« Full Disclosure | Main | Understanding The New York Trials »

Will Khalid Sheikh Mohammed call Charlie Sheen as a Witness?

Andy McCarthy, who led the 1995 prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, recently wrote the following regarding the Obama Justice Department decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in a civilian court in New York City.

The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.
McCarthy and others have cited many reasons the decision is unwise including security concerns and the possibility (even if remote) of acquittal. What I have not been able to keep from wondering since hearing the decision is what kind of defense KSM will employ and how closely it will resemble the rhetoric I've heard so many times over the past eight years from those on the left.

Rush Limbaugh has been talking about how a jury of KSM's peers can be assembled from a pool of US citizens and has made some suggestions. What I want to know is who KSM's defense team is going to be quoting and asking for testimony.

One of my first thoughts was that Charlie Sheen could be called. Sheen made news this year when he requested a meeting with Barack Obama to discuss his theories on the subject of the 911 attacks.

Sheen, 44, argues that "the official 9/11 story is a fraud" and claims the attacks served as "the pretext for the systematic dismantling of our Constitution and Bill of Rights." Moreover, he charges that the Bush/Cheney "regime" was behind the attacks as a prelude to justify an invasion of Iraq. Sheen also insinuates that Usama bin Laden is working for the U.S. government.

Sheen is certainly not the only high profile liberal KSM could call to testify. When I suggested to fellow blogger John Hawkins that KSM could call Rosie O'Donnell to testify for his defense, John commented that she would make a great expert witness on the scientific properties of steel.

High profile "truthers" are not the only ones in the pool of potential KSM defense witnesses. What about all those politicians who argued that the Bush/Cheney sanctioned waterboarding of KSM was cruel and unusual punishment? There are enough of them to drag the trial out for many, many months. Considering CIA claims that information obtained as a result of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed thwarted terrorist attacks on the West coast, maybe that would not be the strongest defense argument to make.

In any event, KSM will not suffer a lack of potential high profile witnesses.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37350.

Comments (50)

This trial will be a farce.... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

This trial will be a farce.

Consider renaming this post... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Consider renaming this post "Namby Pamby bed-wetters strike again!"

No wonder some conservatives are so easily terrorized. Played like puppets by thugs. Even when they are in prison some are scared sh*t-less.

The list of "Things Conservatives Are Afraid Of" grows everyday.

The *problem* that the Repu... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

The *problem* that the Republicanpartyfoxnews has with these terrorist trials conducted in civilian courts is that it will shine a light on the train wreck known as The Bush Administration.

His lawyers are going to tr... (Below threshold)
mag:

His lawyers are going to try and make a name for themselves defending this creep. #1 was right..it going to be a farce...and an expensive one at that.

Bingo! Adrian Browne admit... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Bingo! Adrian Browne admitted it. One of the reasons, if not the main reason, the Obama administration decided to do this is to revive their "Bush/Cheney are evil Hitler/the real terrorists" line. They spent eight years building it up and they are not about to let all that work go to waste. Besides, they need to deflect attention from the disaster that is the Obama White House.

The only reason Hope'N Change boy with minimal experience and very questionable associations won is because the electorate was convinced nothing could be worse than Bush/Cheney/Republicans. Now that people are opening their eyes and seeing that there is, in fact, something much worse, they are having to scramble. After Obama's refusal to consider Hasan a terrorist, the need to be seen as being tough on terrorism was even greater.

Ignore all the bravado about the almighty Obama administration and scared wittle wepublicans. It is a fairy tale. The left is scared to death that their agenda is being exposed and it is not surviving the light of day. They are the ones who are afraid because for the first time in their lives they are seeing average American citizens taking to the streets without being coerced by union bosses or paid by corrupt organizations.

Saying Republicans are scared and Bush Cheney is evil is the best they can do and it is not good enough to save them in 2010. Unless something big changes over the next 12 months they are in for a bloodbath and I think that reality is finally sinking in.

This is the all time most i... (Below threshold)
Flu-Bird:

This is the all time most idiotic decision by our judicial system and run by that jerk ERIC HOLDER voted in by trecerous liberal demacrats

If it is a foregone conclus... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

If it is a foregone conclusion that they will be found guilty, why have a trial? So this is justice under President Obama, guilty before trial.

