BTW, whose isn't?
It’s possible, now that the Justice Department has decided to try KSM and four other detainees in federal district court in New York. The problem, of course, is that the Bush Administration trampled all over the Constitution during KSM’s confinement, repeatedly torturing him (183 acts of waterboarding in a month that we know about) until he finally confessed to everything, including the beheading of Daniel Pearle.
So we have great evidence against him but it likely will all be excluded as the product of the torture. It is also totally unclear precisely what constitutional rights the guy will be afforded. It would be almost comical if not so tragic. (“You have the right to be silent, Mr. Mohammed, but if you are we’re going to torture you.” “Any thing you say can be used against you in a court of law, unless its classified.” ).
Presumably, the Justice Department has concluded that KSM did not have a right to a speedy trial (It’s been about 8 years since we snatched him) and that it has sufficient evidence from third parties to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
Can an impartial jury be seated in New York? Will the case be decided at voir dire depending on whether just one Muslim can make it to the final 12? What big names from the Bush Admin will be subpoenaed by the defense attys? Will swift justice be served as Mr. Obama has promised, or are we in for years of appeals? What now obscure defense atty is headed to stardom?
What will the “we just want to move forward” crowd think about this? Will the fair and balanced Fox News report this decision objectively and professionally?
Okay, I can only answer the last two.
Obama and Holder are doing this because it is the only way they can make Bush look bad since they will never proscecute him.
Holder is an idiot and Obama a fool not allowing for KSM to be tried in a miltary court but allowing the Cole bomber to be tried in one.
ACLU pressure probably too so it is politcal as well.
I bet if you took a vote from NYers they would say Obama is wrong on this stupid decision and yep it will be delayed . Hope NY is not hit during this time or THE ONE will really be done.
What crock are you feeding?
Historically, war criminals are not brought to trial until hostilities have ended. Then, they are tried by military tribunals. KSM should be rotting in Guantanamo for many long years. So, is he a war criminal, enemy combatant, or a common criminal? Appears to me, Obama and Holder view him as a common criminal, to be tried in the federal court system.
for lawyers in New York. Of course, Sheik Mohammed's constitutional rights were circumvented, because he has none. 9-11 was act of war. Read the 9-11 Commission Report and their recommendation on a Global Strategy to fight terrorsim.
The trial in New York will be a circus, a security nightmare and waste of taxpayer money. IN the legal system only the lawyers profit. What benefit is bringing Shiek Muhammed to New York. He should remain locked up in Gitmo, for the rest of his life being waterboarded. Liek Clint Eastwood said in Dirty Harry: "I'm really sorry about his damn civil rights".
3,000 Americans were killed on 9-11. Now Obama wants to fight Terrorism in bureaucratic law enforcement nightmare of appeals and bullshit. Eric Holder is idiot. We are providing these enemies of America the biggest stage in the world to promote their ideology of hate and violence. Essentially, what Obama is doing is handcuffing our security forces from protecting us.
What is Obama going to do in Afghanistan, send lawyers from legal-aid to teach Al Qaida of their rights? ..and Maj. Hasan should be hung from the highest tree at Ft. Hood.
I am wondering what side is Obama on? I never thought I say that in my lifetime about a commander-in-chief.
Yep, and announcing this about KSM overseas made me lose even more respect for Obama .
I bet the trial will not happen for 3 years or more.
There are three things no one talked about in the discussions I have heard.
1) The death penalty. Seeking the death penalty will make everyone hate us. W. Europe and our other "allies" are very anti-death penalty, so if KHS gets the hot seat, they will be pissed.
Ditto the Arab world. If he is convicted and executed, can you spell "martyr?"
2. WHAT IF he is acquitted? You never know what a jury will do. A jury has the right to acquit in spite of all the evidence. They are allowed to reach an irrational decision. Get the wrong people on the panel and it's OJ city. To be fair, it is Robert Blake. (Maybe they can get an L.A. jury. Ooops.)
Okay, libs who favored trying him, if he is acquitted, do you favor releasing him?
Remember, criminal conviction requires "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is still possible that he "did it" but it can't be proven by that standard. If he it is proven "by a preponderance" the jury won't decide that question, and he will be acquitted, even though it is more likely than not that he did it.
3)A crim defendant has the absolute right to represent himself if asserted in a timely manner. The problem is that those cases turn out to be a farce, since the defendant has no idea what he is doing. If KSM wants to represent himself, he can make a farce of our system and become a martyr.
That will make the world admire us.
There is one solution to this stupid situation. He is very over weight and under a lot of stress.
If he happens to have a heart attack and dies suddenly, it will save a lot of grief. They should have one of J. Gotti's people transferred to the jail.
The people who reached this decision are lawyers who work in the higher ranks and don't remember the reality of trial life. Good luck.
It’s not required that this trial take place in New York. Isn’t it the Obama crowd that has been beating the drum that we’ve been doing all the wrong things that have been making us less safe? So from an antagonistic aspect, New York’s the worst place to hold this trial. What’s the purpose to hold it there?
and you will have your answer. It is constitutionally required at least insofar as they are trying him for 9/11.
...legal expertise, but then you admit his legal reasoning is colored by his political motivations.
