, yet explores the consequences of that bet being wrong. We can only hope Obama has done the same. Looking at the downside of any policy is called taking your head out of the sand (or your ass), not whishing the downside comes to pass. How is it you don't know the difference?

"If Barry blows this, he'll... (Below threshold)
914:

"If Barry blows this, he'll be an instant lame duck."

When Barry blows this, he'll be an instant lame duck.

Hyper, you must have forgot... (Below threshold)
Nancy's Nazi:

Hyper, you must have forgotten our esteemed speaker of the house referring to those objecting to health care "reform" as "Nazis".

I'll excuse your stupidity.

Maybe I'll change my name t... (Below threshold)
Nancy's Nazi:

Maybe I'll change my name to "Pelosi's Nazi" to make it easier for our highly-intelligent friends on the left.


LOLOLOLOL

"Maybe I'll change m... (Below threshold)
914:


"Maybe I'll change my name to "Pelosi's Nazi" to make it easier for our highly-intelligent friends on the left"

How about "Panzer Pelosi"?

Ha ha ha ha

Not bad 914 but it'd only w... (Below threshold)
Nancy's Nazi:

Not bad 914 but it'd only work if she called us "panzers" for disagreeing with her.

Folks, these cases will be ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Folks, these cases will be tried without any attempt to enter into evidence confessions obtained via torture, as there is surely plenty of evidence to convict without it. As for some other detainees, against whom the government's only evidence is that obtained through torture or other questionable interrogations, much tougher decisions need to be made. But I'm reasonably certain that they are trying these cases first because they are, as they say, open and shut cases.

I would ask what you all propose the government should do about the trickier cases, but since few of you seem to value the Constitution or rule of law, there would be little point.

Shut Your senseless pablica... (Below threshold)
914:

Shut Your senseless pablical sputum Mentis.

Waterboard His ass. But use a stack of boards before the water and Whack His useless ass into eternity.

I would ask what y... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
I would ask what you all propose the government should do about the trickier cases, but since few of you seem to value the Constitution or rule of law, there would be little point.

If Obama gives the mastermind of 9/11 the same legal rights as an American citizen then it becomes far more difficult to deny those same rights to any other terrorist. If you were concerned about trickier cases before, this precedence makes them even more difficult.

Once Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in Federal court there's no guarantee any evidence the government has and is willing to divulge will stand up under cross examination or even be allowed into evidence. Was Mohammed read his rights before he was arrested? Was he allowed to have an attorney present during interrogations. What would a judge do if a defendant in a criminal case proved the government repeatedly denied him his rights, tortured him many times, and imprisoned him for years before coming to trial. Remember, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have the same rights as an American citizen. It wouldn't surprised me if the judge dismissed the entire case and set Mohammed free on grounds of government misconduct. If a judge just whitewashes all this it will be seen by the world as a show trial similar to those held in Nazi Germany.

That's why the military tribunals were set up by Bush, improved upon by Congress, and finally given the go ahead by the Supreme Court. Obama's action in not using them for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a high risk move that may hamper the ability of this nation to bring current and future enemy combatants to justice, done simply to placate the leftwing of Obama's political base.

He should be before a milit... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

He should be before a military tribunal.
In WWII the US caught 6 German Spies who were going to attack Civilian installation. They were put on trail in Military Tribunal and were then put to death.

These guys have all said they are guilty. Why do we need a trail. Just shoot them. What do we hope to gain by putting Guilty people on trail?

Holder says we will give them the death penalty but we would not turn over GITMO detainees to other countries who intended to kill their terrorist?


If Obama gives the maste... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If Obama gives the mastermind of 9/11 the same legal rights as an American citizen then it becomes far more difficult to deny those same rights to any other terrorist. If you were concerned about trickier cases before, this precedence makes them even more difficult.

Not really, as military tribunals are still being used, and most, if not all, of the tricky cases concern people detained for acts outside of the U.S. Nice try, though.