More evidence the left hope... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:
Write on, Lori, write on.</... (Below threshold)
davidt:

Write on, Lori, write on.

Seems like wepublicans are ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Seems like wepublicans are afraid of having the actions of the Bush administration fully known and explored in a public forum in New York.

For good reason. Many think the Constitution was shredded by the Republicans in power over the last 8 years.

Can't have that known, now can we?

Cheney's repeated appearances on Fox News attempting to deflect this move notwithstanding, it's gonna leave a hell of a mark.

Many think the Con... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
Many think the Constitution was shredded by the Republicans in power over the last 8 years.

And many think that the lunar landing never took place. Bunch of kooks. I'm fairly certain that it was safely hidden under a trailer by Sandy 'Pants' Berger.

"Moreover, he charges th... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Moreover, he charges that the Bush/Cheney "regime" was behind the attacks as a prelude to justify an invasion of Iraq. Sheen also insinuates that Usama bin Laden is working for the U.S. government."

Well hell, they may as well call in bryanD, too, as a back up for Sheen. For that matter let's all write in and suggest they use Green and Browne as experts for the defense, "Your Honor, these people are all just scaredy-cats." That oughta put the whole matter to rest. That way no important questions need to be addressed and we can get straight to blaming Bush for everything and seeing how many past admin officials we can incarcerate. "KSM? Who's that?"

And, stating the obvious (f... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

And, stating the obvious (for obvious reasons) - once you acknowledge Lorie Byrd's paranoia about having the Bush administration appear to be "on trial" in connection with the AQ New York trials - you also must recognize the reason why the right wing blogosphere was so "Up in Arms" over the move of the trial to New York to begin with.

It wasn't because they were concerned about security -- no no.

And it wasn't because they thought the thugs would get off scot-free - they've been assured that's not the case.

They are afraid of the damage it will do to Republican chances in the 1020 and 2012 elections.

THAT's why they are screeching and crying about this. The rest of their "reasons" are just the typical right wing fear mongering they use to push their base around and get you thinking "in the right direction" - ie. the direction George Bush and Dick Cheney and the current GOP power brokers want you to think.

Next they'll declare that there will be senior citizen "death panels" if the trial is held in New York, lol.

AND nobody involved will an... (Below threshold)
JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred]:

AND nobody involved will answer simple questions about what will happen if these people are found not guilty. They refuse to speculate on hypothetical and unlikely outcomes to a trial that hasnt even taken place yet...

Right, because putting Bush and America on trial instead of these folks trumps a guilty verdict. Has nobody considered that they CANT get a fair trial in NewYork? If I were the Defense I would move to have a change of venue.

Still obvious...<i... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Still obvious...

."Right, because putting Bush and America on trial instead of these folks trumps a guilty verdict. Has nobody considered that they CANT get a fair trial in NewYork? If I were the Defense I would move to have a change of venue."

The only way I can see for the AQ terrorists to be found "not guilty" would be if gross illegal acts and complicity of the Bush administration are uncovered over the course of the trial.

Yes, I agree, that could get these defendants a reduced sentence or possibly set them free. That would be up to a jury of New Yorkers to decide.

Some on the right appear to think that's a distinct possibility, giving them reason to shriek and spittle over the trial being moved to New York.

"The only way I can see for... (Below threshold)
914:

"The only way I can see for the AQ terrorists to be found "not guilty" would be if gross illegal acts and complicity of the Bush administration are uncovered over the course of the trial"

Complicitness would not lessen AQ's guilt Steve Green. The only way out they have is to commit suicide ( alone ), or to get a pardon from Barry the softhearted sympathizer. Either of which is not out of the realm of possibilities with this administration.

The irony that Steve Greene... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

The irony that Steve Greene think people are disrespectful of him...

"...once you acknowledge... (Below threshold)
LorieByrd:

"...once you acknowledge Lorie Byrd's paranoia about having the Bush administration appear to be "on trial" in connection with the AQ New York trials" -- Steve Green

"paranoia"? Really Steve? Maybe you haven't seen all the leftwing websites going on and on about how this trial should be about Bush and "torture." Or maybe you read my comments and you do know about that. Hardly paranoia.

"The only way I can see for the AQ terrorists to be found "not guilty" would be if gross illegal acts and complicity of the Bush administration are uncovered over the course of the trial." -- Steve Green

Sounds like you think they should be found not guilty since they have had to endure such "gross illegal acts." I knew many on the left hated Bush more than they loved this country, but that even surprises me.

