Patterico asks an interesting question
Our friends on the left are (mostly) elated that some of the high-value prisoners being held in Guantanamo will be brought to the United States and given a fair trial in federal court. But a fair trial includes the possibility that the defendant will be acquitted!
“If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Is Acquitted, President Obama, Will You Release Him?”
That is a question President Obama will never answer.
If Obama were to answer yes, he would not be re-elected. The answer would haunt him and damage him irrevocably.
What if Obama were to answer no? Allahpundit is convinced that, if Obama were somehow forced to answer the question, that’s what his answer would be — meaning that the trial would be a sham:
There’s no way they’re letting KSM go. It doesn’t matter what the verdict is or what the judge decides; for reasons of pure national and political survival, Obama and Holder will find a way to reimprison this scum if the trial somehow ends up in acquittal. Which means this is actually the opposite of due process. It’s a stacked deck, right from the get go. So why even bother playing cards?
There is no good answer to the question, which is why they will never answer it. I told Jake Tapper tonight that he ought to ask it and he replied: “ive asked Gibbs that before; they refuse to say one way or another.”
Just what would President Obama do if Khalid Sheikh Muhammad or one of the other top terrorists was acquitted? Remember, in federal court, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, using only the evidence which can be admitted into a court of law, the defendant’s guilt.
Eric:
That’s an excellent statement! On top of that, there’s the almost certainty that the defense will introduce evidence of waterboarding and other CIA interrogation methods, not to mention the role various Bush Admin people had in approving them. Ultimately, that seems to be the goal for Obama and Holder, namely, that this is more about embarrassing Bush, Cheney & Co than it is about seeking justice against the terrorists.
14 November 2009, 11:41 amropelight:
What happens when the suicide bombers go to work on the subways, the bridges, bus stations, and street corners of Manhattan? To what lengths will homegrown wannabes like Hasan go to prove their loyalty to jihad?
What happens when radical Imams in mosques dotted around the country call on the faithful to rise up and strike against the infidels?
So, in order not to waste a crisis, what unconstitutional solutions will Barack Hussein Obama offer America for dealing with the crisis he made?
14 November 2009, 12:37 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
Ah. So what you’re saying is that this man is so terryifying, so pant-wettingly frightening to you, that the Constitution means nothing.
14 November 2009, 4:55 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Pooter, since the Constitution of the United States covers US citizens and not terrorists outside the US, and definitely not military targets, what are you talking about? Are you saying you want to invite them to live in your home?
14 November 2009, 5:58 pmSharon:
The whole point of trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York is to force the intelligence community to either (a) divulge important and valuable information about how we track down terrorists (a real boon to the terrorists) or (b) not be able to provide the necessary evidence to convict this monster in a court of law. And, of course, it is a backdoor way for Obama & Co. to continue screaming that “It’s Bush’s fault!”, since doing so directly has gotten so old hat nobody is listening (or believing it) anymore.
We have had the first terrorist attack on American soil in the shootings at Fort Hood. Better change the subject, our mighty POTUS says. Time to throw some red meat at the moonbats.
14 November 2009, 5:58 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Pooter, what’s your problem with military tribunals?
14 November 2009, 5:59 pmSharon:
Maybe we should treat them the way FDR did.
14 November 2009, 5:59 pmYorkshire:
Dana:
Remember, in federal court, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, using only the evidence which can be admitted into a court of law, the defendant’s guilt.
There’s the giant hole that will be in the Gummint’s case. First question? Were they given their Miranda rights? Bet not. Then the judge throws out all conversations between the Sheik and Gummint. Then what??? Personally, I bet there is a high chance of acquittal based on actions of how the military works and civilian police. Hope the Gummint has tons of untainted evidence that would stand up in Federal Court versus the UCMJ.
14 November 2009, 8:02 pmDana Pico:
This proves one maxim: you should never take anyone prisoner unless you are prepared to see him released one day.
15 November 2009, 9:31 amPerry:
Phoenician:“Ah. So what you’re saying is that this man is so terryifying, so pant-wettingly frightening to you, that the Constitution means nothing.”
The Bill of Rights applies to US citizens, so technically, it would not apply to KSM.
“Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants.” h/t Wiki on “Military Tribunals”
In a perfect world, I would want the Bill of Rights to apply to foreign nationals tried for crimes committed on our soil.
