Can they really be this dumb?
In a story which hasn’t gotten as much attention as it should have, the too-neglected Democracy Project site noted this story from the New York Post:
Germans weasel in on 9/11 trial
By Adam Nichols
Last Updated: 10:50 AM, November 22, 2009Fearing for the lives of the 9/11 fiends, the German government will send a team of observers to the New York terror trials to make sure evidence by its agents doesn’t lead to the death penalty.
Germany, which bans the death penalty, will have a team at the trial of admitted atrocity mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his al Qaeda henchmen. The evidence gathered by German investigators could lead to death sentences.
More at the link. But a lawyer who represents Ramzi Binalshibh told Deutsche Welle that a conviction without the use of the evidence gathered by Germany would be unlikely. Yet the Obama Administration has said that they intend to seek the death penalty against the five defendants.
Candace de Russy, the Democracy Project writer, added her conclusion, a conclusion of unanswered questions:
I leave it to legally trained visionaries to speculate on what this German presence at the trial augurs, if anything. What is certain, though, is that by deciding on a civilian rather than military trial U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has opened up an incredibly unpredicatable can of worms: Do Holder and the President think they can only get a conviction with the German evidence? Do they assume there will be no death penalty, despite their prejudicial public comments to the contrary? Is the German involvement perhaps intended as one more leap toward instituting an international legal system? Would it not have been far more judicious – and above all less of an invitation to more terrorism on U.S. soil – to leave the resolution of these crimes in the hands of a military tribunal?
What the Post story is telling us leaves me scratching my head; just what were President Obama and Attorney General Holder thinking? If the German government is going to send “a team of observers . . . to make sure evidence by its agents doesn’t lead to the death penalty,” the only way they can do that is by declining to provide the evidence in the trial which could lead to a conviction on charges which could lead to a capital sentence. That puts the United States in the very diplomatically awkward position of having to hold the German agents in contempt — and Germany would be smart to cover all of them with diplomatic immunity at this point — or conceding to the demand that the death penalty not be a possibility. Either you lose the death penalty, or, if the Germans tell us to just forget the whole thing, you could wind up with acquittals.
Now, given the fact that the United States has already decided that there are some of these bad guys who can’t be tried but are too dangerous to let go, we have already decided on life imprisonment for the worst of the worst, no trials involved. If you can’t get death, if the most you can get is life imprisonment, and you were going to hold them indefinitely anyway, what’s the point of putting them on trial in the first place? Why are we going to go through this legal circus and media spectacle if the most we can achieve is what we were already going to do anyway, and a trial, if it gets out of hand — which it very well could — can only make matters worse?
Two possibilities exist here: either the Obama Administration didn’t know that the German government would seek to obey its own laws, or they did know it. If they didn’t know it, then President Obama and Attorney General Holder and Secretary of State Clinton and their minions at the Justice and State Departments were wholly incompetent, and if they did know, and still decided to go through with this farce, they were completely stupid. At the very least, the Administration could have said, look, we’d like to execute these thugs, but we cannot pursue a capital sentence due to the nature of the evidence and our allies. That, at least, would take this mess off the table, and show the American people that the Administration understands what it is doing.
But this? There’s just no possible answer that makes the Administration look good here; every possibility makes them look incompetent or stupid — or both.
Gretchen:
It seems that the Obama Administration is going out of its way to make certain that the terrorist “suspects” scheduled to be tried in a criminal court in New York will never be found guilty.
We know that many of the rights of the accused–rights like being advised of their Miranda rights and having only specific rules about how evidence used against them was collected and maintained–will not apply. And the right of a “jury of one’s peers?” What does that mean regarding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts?
The President of the United States, a former professor of Constitutional Law, guaranteed on national television that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be convicted and executed. So much for the presumption of innocence in the US legal system. (Imagine the delight of the defense attorneys when they heard that being uttered from a mouth that usually depends on a teleprompter for its “wisdom.”)
It is no secret that a number of nations do not sanction the death penalty…Germany is but one of those nations. Of course, the Obama Administration knew that, no matter how vehemently Eric Holder and his Justice Department feign surprise.
The question stands: Why would the Obama/Holder/Clinton Triumvirate go out of its way to shield the terrorist “suspects” from the convictions they claim the terrorist “suspects” are due? Who is the triumvirate hell-bent on protecting–Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cohorts or their victims, the people of the United States?
29 November 2009, 8:35 pmYorkshire:
With Holder as Sec. of Injustice Dept. - Yes.
29 November 2009, 9:26 pmropelight:
Gretchen asked, “Who is the triumvirate hell-bent on protecting…”
First and foremost Islam must be protected against exposure as the underlying motivation for the jihadi attack against the Great Satan. Maintaining the fiction that “Islam is a religion of peace” instead of revealing that Islam actually seeks absolute world domination by killing or enslaving all infidels is the primary goal. The Koran is unambiguous on this point.
Second, KSM and fellow jihadis must be protected by all faithful Muslims, and their allies and dupes, while they engage in Taqiyya (tark-e-ya) or “holy deception.” The NY trial is an opportunity to blame the USA for the 9/11 attack by presenting a list of imaginary “grievances” to justify the mass murder of nearly 3000 infidels. Put the USA on trial and smear us and our way of life as deserving the attack for past misdeeds. They are counting on the news media, both domestic and international, to broadcast their venomous accusations and celebrate their victory.
Third, the trial will inflame Muslims around the world. It will demonstrate how weak and foolish America has become, and it will serve as a rallying cry for more jihadi attacks.
Forth, it will convince the faithful that Barack Hussein Obama is a devout Muslim and a faithful Soldier of Allah (SoA) who has deceived the Great Satan and is working to destroy the USA from within. There is much evidence to support the claim.
30 November 2009, 11:03 amYorkshire:
Holder and BO appear to want this trial to be a disaster so they can blame Bush. I have all the confidence in the world BO will screw this up royally. Not Mirandized, evidence chain probably screwed up, witness problem most likely, challenges galore, and the most important was the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the Country, BO, has stated publicly he would get a conviction and DP Prosecution. I think everything is tainted from there. And when the US doesn’t free them because the US screwed the trial up, BO said he’s not letting them go. Look for a Habeas Corpus battle. For a law professor, BO is either totally stupid, or he wants to blame Bush for this as he does everything else.
30 November 2009, 10:00 pmPerry:
Yorkshire fantasizes again:“Holder and BO appear to want this trial to be a disaster so they can blame Bush.”
You have no evidence whatsoever for this statement, Yorkshire. All it is is bold speculation based on your ideological hatred for anything Obama. It shows up now in almost all your posts, appearing to be an obsession.
And then you go on to pull out your straw man fallacy again, thus, unconvincing to all but your fellow ideologues. It’s the same with your denial of global warming.
That said, for rational and practical reasons, I am not a supporter of the Obama-Holder decision to prosecute KSM and the others in federal court in Manhatten. KSM is accused of behavior that corresponds to a war crime, not a civil crime, therefore the trial should be a military tribunal, not a federal trial. Practically, focusing New Yorkers as a jihadist target, enduring the expense of the trial due to security requirements, and giving KSM a pulpit, none of this makes any sense to me at all.
To me, the above considerations far outweigh the alleged gain by showcasing this trial as an example of American jurisprudence for all the globe to see. Therefore, I would characterize this decision as at least naive, actually really stupid!
1 December 2009, 9:10 am