But this comment is the win... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

But this comment is the winner for most delusional....

The GOP is supposedly scared of the trial being moved to NY because...

"It wasn't because they were concerned about security -- no no.

And it wasn't because they thought the thugs would get off scot-free - they've been assured that's not the case.

They are afraid of the damage it will do to Republican chances in the 1020 [sic] and 2012 elections. -- Steve Green"

I am not satisfied that you are not joking in this comment, but in the event you are serious or just delusional, or both, I will respond.

Consider this... putting aside all the damage to our national security that could be done from intelligence revelations likely to come out in this trial and the way the public might feel about the Obama administration as a result of their decision to try this in a civilian court opening that intelligence to the public, including our enemies... consider what the public might think about those "gross illegal acts."

The public is going to be reminded of the horror of 9/11 through the trial. They will be reminded of all the lives lost, and of how they felt on that day. They are going to be reminded of how they felt back when Bush had an 85+ percent approval rating. And maybe when they look at it in the context of the reminder of 9/11 they won't think dunking KSM in water is quite so disturbing. They might even start thinking that the current administration's approach to terrorism is ineffectual and not in America's best interest.

Who knows? They might even hear some of the talk from the left that leads them to believe liberals care more about putting BushCo. on trial than putting the terrorists on trial. I wonder what that will do for Obama's popularity or that of Democrats on the ballot next year? This has the potential of not only backfiring on the country's security interests, but on Obama and Democrats.

Maybe if "BushCo." gets beat up on enough those on the left won't mind so much if our security is compromised and even if Democrats pay a price at the polls.

But to claim this will hurt Republicans and that the GOP is shaking in their boots is beyond ridiculous. I have not looked back through the polls, but I don't think the issue of torture or Bush's treatment of terrorists has ever been a problem (popularity or poll wise) for Republicans. The deaths of Americans in Iraq while being told Bush was not doing enough was a source of his popularity drop. The perceived worst economy in the history of the world under Bush was a source of his popularity drop. Runaway spending under Bush was a source of his drop in popularity.

HMMM. Notice a coincidence. Looks like those are all the things that are hurting Obama. And Steve thinks that reminding Americans of 9/11 and how Bush responded to it, including the way Bush treated terrorists, is going to hurt Republicans. Okay, I am sure now. Steve had to be joking. That is just too much to swallow. Even for a teabagger.

Lorie - your diatribe above... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Lorie - your diatribe above assumes that there is nothing damaging that will be revealed about the manner in which BushCo behaved.

And we both know that isn't true, rendering your analysis moot.

This is going to stick it to the Republicans, big time - and that's why you and Malkin and the rest of the right wing nuts are running scared.

If Bush Cheney Gonzales Rumsfeld et al did nothing wrong - some of what you predict might come true.

But you know better.

"Lorie - your diatribe abov... (Below threshold)
914:

"Lorie - your diatribe above assumes that there is nothing damaging that will be revealed about the manner in which BushCo behaved"

Who cares about "Bushco", anymore? Besides You and the handful of AQ Troll supporters on here and scattered about the internet. Its about prosecuting the terrorists for MURDER! Get it thru Your thick skull.

Your mental masturbation over Bush/Cheney/Rove/Palin and all things evil is truly pathetic.

"diatribe" You're so funny... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

"diatribe" You're so funny.

How are we "right wing nuts" "running scared?" I have not gone anywhere. Still here in NC. Still blogging as much as my schedule allows, which has not been nearly enough lately, but can't be helped when one child has had four doctor visits in the past two weeks.

Admittedly Obama's agenda is scary, but we are not running anywhere. We are marching on DC and calling our representatives and doing whatever else we are able to fight Big Government. That is not how I define running scared.

So you say my entire argument is moot because there is no way that "damaging" information will not come out of the trial? Damaging being defined as anything damaging BushCo., not the terrorists, of course. Your definition of damaging is what I am not sure I understand. Does that mean anything that results in charges against BushCo. or information that embarrasses BushCo.?