However, it is a valid point that 9/11 was an act of war, and that KSM is alleged to be the mastermind behind it. Therefore, using a military tribunal seems appropriate.
An additional consideration is the concern that a civil trial in NYC, or anywhere, would attract terrorists like bees to honey, as happened when we invaded Iraq. Obviously, we should avoid this.
Finally, there is the concern that a technicality could throw the case out, so that an otherwise guilty man would be set free.
Even the Constitution is not an absolute, such that peculiar circumstances require unusual decisions, of which this is one, in my view. Also, this is why we have a Supreme Court.
Therefore, I am against Holder’s decision for a civil trial in NYC for KSM, that a military tribunal would be the best decision. I hope that Obama overrules his Justice Dept on this one, not for political reasons, but for doing what’s right in this unusual case.
15 November 2009, 12:16 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Perry, RE: Your remark 15NOV09, 12:16 pm: You are dangerously close to joining us wingnuts. I gotta say I’m 90+ percent in agreement. And where I would disagree would be mainly on the periphery, so it’s not all that important.
15 November 2009, 1:15 pmEric:
Agreed 100%. As someone once said, “The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact”.
15 November 2009, 1:27 pmropelight:
Don’t kid yourself, this isn’t Holder’s decision, and it’s more than ignorant to pretend differently. This debacle is way above his pay grade. Holder is fulfilling his usual role as the fall guy, the patsy for Obama’s unconscionable desire to provide a stage for a terrorist theatre of the absurd.
Obama gets to avoid the consequences of putting on a show trial at ground zero, and Holder gets set-up as the idiot responsible. Will he get a Supreme Court nomination for his loyalty, or a knife in the back? Even Holder doesn’t know the answer to that question yet. This entire mess would be a obscene joke if the stakes weren’t so high.
PS: This isn’t Holder’s first time as a doormat, he took the rap for Bill Clinton’s corrupt decision to take a big fat bribe from Marc Rich, and now the always reliable Holder is carrying Obama’s water. Likely, he’ll drown in it.
15 November 2009, 1:29 pmDana Pico:
Actually, the Bill of Rights does apply to everyone on our soil, from Barack Obama to John Hitchcock to — if we are really foolish enough to bring him here — Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.
There is no way on God’s green earth that Attorney General Eric Holder took this decision without consultation with, and approval from, President Obama.
The problem is that the Obama Administration is converting the September 11th attack back from an act of war to a crime, away from responding to an act of war with military action, to responding to a crime by sending in the police.
15 November 2009, 1:32 pmDana Pico:
Re: Military tribunals. These were a bad idea, because, as nk pointed out on Patterico,
We’ve used novel methods like tribunals before: the war crimes trials in Nuremberg and Tokyo were simply fanciful constructs, a way for the winners to hang the losers. We could use them again, if need be, but we don’t really need to do so.
Of course, the Geneva Conventions also provided a mechanism: men not in uniform and lacking any type of identifying insignia who attack the armed forces can be considered spies, and summarily executed. When you take someone prisoner, you must be prepared for the possibility that he will one day have to be freed. Neither President Bush nor Obama had any flaming idea what to do with some really bad guys who can’t ever be released, but who you may not be able to avoid releasing.
15 November 2009, 1:41 pmPhoenician in a time of Romans:
As someone once said, “The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact”.
Ah, so this one man is capable of destroying the entire United States?
However, it is a valid point that 9/11 was an act of war, and that KSM is alleged to be the mastermind behind it. Therefore, using a military tribunal seems appropriate.
If that was the case, shouldn’t you have given him the full rights he deserved under the Geneva Conventions?
The simple fact is that the Bush Administration panicked, and resorted to torture, tainting any chance of a criminal conviction. And now the Obama Administration is flailing around trying to clean up the mess.
If you’re going to trump up reasons to prosecute this man despite shitting over every right he had under criminal law, then at least have the decency to also push for the prosecution of everyone who committed or ordered torture in your name.
15 November 2009, 3:22 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Pooter blathers ignorantly:
Mr Pico already destroyed Pooter’s idiocy before Pooter even said anything.