Once Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is in Federal court there's no guarantee any evidence the government has and is willing to divulge will stand up under cross examination or even be allowed into evidence.

Well, there's no reason to believe it won't, either.

Was Mohammed read his rights before he was arrested? Was he allowed to have an attorney present during interrogations.

It doesn't matter, if we aren't relying on confessions as evidence.

What would a judge do if a defendant in a criminal case proved the government repeatedly denied him his rights, tortured him many times, and imprisoned him for years before coming to trial.

If he is proven guilty of the crime, the judge would sentence him. Crimes of the government do not absolve criminals of their culpability.

Remember, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have the same rights as an American citizen.

And will end up in a SuperMax with his terrorist brethren. What a fucking great country we have here, don't you think?

It wouldn't surprised me if the judge dismissed the entire case and set Mohammed free on grounds of government misconduct.

Seriously, that wouldn't surprise you? You don't live in reality with the rest of us, do you?

If a judge just whitewashes all this it will be seen by the world as a show trial similar to those held in Nazi Germany.

Godwin called. He thinks you're a fucking moron.

That's why the military tribunals were set up by Bush

No, it's not. They were set up by Bush because he had no interest in the rule of law, justice, accountability, or even stopping terrorism. His only goal was to act tough and avoid responsibility so he could pass off the difficult decisions to the next guy.

Obama's action in not using them for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a high risk move that may hamper the ability of this nation to bring current and future enemy combatants to justice

Actually, it will enhance it. Do you have a problem with the trials of other terrorists now sitting in our jails? Did they hamper the ability to bring other terrorists to justice?

done simply to placate the leftwing of Obama's political base.

The fact that you actually believe this shows how far removed from reality you are.

"Actually, it will enhan... (Below threshold)
914:

"Actually, it will enhance it. Do you have a problem with the trials of other terrorists now sitting in our jails? Did they hamper the ability to bring other terrorists to justice"


What trials are those?? I have no problem with trials. Just the fact that terrorists are allowed to live longer than 10 seconds after they're caught.

Word of the Day:Be... (Below threshold)
Frosty:

Word of the Day:

Bedwetter

vic "The civilian tar... (Below threshold)
Marc:

vic "The civilian target puts them in a civilian court. The military target puts those criminals into a military court."

Got a severe case of partisan myopia don't you?

It's the only explanation why the Pentagon being hit on 9/11 should be dealt with during a civilian trial.

Of course if you can come up with a valid reason why the Pentagon isn't a military target I'd be glad to listen, but holding my breath while waiting isn't on my list of options.

What trials are those??<... (Below threshold)
mantis:

What trials are those??

Well, you crazy-ass fascist idiot, there are quite a lot of examples. Here's just a few:

Omar Abdel-Rahman - convicted in NYC of "seditious conspiracy" for his role in the planning of the 1993 WTC bombing.

Ramzi Yousef - captured in Pakistan, convicted in NYC for his role in planning the Bojinka plot, and then for masterminding the 1993 WTC bombings and seditious conspiracy.

Mahmud Abouhalima - Convicted for his role in the 1993 WTC bombing.

Mohammed Ali Hassan Al-Moayad - Convicted on charges of financing Hamas.

Mohamed al-'Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, Mohamed Odeh and Wadih el Hage - Convicted for their roles in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings.

Timothy McVeigh - convicted of the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Executed.

Terry Nichols - convicted of conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and involuntary manslaughter in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

Eric Rudolph - convicted on several homicides charges for a string of bombings in the southern US.

Ahmed Omar Abu Ali - convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda and conspiracy to assassinate President Bush.

Theodore Kaczynski - Unabomber. Convicted of homicide and illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs.

Got a severe case of par... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Got a severe case of partisan myopia don't you?

It's the only explanation why the Pentagon being hit on 9/11 should be dealt with during a civilian trial.

Actually, some other stuff happened that day, too. Did you forget?