I don't think anyone can know this, but I would not be so sure that criminal charges against Bush/Cheney would damage the Republican party or even Bush or Cheney when it comes to public opinion. Kind of like how Clinton benefited from doing whatever he did with Lewinsky because the public did not like him being gone after legally or politically for it. I don't think most Americans would appreciate BushCo. being gone after for whatever they did to terrorists. Not only because many Americans will be glad they did what they did because it obviously made America safer (for eight not long enough years), but because anyone with a brain will also realize any action against them will make it harder for future presidents to fight terrorism.

Of course some will think prosecuting Bush for waterdunking KSM would be wonderful and would make us immune from future terrorist attacks because it would make terrorists and other countries like us more so they would not attack us. Anyone who thinks that way was not voting Republican anyway so no "damaging" of the GOP will have occurred.

The Democrats are losing Independents in droves and in record number. That is an indisputable fact if you believe any of the opinion polls are even anywhere close to reliable. Or if you are paying attention to recent elections. Republicans are not the ones running scared. Independents are running from the scary Obama agenda and they are running to the GOP.

Defense Voir Dire question... (Below threshold)
Will:

Defense Voir Dire questionaire

Would you like to serve on the jury Y or N
Cheney and Bush blew up the Twin Towers
True False or I don't know

"So you say my entire ar... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"So you say my entire argument is moot because there is no way that "damaging" information will not come out of the trial?

You seem to struggle with the word damaging. It's in English, I assumed you understood the language in which you write. Of course, there have been times you've given reason to doubt that, but I'll still press on.

"Damaging being defined as anything damaging BushCo., not the terrorists, of course. Your definition of damaging is what I am not sure I understand. Does that mean anything that results in charges against BushCo. or information that embarrasses BushCo.?"

Well, duh. Charges if they are found spurious, won't be damaging. But we're not talking about that.

"So you say my entire argument is moot because there is no way that "damaging" information will not come out of the trial?"

It's really obvious, Lorie. You claim in your diatribe that the move to New York will reveal terrible things about Democrats and Obama and their motives.

And I'm saying that argument is moot because we both know that damaging information will be revealed about the actions of our government at a time of great crisis, and that will take front and center.

And yes, you KNOW that this is going to be a circus and that the GOP is going to take a hit because of Bush's actions. I give you that much credit.

"I don't think anyone can know this, but I would not be so sure that criminal charges against Bush/Cheney would damage the Republican party or even Bush or Cheney when it comes to public opinion."

Criminal charges or not - it'll be damaging. The truth will be damaging to the GOP, no question.

And if you think the information revealed won't be "damaging" then you are as delusional as the GOPers who claimed that the continued heat on Bush in the 2008 elections was nonsense because "Bush isn't running for re-election".

Bush was very much part of the 2008 elections, and if -- no, when -- more is revealed in the course of these trials about the manner Bush and Co behaved in connection with the GWOT that information in turn will have a detrimental effect on the GOPers chances in upcoming elections.

You're smart enough to figure that out, now be honest enough to admit it publicly.

Or continue to deny that the past can predict the future if you wish and spin away. Fantasy and myths are strong medicine among the uniformed and uneducated... but I have absolutely no doubt that you completely understand the "damaging" effects that the truth this is going to have on the GOP.

Do you think anyone will re... (Below threshold)
Trump:

Do you think anyone will really care if we "tortured" the man who masterminded 3000 deaths?

I beg the left to put that proposition out there to the public.

I think people will care, y... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

I think people will care, yes.

Lorie, comment #22 - You ar... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Lorie, comment #22 - You are correct about the Independents running to the GOP, but so are a lot of Dems. The Dems I have talked to recently said they regretted voting for Obama. They say he lied to everyone. So far over 13 people I personally know have confided they regret their decision to "go with the new guy". At least they have the integrity to own-up, unlike some people who refuse to admit they were wrong. They will invent things just to muddle their stance. But, we know what is up.
Madalyn

s green "Lorie - your ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green "Lorie - your diatribe above assumes that there is nothing damaging that will be revealed about the manner in which BushCo behaved.
And we both know that isn't true, rendering your analysis moot."

Yeah because it's all the "rethuglians" fault right green? Oh wait every action taken by the so called BushCo was approved by more than a few dems. Isn't that right nitwit?

And BTW, as usual, you're on the wrong side of this issue.

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Nov. 13-15, 2009

"Now here are some questions about Khalid Sheik Mohammed who may be responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks and who is now in custody at a U.S. military prison in another country: If you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system, or would you rather see him tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces?"