15 November 2009, 3:38 pmYorkshire:
Who is BO answering to, to do this to NYC? If he wins, the terrorists will say it’s a show trial and the fix was in. Or if he loses, he will have turned a madman on the loose. If you are a juror, is the thought of the producer of 2012 on your mind? If you are a juror, will the thought of a Fatwa placed on you if you convict on your mind. Will there be some kind of escape attempt from the outside? Of all the dumb moves BO has made, this is the dumbest.
15 November 2009, 4:08 pmJohn Hitchcock:
Nah, BHO and Holder and that ilk know exactly what they’re doing: destroying US Intel operations. It all boils down to the destruction of the US’ ability to fight against these creatures.
15 November 2009, 4:13 pmGretchen:
Along with the obvious dangers and challenges of holding the trials in NYC, the cost to the taxpayers will be prohibitive. The cost of the 1997 defense of Tim McVeigh, the convicted bomber of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City was $13,780,835.83. That doesn’t include the cost of security around the Denver courthouse during the trial or the cost of having to shut down a number of businesses near that courthouse during the trial. And McVeigh’s case was almost easy to prove because of the overwhelming evidence accumulated to prove his guilt.
I can’t even imagine how much it will cost US taxpayers to defend and try the terror suspects transported to NYC. I imagine the costs will run into the billions–unnecessarily enormous costs for what is stacking up to be little more than a political decision that has the potential of backfiring disastrously.
15 November 2009, 4:24 pmEric:
Oh, I agree with this 1000%. But it goes beyond dumb, and enters the realm of the both the vindictive and the cowardly. The only motive I can see for this move is Obama wants to embarrass the Bush Admin over Gitmo and the rest, but they don’t have the guts to do so openly, so they’ve set up a situation where a bunch of defense lawyers will do it for them.
15 November 2009, 7:10 pmPerry:
Phoenician:“If that was the case, shouldn’t you have given him [KSM] the full rights he deserved under the Geneva Conventions?”
Yes!
“If you’re going to trump up reasons to prosecute this man despite shitting over every right he had under criminal law, then at least have the decency to also push for the prosecution of everyone who committed or ordered torture in your name.”
Again, since KSM’s actions constituted an act of war, he does not come under criminal law, rather he comes under military law, which is why he should be tried by a military tribunal.
Regarding war crimes committed by US officials, these people should be investigated by the Justice Department and prosecuted in a court of law, if justified by the evidence. The rule of law is the rule of law, independent of the rank of the alleged criminals.
The International Criminal Court also has jurisdiction over war crimes. However, due to an act of the Bush Administration in 2001, we no longer are planning to sign the treaty, the outcome of the Rome Statute. Congress also passed the “American Service-Members’ Protection Act of 2002, which restricts U.S. interaction with the ICC and its state parties, and seeking Article 98 agreements to preclude nations from surrendering, extraditing, or transferring U.S. persons to the ICC or third countries for that purpose without U.S. consent.”
On this subject of the US position regarding the International Criminal Court, this article is worth a read.
15 November 2009, 9:48 pmYorkshire:
From Comment #8 above:
There’s the giant hole that will be in the Gummint’s case. First question? Were they given their Miranda rights? Bet not. Then the judge throws out all conversations between the Sheik and Gummint. Then what??? Personally, I bet there is a high chance of acquittal based on actions of how the military works and civilian police. Hope the Gummint has tons of untainted evidence that would stand up in Federal Court versus the UCMJ.
Every opinion show I bumped into today asked the above question. A step further is this appears the way BO can blame Bush again. And what happens when the terrorists get into the documents against them. HMMMM, all the ways and names of CIA operatives. Then the Shiek will do what BO won’t do, put the CIA on trial.
This is the dumbest of dumb moves by BO. BO will say Holder did it to keep his arms length distance from this fiasco. Because we all know nothing is BO’s fault.
16 November 2009, 8:33 pmJohnC.:
My question is on whom will the peace loving Moslems place the Fatwa first: the judge, the prosecuting lawyers or the individual infidels of the jury? And who will protect them from said fatwa from the religion of peace? And if the fatwa should be successful, who will prosecute those who executed it? Will the defense lawyers demand that any jury of peers include six Moslems? I hope they serve BLT’s for lunch.
16 November 2009, 9:11 pmYorkshire:
Some Fear Bush Administration Could Become Target in 9/11 Trial
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/14/view-pending-trial-attempt-prosecute-bush-administration/
16 November 2009, 9:34 pmJohnC.:
And either Haberset’s scrapple or Taylor pork roll for breakfast.