Because it was civilians th... (Below threshold)
Frosty:

Because it was civilians that carried out the crime?

Not really, as mil... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Not really, as military tribunals are still being used, and most, if not all, of the tricky cases concern people detained for acts outside of the U.S. Nice try, though.

You're assuming the courts find that distinction compelling. If it's not, then the government will have a hard time limiting who has access to Federal court and the full rights of our constitution.

Well, there's no reason to believe it won't, either.

It's unlikely the government ever expected to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal court and may not have followed the strict rules of evidence required. Even if the court allows the evidence, it may not stand up under the defenses cross examination.


It doesn't matter, if we aren't relying on confessions as evidence.

It does matter as it also goes to the heart of the defendant having access to legal counsel from the time of his arrest. Any evidence developed after his arrest that might have been challenged by a defense attorney will have to be thrown out.

If he is proven guilty of the crime, the judge would sentence him. Crimes of the government do not absolve criminals of their culpability

You are assuming a judge would allow the trial to go forward. In the face of gross government abuse judges have dismissed entire cases, and thus, the defendant is never proven guilty of a crime. They go free.

And will end up in a SuperMax with his terrorist brethren. What a fucking great country we have here, don't you think?

Sounds like you've been watching too many old westerns where the sheriff says we'll give him a fair trial and then hang him, as if the trial was irrelevant. If you think the trial is irrelevant why not just shoot the guy now?

Seriously, that wouldn't surprise you? You don't live in reality with the rest of us, do you?

Once the government says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the same constitutional rights and protections as I do then I expect the court to hold the government accountable for any violation of those rights. Often that takes the form of excluding evidence that doesn't meet the strict interpretation of the law. Also, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, so I expect there will have to be at least one Muslim on the jury. In a criminal trial it only takes one person on a jury to prevent conviction.

Godwin called. He thinks you're a fucking moron.

I see your level of debate hasn't improved much since you had your ass handed to you last time.

No, it's not. They were set up by Bush because he had no interest in the rule of law, justice, accountability, or even stopping terrorism. His only goal was to act tough and avoid responsibility so he could pass off the difficult decisions to the next guy.

Just more of the liberal blame Bush talking points.

Actually, it will enhance it. Do you have a problem with the trials of other terrorists now sitting in our jails? Did they hamper the ability to bring other terrorists to justice?

I have a problem with enemy combatants, some of whom were captured on the battlefield, being given full constitutional rights and being tired in Federal court. Soldiers are not cops nor should they be required to follow civilian rules of evidence.

The fact that you actually believe this shows how far removed from reality you are.

Obama is sure not risking Khalid Sheikh Mohammed going free to placate the political center or right. If you think there's no possibility that the government can fail to get a conviction, then the only reason to not use the military tribunal is to showcase American justice under Obama. To make that show work, however, means giving Mohammed a fair trial and only fucking morons think they know the outcome of such a trial.

You're assuming the cour... (Below threshold)
mantis:

You're assuming the courts find that distinction compelling.

Actually, the prosecutors, who would be the ones deciding where to prosecute. Do pay attention.

It's unlikely the government ever expected to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal court and may not have followed the strict rules of evidence required. Even if the court allows the evidence, it may not stand up under the defenses cross examination.

I'll give that about a .01 percent chance of happening. I'm sure you prefer bogus show trials with no risk whatsoever, but some of us like real justice.

It does matter as it also goes to the heart of the defendant having access to legal counsel from the time of his arrest. Any evidence developed after his arrest that might have been challenged by a defense attorney will have to be thrown out.

Only evidence obtained because of testimony during illegal interrogations. What reason do you have to believe such evidence exists, let alone makes the government's case?

You are assuming a judge would allow the trial to go forward. In the face of gross government abuse judges have dismissed entire cases, and thus, the defendant is never proven guilty of a crime. They go free.

Look at some such cases, try to think about them for awhile, consider the differences. Can you figure them out?