Civilian Court MilitaryCourt Unsure

% % %

11/13-15/09
34 64 2

Go ahead asshole show how all included in tht 64 percent are poor widdle scardy cat rethuglians.

EXIT QUESTION s green.... Why did obama stop, yes stop, the military tribunal of KSM in May this year given he may have been pronounced guilty by now with the very real possibility he would be worm dirt?

Do you think anyon... (Below threshold)
Marc:
Do you think anyone will really care if we "tortured" the man who masterminded 3000 deaths?
In answer to the above s green wrote "I think people will care, yes."

Well they didn't case so much for holder's living in the world of Oz.

"As you may know, Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the U.S. government's use of harsh interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects during the Bush administration. From what you know or have read, do you approve or disapprove of this investigation?"

Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
8/31 - 9/2/09
47 49 4

s green.... psstTh... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green.... psst

The U.S House on a vote of 253-168, passed a bill authorizing Bush to begin military war-crimes trials of suspected terrorists detained at Gitmo.

The Senate passed their version in a 65-34 vote.

Were all those "rethuglians"? Or were there some Dems voting yeah?

And BTW, the tribunals were setup under the direction of the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, that whole rule of law thing that you and your fellow travelers are whining about..

"I think people will care"<... (Below threshold)
Trump:

"I think people will care"

Yeah, they'll care they didn't kill the guy when we had the chance.

But for you I should re-phrase:

"Do you think anyone who places their country ahead of party will care if we tortured the mastermind of 3000 deaths?"

"Do you think anyone who... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"Do you think anyone who places their country ahead of party will care if we tortured the mastermind of 3000 deaths?"

The GWOT was a huge example of Bush and the Republicans putting their party before their country.

The GWOT resulted in the deaths of thousands of American service men and women. It was unnecessary, and unrelated to 9/11.

Anyone who puts country above party recognizes that now. Yet another reason for Republicans to fear an open trial.

And they do. they most clearly do fear a public trial.

Lorie wants you to believe a reason to fear a public trials is because state secrets will be revealed.

She's trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

s green "And they do. ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green "And they do. they most clearly do fear a public trial."

Halloween is over. Quit masquerading opinion as fact.

Empirical proof of your allegation please.

Oh, and BTW. The current meme by dem apologists of obama and holder contend all terror related trials brought to Fed courts have been won.

It's a big FAT lie.

more blather from s green ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

more blather from s green "Lorie wants you to believe a reason to fear a public trials is because state secrets will be revealed."

What you overlook, or ignorant of:

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that criminal trials be open to the public and that the evidence be presented publicly.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that if the government seeks to bring criminal charges against an individual, it must reveal the factual basis for those charges -- even when that would require disclosing sensitive national security information. The government has the choice whether to continue to protect such information or bring criminal charges, but it may not do both.

Well then, considering they are bring the cases to trial it appears as if protection of sensitive info has taken a back seat.

BTW, Both the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial require the dismissal of criminal charges if the government refuses to provide the defendant with discovery of all relevant information and to allow admissible evidence to be presented. In other words, there is no privilege to withhold classified information in criminal trials.

What say you asswipe?

This is why the left is lik... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

This is why the left is like this. They have no core. No belief. Their favorite color is plaid. They are more worried about what others will think of them. One of their spokes people, Charlie Sheen is held in high regard to people like Stevie Green.

I will correct Stevie about one thing, I do not know any conservatives who are afraid of anything. A very brave lot. Now liberals are afraid of Rush, Fox News, strong women, etc. Proven many times over.

I say let the trials begin. More will be revealed about the left's hating our country then anything else. Go for it. ww

"I say let the trials be... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"I say let the trials begin."

Me too. Let the good people of New York decide the right and wrong of all of this. I'll stand by their decision.

Vic

I say let the trials begin ... (Below threshold)
Trump:

I say let the trials begin also. You lefties deserve what you're gonna get.

Moronic Marc:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

Moronic Marc:

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that criminal trials be open to the public and that the evidence be presented publicly.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that if the government seeks to bring criminal charges against an individual, it must reveal the factual basis for those charges -- even when that would require disclosing sensitive national security information. The government has the choice whether to continue to protect such information or bring criminal charges, but it may not do both.

Well then, considering they are bring the cases to trial it appears as if protection of sensitive info has taken a back seat.