BTW, whose isn't?
as a present. You are going to be so surprised at what's in there....
court and the other five by a military commission. Although Bill O'Reilly insisted that the only sane approach is to try all by a military commission (and I kind of agree with that), there is a huge difference between the two tribunals as far as evidence is concerned. For example, hearsay is generally admissible before a commission, and it is easier to present classified evidence there as opposed to a jury.
In short, it is much easier to be convicted by a commission and I would expect the detainees arbitrarily assigned to this mode to file some kind of lawsuit to get the same rights as KSM - a criminal jury trial. At the same time, DOJ must have concluded it has strong admissible evidence against the ones tried in court.
As to KSM, is he still overweight after 8 years in captivity and 3 years in Gitmo? Or do you think it is just water weight?
to try the perpatrators of the US Cole in a military tribunal? There is no constitency.
Bush was right; we are at war and we cannot apply the court of law against these jihadists.
What kind of message does this send to jihadists around the world? Kill Americans get a trial, get on TV, and receive accolades of heroism. This is like a bad reality TV show.
-- Modified on 11/14/2009 12:21:39 AM
The reason he is trying some in military and some in civilian is political. If he can try some in one, which ever one that is, there is no LEGAL reason not to try all there. That leaves the political.
If their conclusion was it would be easier to try some in civilian court than others, they are dumber than I thought.
The one thing I have learned in 30 years in the biz is you don't know what is going to happen. One juror with an agenda. A defendant who wants to die. A judge with a political bent, and I will grant either way, and judges are more human than they are computers. The bigger the trial, the more chance of screw ups.
Even assuming they get a conviction, this case creates a UNIQUE problme with appeal. Namely,
the law recognizes that trials are made of people and they are not perfect. Therefore, not every mistake merits a reversal. Thus, there can be a lot of minor errors and the case will be affirmed on appeal.
HOWEVER, and here is the kicker, if that happens the world will be analyzing this case. "New Europe," which HATES the death penalty will be apoplectic. They will see the mistakes and they won't be discussing them in terms of "reversible eror." They will be saying, "There were a lot of mistakes. How can the Terrible, Big, Bad U.S. kill a man after a trial with some many errors. What a Bad, Bad, Bad country. Just like Chad."
This trial will never make us look good.
Possible motive?
It is pretty easy to figure out. The Cole attack took place overseas against a military target, thus a military trial. The 9/11 attacks were occurred on US soil with civilian victims so a federal criminal court trial is appropriate.
Actually flying an airplane into the Pentagon is as military as you can get 
and charge him with other allegations. What a F#*&#NG circus! This could on forever. I really am begining to see the wisdom why President Bush had these terrorists locked up in Gitmo.
I am also beginning to wonder if these "trials" are meant to keep us entertained while we go through 10 percent unemployment. Am I being too cynical?
-- Modified on 11/14/2009 12:11:39 AM
Then the question is do you try him again on new charges?
There are cases that say you have to bring related charges together and can't split up causes of action and go at it seriatim. Raises due process concerns. No firm guidelines, but a lot of case law favoring appellants.
Now he is re-arrested, and his attorney files a motion to dismiss.
"Well, counsel," says the judge, "Why didn't your bring these other charges in the first trial?"
"Your honor," replied Mr. Esq., "We were keeping them in reserve in case he was acquitted."
"Doesn't that violate the rule against seriatim prosecutions, counsel?"
Or they try him on the new charges, and the judge denies the motion to dismiss. Now, the same problems still exists as you had before, but worse, since now he has a more credible claim of prosecutorial misconduct and vindictive prosecution. That may swing the wild card juror.
Option 3. So they decide to re-arrest him, but not try him. That is back to Square One, where we were 4 years ago, namely, you can't hold him without a trial.
If you are talking asking me, my alternative would be traditional.
Every nation has always had the right to detain enemies without trial "for the duration."
None of the million Germans, Japanese, or Italians that were captured had a trial during the war. There were no motions in court.
This is not just for "declared" wars. The Civil War was never declared by the Senate as a war, but the same thing happened.
In fact, most conflicts have not been declared wars, but the same rule applied, and until Bush no one in the world ever questioned it.
It is not just here. This is a universal rule of war. How many American or Brits in Stalag 17 had a trial? Zero. Did McCain have a trial? If McCain did not have a trial when he was a POW, why didn't the UN protest?
Name your war. There have always been two choices with POWs: 1) hold them for the duration; 2) kill them.
The answer is what had been done since the Romans stopped crucifying the captured enemy.
If you don't believe it, name one president before Bush where this became an issue. (And don't go there. It is irrelevant to this issue if he lied and his granddaddy owns Standard Oil. I am just talking about the right of a nation to hold enemy combatants, no matter how they got into the war.)
with special rules to try the detainees. For example, that is what they did with the bankruptcy courts. Congress could specify the rights these guys have before the trial and could provide for a streamlined procedure with broader rules of evidence.
Failing that, the military commission is the better option. Anything but a circus trial where the judge has to make things up on the spot guarantying years of appeals.
Put him in the general population in prison, and someone will shank him before he ever reaches trial!
Where were you when Bush was the POTUS?
Creative.
If they're guilty of real crimes, then they can possibly be let go.
Considering how bad the Bushies screwed up the due process in this case, he SHOULD be let go.