Sounds like you've been watching too many old westerns where the sheriff says we'll give him a fair trial and then hang him, as if the trial was irrelevant.

No, I have confidence in the prosecutors.

If you think the trial is irrelevant why not just shoot the guy now?

Are you able to not put ridiculous words in my mouth that are clearly the opposite of what I'm saying? Doubt it.

Once the government says Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the same constitutional rights and protections as I do then I expect the court to hold the government accountable for any violation of those rights. Often that takes the form of excluding evidence that doesn't meet the strict interpretation of the law. Also, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, so I expect there will have to be at least one Muslim on the jury. In a criminal trial it only takes one person on a jury to prevent conviction.

Ah, so no Muslim juror would convict him, in your mind?

I see your level of debate hasn't improved much since you had your ass handed to you last time.

I see you're still full of shit, and will doubtless forever remain so.

Just more of the liberal blame Bush talking points.

Maybe so, but they have the added benefit of being true.

I have a problem with enemy combatants, some of whom were captured on the battlefield, being given full constitutional rights and being tired in Federal court. Soldiers are not cops nor should they be required to follow civilian rules of evidence.

They aren't. Gee, that was easy.

If you think there's no possibility that the government can fail to get a conviction, then the only reason to not use the military tribunal is to showcase American justice under Obama.

Actually, it's because they are being tried for crimes committed in the United States. It's not hard to understand, unless you're a wingnut.

To make that show work, however, means giving Mohammed a fair trial and only fucking morons think they know the outcome of such a trial.

Confidence in the prosecutors, who have convicted quite a few terrorists (see above), is not a claim of clairvoyance. Dismissal of the Constitution and rule of law is un-American. Move somewhere else if you don't like this country.

mantis "Actually, some... (Below threshold)
Marc:

mantis "Actually, some other stuff happened that day, too. Did you forget?"

Um, that would be a no. And to imply I may have is about par for the course for you.

Clearly the nitwit "vic" seems to think the
Pentagon being hit that day should be classified as a military target.

Just as clearly, he's nuttier than a Snickers Bar.

Correction... "Clearly the ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Correction... "Clearly the nitwit "vic" seems to think the Pentagon being hit that day SHOULDN'T be classified as a military target" and is his justification for using the civilian court system.

I repeat, he's nuttier than a Snickers Bar.

Correction..... "Clearly th... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Correction..... "Clearly the nitwit "vic" seems to think the Pentagon being hit that day SHOULDN'T be classified as a military target."

Why in the hell didn't the ... (Below threshold)
JC Hammer:

Why in the hell didn't the military give him a trial. They had plenty of time before our last Presidential election. After they squeezed all the info from the dirt bag, they should have just opened the gate for him, and then shot him while he was escaping. Problem solved.

Thanks for clearing that up... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Thanks for clearing that up, Marc.

By the way Marc, the Pentag... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

By the way Marc, the Pentagon is headquarters for the Department of Defense, a federal agency.

It is not a military installation.

Actually, the pros... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Actually, the prosecutors, who would be the ones deciding where to prosecute. Do pay attention.

Wrong! Once the precedence is set that enemy combatants have full constitutional rights the defense attorneys can go to Federal court to compel the government to try the case in Federal court.

I'll give that about a .01 percent chance of happening. I'm sure you prefer bogus show trials with no risk whatsoever, but some of us like real justice.

You're mistaken. Once Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows up in Federal court with the same rights I would have then I demand a fair trial. Better to let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed go free then to subvert the justice system.

Only evidence obtained because of testimony during illegal interrogations. What reason do you have to believe such evidence exists, let alone makes the government's case?

It's not just testimony from illegal interrogations that's thrown out, but any evidence found as a result of that testimony must also be thrown out. Beyond that, there are the rules for the chain of custody of physical evidence that must be followed. If that chain is broken the evidence can't be used. All witnesses are subject to defense cross-examination in front of the jury. If the government can't make the witness available for cross-examination then their testimony is excluded.