Blather, blather blather - and bullshit.

Facts.

Zacarias Moussaoui was a clown who could not keep his mouth shut, according to his old al-Qaida boss, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. But Moussaoui was surprisingly tame when tried for the 9/11 attacks -- never turning the courtroom into the circus of anti-U.S. tirades that some fear Mohammed will create at his trial in New York.

And that wasn't the only surprise during Moussaoui's six-week 2006 sentencing trial here -- a proceeding that might foreshadow how the upcoming 9/11 trial in New York will go.

Skeptics who feared prosecutors would be hamstrung by how much evidence was secret were stunned at the enormous amount of classified data that was scrubbed, under pressure from the judge, into a public version acceptable to both sides.

Anyone who thinks a Federal Judge is going to disclose state secrets in these trials is an A-1 moron.

Marc gets hit with the stupid stick, again.

Sad.

Vic

Yes, I agree, that could... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Yes, I agree, that could get these defendants a reduced sentence or possibly set them free. That would be up to a jury of New Yorkers to decide.

Some on the right appear to think that's a distinct possibility, giving them reason to shriek and spittle over the trial being moved to New York.

Shit, they can't even convict "Junior" Gotti after four RICO trials. And you think I have faith in the New York court system?

If the "fix" is in, why not just have the military tribunal, where it should be?

But Moussaoui was surpri... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

But Moussaoui was surprisingly tame when tried for the 9/11 attacks -- never turning the courtroom into the circus of anti-U.S. tirades that some fear Mohammed will create at his trial in New York.

Well, Khalid is anything but tame when it comes to his views.

Perhaps people should be reminded of all the things that Khalid has planned or have been involved in...it ain't just 9/11:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed

WTC 1993
Operation Bojinka (which resulted in the test bombing of Philipines Flight 434)
The Reid shoe bombing (ordered by KSM)
The Daniel Pearl murder
The Bali Bombing (indirectly implicated)

Further plots in the works (confessed by him):
A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major U.S. landmarks after the 9/11 attacks, including the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank Building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York

Plots to attack oil tankers and U.S. naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore

A plan to blow up the Panama Canal

Plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter

A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York City

A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago with burning fuel trucks

Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London

A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand

A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other U.S. financial targets

A plan to destroy buildings in Eilat, Israel
Plans to destroy U.S. embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan in 2002.

Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia
Surveying and financing an attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok
Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them

The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya

The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport in Kenya
Plans to attack U.S. targets in South Korea
Providing financial support for a plan to attack U.S., British and Jewish targets in Turkey

Surveillance of U.S. nuclear power plants in order to attack them

A plot to attack NATO's headquarters in Europe
Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets


It goes on an on.

No, KSM won't be silent. This is his spotlight. He not some little cog like Z was, he's the Don.

vic "Blather, blather ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

vic "Blather, blather blather - and bullshit."

Geesh vic quotes my quote of the Supreme Court and the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that's your response.

Shows where your sympathies lie.

That said, nitwit, it may NOT be under a Federal Judge purview. Dependent on what KSM and or his shysters request he will have no choice but to follow the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment.

As for your ref to Zacarias Moussaoui, nice try.

Zacarias Moussaoui was nothing more than the lowest of the low. A foot soldier, and one dumb enough to die for a radical nonsensical cause.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed won't go silent into the night, as James Cloninger says KSM is the Don.

He has the opportunity to spout his hatefull ideology on a world wide stage. To think he won't is delusional. At best.

Flat out stupid at worst.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed w... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed won't go silent into the night, as James Cloninger says KSM is the Don.

Saddam Hussein was jibber-jabbering from his trial right up to the point where he dropped down the gallows.


You think KSM's gonna go gentle into that good night?

"That said, nitwit, it m... (Below threshold)
Victory is Ours:

"That said, nitwit, it may NOT be under a Federal Judge purview. "

It may not? Why? Uhm, because Moronic Marc says so?

Of course it will. You're an idiot. No wonder everyone else ignores you.