16 November 2009, 9:54 pmJohnC.:
Yorkshire, your link gave me an unsetteling feeling. Seems like Obama/Holder could be using the KSM trials as a back door way to go after Bush/Cheney et al. Kind of a smokescreen to deny a witch hunt but obtain the same results by claiming it’s the justice system, not them. Sort of a Pontius Pilate thing where their hands are clean.
16 November 2009, 10:40 pmOther Dana:
My question is on whom will the peace loving Moslems place the Fatwa first: the judge, the prosecuting lawyers or the individual infidels of the jury? And who will protect them from said fatwa from the religion of peace? And if the fatwa should be successful, who will prosecute those who executed it? Will the defense lawyers demand that any jury of peers include six Moslems?
My questions/concerns, too. What assurances can the government give jurors for their safety not only during the trial, but for the rest of their lives? Or will selected jurors be given an opt-out for fear of reprisal? But perhaps they have that already planned out: every selected juror automatically is entered into the Witness Protection program. Immediately at the conclusion of the trial, their new identities will be provided.
16 November 2009, 11:02 pmJohnC.:
Wouldn’t it be ironic if the four or five defendants got off on Constitutional issues but the jury was forced to leave their families, friends, jobs and businesses to go into witness protecton and be dispersed all over the country to protect them?
Then the lefists would really get a tingle up their leg if the entire previous administration (that’s regime to blu) was either executed or imprisoned for crimes against humanity from the Pres to the FBI, CIA, NSA and ICE. Then they could put all the greedy Repubs in re-education camps, confiscate their assets and buy cars, homes and health care for all their victims. Ah, justice at last.
16 November 2009, 11:19 pmYorkshire:
JohnC.:
Yorkshire, your link gave me an unsetteling feeling. Seems like Obama/Holder could be using the KSM trials as a back door way to go after Bush/Cheney et al. Kind of a smokescreen to deny a witch hunt but obtain the same results by claiming it’s the justice system, not them. Sort of a Pontius Pilate thing where their hands are clean.
BO is always trying for the Immaculate Perception, he’s not the one who did it, it was others, blame them. Unfortunately, a lot have caught on to his deniability with fingerprints. Holder is taking the fall under the bus if necessary and BO will say I had nothing to do with it.
17 November 2009, 7:23 amPerry:
JohnC, you are delusional on this point, and Yorktown has picked up on your delusion with a straw man. Not impressive! However, regarding war crimes, the precedent is to go after only the top officials involved; we already know who they are!
other Dana: You are asking an important question, one of many that bother me greatly about this decision by AG Eric Holder. I am hopeful that he will change his mind.
17 November 2009, 9:40 amYorkshire:
Perry:
JohnC, you are delusional on this point, and Yorktown has picked up on your delusion with a straw man. Not impressive!
But had we had a discussion in mid 2001 that terrorists would fly planes into buildings, would you have called us delusional?
What about Salmon Rushdie hiding in fear of his life? How about Van Gogh the filmmaker stabbed to death in Holland for making a perceived anti-muslim film? What about the riots after the Danish cartoons all through the Muddled East? And what about the producer of 2012 out of the same fear omitted the destruction of anything islamic? Where they delusional? It’s not a straw man, it’s a dead man and men hiding in fear.
17 November 2009, 9:54 amOther Dana:
other Dana: You are asking an important question, one of many that bother me greatly about this decision by AG Eric Holder. I am hopeful that he will change his mind.
Because I think this is a sneaky way to get out torture testimony, etc., and to essentially implicate the Bush administration (and open him up to charges from a world court), I don’t think anyone is going to change their mind. There is far, far more at stake here than just the fate of KSM. Call me cynical, but on it’s face this decision absolutely makes no sense. We will all have to wait and see….
17 November 2009, 8:03 pmYorkshire:
For two alleged lawyers in Holder, and BO, they keep prejudging the supposed Civilian Trial of KSM saying the outcome will be Guilty, and the Death Sentence. How much more boastful can these two be? No trial’s outcome is assured in anyway. Re: OJ Simpson. But if any acquital, Holder said he won’t be freed.
A Rookie Defense Attorney can pick this apart. The ACLU has to be salivating over this.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C1VP3O0&show_article=1
18 November 2009, 7:06 pm