Look at some such cases, try to think about them for awhile, consider the differences. Can you figure them out?

The difference is what Mohammed is accused of. However, in court that difference may prove irrelevant.

Are you able to not put ridiculous words in my mouth that are clearly the opposite of what I'm saying? Doubt it.

You're the one who claims to know the outcome of this complex case before the trial even begins.

Ah, so no Muslim juror would convict him, in your mind?

Unlike you I'm not predicting the outcome of this trial. Are you closed minded to the idea that a Muslim might have a different prospective of the evidence/

Maybe so, but they have the added benefit of being true.

Even if that were in fact true, they are totally irrelevant.

They aren't. Gee, that was easy.

So in your mind we are not holding any enemy combatants, or you don't think they will end up in Federal court.

Actually, it's because they are being tried for crimes committed in the United States. It's not hard to understand, unless you're a wingnut.

His alleged crimes is the planning of 9/11, and was done outside the U.S. It also sends the message that if someone kills Americans on American soil they will be treated like domestic criminals with the full protections of the constitution.

Confidence in the prosecutors, who have convicted quite a few terrorists (see above), is not a claim of clairvoyance.

But only fucking morons, to use your words, have absolute confidence in the prosecutors.

Dismissal of the Constitution and rule of law is un-American.

Being the Supreme Court has given it's ok for the military tribunals to be used for the likes of Mohammed it's hardly an assault on the rule of law to do so.

Why in the hell di... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
Why in the hell didn't the military give him a trial. They had plenty of time before our last Presidential election. After they squeezed all the info from the dirt bag, they should have just opened the gate for him, and then shot him while he was escaping. Problem solved.

JC Hammer.

The KSM and these 4 were on trial in GITMO for 4 months. KSM rejected the lawyer and his 4 friend agreed to the same. Then on Dec 8 2008 KSM and his 4 misfits requested that they want to file a Guilty p and be put to death. The Judge started the process of mental examination to verify that they were mental fit to enter the plea.

Again I ask why do we need a new trail NY as these guys have all said they were guilty.

The Base declared war on the US, they violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention they are not entitled to POW status. They should just be shot by the rules of war.

They asked to be put to death so lets give it to them.

Vic Could KSM get ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Vic

Could KSM get off?
Of course he could. Bill Ayers someone who committed acts of Domestic Terrorism was dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct which was what? an illegal wire tap.

So of course if we try KSM in Civilian court there just too many technicalities that will allow him to walk. Far from being a remote possibility it is very likely he will get off. Unless we ignore all the rights of a civil case.

"Far from being a remote... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"Far from being a remote possibility it is very likely he will get off. Unless we ignore all the rights of a civil case."

Why? I'd make that assumption only if he was innocent. If he's guilty then it is very likely he'll be found guilty.

Really. It'll be ok. No need to fear the American judicial system. That's what we do here - we let justice work it's course. We're not some primitive tribe. We're the United States of America.

Vic

Steve Green,We dis... (Below threshold)
Lysander:

Steve Green,

We disagree on a number of interpretations. First, there is a wide space between the merely 'criminal' and the application of terroristic attacks/massacres performed by the (albeit fanatically delusional) committed terrorist. What happened was, as you sought to compare, a "bank robbery in New York." What happened was the attack, massacre, and destruction of people (and property, but lets focus on the people for a moment) by persons who considered themselves to be soldiers of allah. They had no 'country' in the conventional nation/state sense, but considered their homeland to be dar al-islam, whihc is itself at war with all areas not part of dar al-islam (called dar al-harb). However, they are not soldiers per se according to the Geneva Convention; they are combatants who do not adhere to the strict definition of soldiery necessary to be protected by that (or any subsidiary) convention.