Vic

Witnesses for KSM= Van Jone... (Below threshold)
eaglewingz08:

Witnesses for KSM= Van Jones currently on hiatus, Anita Dunn who could quote from one of her favorite philosophers, Mark Lloyd, Obama's diversity czar, Bill Maher and Joy Behar, don't forget, Chrissy Matthews and Mr. Overbite and Ms. Madcow

Oh, and Michael Moore and H... (Below threshold)
eaglewingz08:

Oh, and Michael Moore and Hugo Chavez and Mr. Amamadjihadi of Iran would be great character witnesses for the defendants. Also expect Condi Rice George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and George Tenet to be subpoened. As they are out of office, one wonders what a liberal judge on the SDNY will do when a motion to quash is brought.

vic "It may not? Why? ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

vic "It may not? Why? Uhm, because Moronic Marc says so?"

Uhm, no you mental midget.

Because, and O posted, and you ignore because you have no counter argument other than playground level invective...

the Supreme Court has said if the government seeks to bring criminal charges against an individual, it must reveal the factual basis for those charges -- even when that would require disclosing sensitive national security information.

The government has the choice whether to continue to protect such information or bring criminal charges, but it may not do both.

And BTW vic if I had my choice, you'd be either the gov's prosecutor or one of the jurors.

Lotsa luck keeping your ass safe for the remainder of your miserable life.

The sail-eared simpleton's ... (Below threshold)

The sail-eared simpleton's and his consigliere's decision to .... bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other bloody terrorists to New York, for "trial" (of what we are not sure) is ABSOLUTELY the most irresponsible motivated by politics action ever taken by even a pretender to what passes as a "presidency" whenever "Democrats" are involved.

Because the action spells immediate unprecedented danger for our nation's security, it trumps even the Billy-Bubbah Blythe ("Cli'ton") Gang's for Pennies on the dollar transfer to the impeached and disbarred one's Peking predator owners of more than a Trillion Dollars worth of our nation's most closely guarded nuclear, aerospace, military and computer secrets.

We will rid our nation of the bumbling buffoons at 1600 Pennsylvania -- or they will rid the world of us!

My husband and I are retire... (Below threshold)
Really Concerned:

My husband and I are retired military. He was in the Pentagon during the attack. As were hundreds of our Navy family. I lost friends and spent the next few weeks working in the Family Asssitance Center supporting the families of the victims...
None of that was as scarey as the crap you people are pitching.
Don't talk about National Security and the Constitution when you're blinded by your political hatred. Really. You can't pretend to care about things so totally unpolitical when you're swinging your bats from so far over on your side of the isle. I'm talking to both sides.

Lorie Byrdbrain poses but y... (Below threshold)
Bob Hauser:

Lorie Byrdbrain poses but yet another example of the classic main sewer stream American media maggot...a scribbler of her ilk would have had similarly vacuous comments to make about Smedley Darlington Butler, the single most highly decorated officer in the entire history of the Corps, back in 1935 when he wrote his thesis, WAR IS A RACKET...at considerable risk to his career, Sheen is likewise stepping into the breach and asking obvious questions that the single most bald facedly lying and corrupt administration this country has been cursed with since FDR has yet to proffer any answer to let far alone a straight and honest one.
If the CIA can so blithely engage in random torture (which in flat refutation of Byrd's LIES) does NOT reveal information of any meaningful strategic value according to a number of military experts) then so can the intelligence agencies of our enemies...and trust me, they will.
Her use of the derogatory term "truther" alone speaks volumes about Lorie Byrd and the test tube she crawled out of

America's two party system ... (Below threshold)
Bob Hauser:

America's two party system is nothing more than a long snake with two very ugly rat faces, one at each end....BOTH the phlegmocrats and the gopsters have gleefully taken their turns sodomizing the people of this country bow legged out of their lives, estates and their Constitutional rights...as some said during the Civil War, a pox on both your houses. I believe that any bureaucrat, no matter how lofty their title, who violates his or her sworn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, should be dragged out into the streets and beaten into something unrecognizable...they did that back during the Hsia Dynasty in China and it might just be the most salubrious measure for this country right now to institute that practice right here in the "good ole" freedom loving US of A...ah, but you say, that would be against the "law"...well, funniest god damned thing, the CIA's engaging in torture happens to be in flat violation of XVIII USC 2340 (a)....breaking the law is a game two or more of us can play...and when the working class people of America have been pushed over the limit by fat salaried self-serving bureaucrats in high office who arrogantly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, then who in the Hell are you to complain when we take the LAW into our own hands and forcefully and violently restore the Constitution as the supreme law of this land? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander last I heard.




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