As for your "criminals commit criminal acts" tautology, these 'people's' (for given values of the word "people") actions are not in any sense merely criminal. Criminals perform their acts for various reasons, though the vast majority of them are self-serving and attempts to be self-enriching. What this particular piece of filth has wrought was not "criminal" in the sense of your theoretical bank-robber, but "warlike" in the sense that a governmental official would put in place on Clausewitzian notions of the intersections of war and other forms of political suasion. Just because it comforts you to believe there is little difference between the committed jihadi and your average bank-robber doesn't mean you can call a rose a daffodil and not get stuck by the thorns.

That's what we do ... (Below threshold)
O.J Simpson:
That's what we do here - we let justice work it's course. We're not some primitive tribe. We're the United States of America.

Right on, brother!

That's what we do ... (Below threshold)
Billy Ayers:
That's what we do here - we let justice work it's course. We're not some primitive tribe. We're the United States of America.

You said it, Vic!

I can sleep peacefully at n... (Below threshold)
Osama Bin Laden:

I can sleep peacefully at night, knowing that if I am captured by the infidel pig American military, homies like Vic and Steve Green are working hard to make sure I will have the all the rights of full American citizens. Allahu Akbar, y'all!

Really. It'll be o... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Really. It'll be ok. No need to fear the American judicial system. That's what we do here - we let justice work it's course. We're not some primitive tribe. We're the United States of America.

That's a bit naive. We have a legal system rather than a justice system. Factual guilt or innocents are secondary to the process. All that counts is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury while obeying all the rules of evidence. Even then it's up to the jury to determine what meets the test and what doesn't.

Prosecuting cases successfully is on the minds of police and prosecutors from the moment a domestic crime is committed. That's not true for defendants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Little of the government's case may survive legal challenges long enough to be heard by a jury. What will the Obama administration do if Mohammed is acquitted or only found guilty of minor charges and sentenced to time served? If they don't let him go free then the reputation of the U.S. will suffer far worse than it would if they had used the military tribunal.

Eric Holder made the mistake of saying he wouldn't have moved the prosecution of KSM to Federal court unless he was convinced the government would get a conviction. In making such a statement Holder undermined the credibility of using military tribunals for any case as it looks like the real criteria for using them is a weak case, not where the crime was committed. The French critique of the Obama administration being amateurish is gaining credibility.

Hyperbolist, Do you ... (Below threshold)

Hyperbolist,
Do you ever read what you post?
/large rocks, glass houses and all that

Mr.President meet your jump... (Below threshold)
SillyPuddy:

Mr.President meet your jump the shark moment.

jc hammer[head] "Why in... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jc hammer[head] "Why in the hell didn't the military give him a trial. They had plenty of time before our last Presidential election. After they squeezed all the info from the dirt bag, they should have just opened the gate for him, and then shot him while he was escaping. Problem solved."

While I agree with your solution [i'd rather have a mass "breakout" and shoot them all in the escape attempt] I don't agree with your sense of history.

They weren't tried because of a "silly" little thing called the Supreme court that had to rule on the legality of military tribunals. When they did the congress passed, with both dem and repub votes, a law establishing the tribunals AND following the Court's guidance.

And btw KSM was already scheduled to appear at his tribunal and obama, your LUV interest, stopped it in May this year.

For that fact KSM may have already been convicted based on his admission of guilt atht e pretrial hearing and been worm dirt by now.

But now the black SUV's normally seen carrying "suspects" from jail to the courtroom will be replaced by Clown Cars as the trial will compete with Ringling Bros and Barnum Baily circus as the greatest show on Earth.

s green "By the way Ma... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green "By the way Marc, the Pentagon is headquarters for the Department of Defense, a federal agency. It is not a military installation.

So the difference between a military installation and a federal agency is what?

Play the semantics game till your blue in the face, but end result is the pentagon like a combat brigade, and U.S. warship are ALL military targets.

in this Country. You're the... (Below threshold)

in this Country. You're the one with the government school view of the Constitution. Now, don't go away mad, but go away. Most of us have recovered from our educations.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy