Friday, November 13, 2009
Prosecuting KSM and going after the Bushies
According to Andy McCarthy (who is a very smart former prosecutor who certainly knows how political the Justice Department can be), there is only one reason to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court: To allow for the public examination of Bush-era anti-terrorism policies that Attorney General Eric Holder does not have the political courage, or permission, to publicize directly.
Talk amongst yourselves while I fly home.
29 Comments:
By 
, at
Fri Nov 13, 11:26:00 AM:
The perpetual campaign continues, and it disgusts me.
As far as the actual trial venue goes, Joe Lieberman said it well:
“The terrorists who planned, participated in, and aided the September 11, 2001 attacks are war criminals, not common criminals. Not only are these individuals not common criminals but war criminals, they are also not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts. The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States.”
Marc Rich and his foul enabler, Eric Holder, should be tried in federal court. KSM should not be.
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Fri Nov 13, 12:15:00 PM:
If Obama thinks this will enhance his tarnished bumbling amateur status with the Europeans, he is mistaken. They understand what he is now. This can't save him.
If he thinks it will save his flagging domestic approval, he is mistaken. It will bury him.
The administration whining about how release of classified information "wasn't their fault" will fall on deaf public ears. 9 months ago that excuse might have flown, but the honeymoon is over and the public has taken the full measure of Obama and found him wanting.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 12:31:00 PM:
The "discovery" process would expose informants, techniques and identify government agents. This is the real purpose of putting KSM on trial in civilian court. So the government will have to compromise its assets, or refuse to disclose them on "national security" grounds. If they refuse, the judge will likely throw out the evidence. We already know that KSM's confession after waterboarding will be inadmissable. This is a triumph for the left.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 01:13:00 PM:
The war is over. We no longer have enemies, we have "alleged suspects".
The troops can come home now.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 01:37:00 PM:
Yes.
The stench of utopian idiocy is spread all over this act of irresponsibility. The president was asked, in Japan by Japanese reporters of course since no American would have the temerity to question this behavior; anyway, he was asked: Mr President, if KSM isn't found "guilty" what are you going to do? And, the idiot-child president responded,
"I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it."
That was his answer. Can you believe it? This shithead is dancing his way (and us right along with him) into an unbelievable situation.
Every day brings some new bizarre thing.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 01:42:00 PM:
By the way, Tom Maguire quotes the Baseball Crank in a screed that perfectly captures my reaction to this latest ding-dong abrogation of leadership. You really should read it all, but here is the mild part:
"It's impossible, really, to caricature this White House; even Josiah Bartlett didn't run through this many liberal stereotypes in his first season. Obama needs new writers. Blow up the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 Americans? Jail! Don't buy health insurance? Jail! Win the Nobel Prize for doing jack squat. Travel to Copenhagen to beg and grovel unsuccessfully for the Olympics, and pledge to go visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but blow off traveling to Berlin to commemorate the victory of freedom over Communism (then give a tepid speech on the subject that refuses to acknowledge Ronald Reagan). Commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland by unilaterally abandoning missile defense installations in Poland. Insult and disdain one faithful ally after another - Britain, India, Israel, Poland, Colombia, you name it - and cozy up to our enemies, with nothing to show for it - nothing to show for anything he's done in foreign affairs."
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 02:25:00 PM:
I'm not a lawyer but:
What evidence is available that KSM was guilty of anything at all?
As I understand it, CIA interrogations using "torture" are the source of his confession and our information about his role. But coerced testimony can't be used to convict (indeed, can't be used) under our federal system system of justice.
Will the judge be forced to dismiss the charges even before trial based on lack of evidence?
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 02:54:00 PM:
vk45, I am a lawyer. I haven't followed the case as closely as I should have, but I can't imagine that there will be sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction in a criminal trial in our civil court system. I suspect there will be a conviction at trial, but it will be overturned on appeal. The odds are that KSM will be cleared of all charges.
Further, his lawyers should immediately file a Habeus Corpus petition, which may well be granted.
To be perfectly candid, this is Bush's fault. KSM was captured in Pakistan by the ISI. He was nowhere near a battle zone and in no way, shape, or form could he be considered an enemy combatant. He never should have been sent to Gitmo or taken into U.S. custody. Bush should have left him with the ISI, or sent him to Egypt or even Syria, where he would have been tortured, interrogated, and summarily executed just like he deserved.
This is a win-win for the Obama administration. Bonus points from the political left and a major distraction from the crashing Obamaconomy for the masses. And if KSM walks free due to lack of evidence Obama will blame Bush, something he never seems to tire of doing.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 03:12:00 PM:
Anonymous @02:54:00
If KSM walks:
Would KSM be able to recover damages for his imprisonment or his 'torture' either from the individual agents of the US government or the US government itself?
Is it possible that we would be unable to deport him to his country of origin or country of capture if KSM complained that he might be subject to abuse were he to be deported?
Where would he live? Yale might want him as a student (if you remember they loved having a Talibani there a few years back).
A book contract and Oprah appearances?
Would he ultimately wind up being eligible for a green card, citizenship, and election to the House of Representatives or the US Senate?
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 04:12:00 PM:
Having killed 3,000 people may dissuade even Yale.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 04:19:00 PM:
Obviously Bush never expected to try this man in a civilian court, as no reasonable person would have expected. Having milked all the intelligence we could from him, saving untold thousands of our fellow citizens in the process, I suppose one could even say that "this is all Bush's fault" is a sort of a salute to a job well done.
When we come down to prizing the procedural plodding of our court system above all things, including peace and safety in a time of war, we have obviously gone completely off the moral cliff. Happily, Bush did not suffer the disease of devotion to that particular foolish idiotic utopian ideal.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 04:41:00 PM:
Hey, back off! Holder now runs a department of the executive branch and has costs that far exceed his salary, many of the legal. He has to raise cash by selling pardons. That's what he has here. Charges will be dismissed for lack of usable evidence; KSM will deal and settle for time served. Eric will get his cash and KSM his freedom.
The captive media will cover the endless motions and efforts to smear Bush and stay away from Obama's weakening popularity in the months prior to the election.
The good thing is that Obama's muslim brothers won't launch another muslim terrorist attack! Or, maybe they will to prove KSM can't get an honest jury in NYC.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 04:44:00 PM:
If KSM walks:
Would KSM be able to recover damages for his imprisonment or his 'torture' either from the individual agents of the US government or the US government itself?
>> Quite possibly, yes.
Is it possible that we would be unable to deport him to his country of origin or country of capture if KSM complained that he might be subject to abuse were he to be deported?
>> It is unlikely that we would be able to deport him back to Pakistan. I suspect he'll end up on some Pacific island paradise, courtesy of the U.S. Government.
Where would he live? Yale might want him as a student (if you remember they loved having a Talibani there a few years back).
>> That certainly would not surprise me.
A book contract and Oprah appearances?
>> Ditto.
Would he ultimately wind up being eligible for a green card, citizenship, and election to the House of Representatives or the US Senate?
>> Probably not.
In fairness, it has been reported that KSM wants to plead guilty so this may all be moot.
The introduction to Gitmo of detainees captured outside of combat zones was a fatal flaw in the Bush administration's policy. I don't believe the courts would interfere with military justice system trials of detainees captured in a field of battle. But the intermingling of civilians like Jose Padilla and KSM with legitimate military detainees at Gitmo really cast a pall over the entire system.
Object lesson for the U.S. Military and Intelligence agencies: do not take custody of prisoners. Let the Egyptians, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Syrians, etc. maintain custody and send the CIA in to attend interrogations. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 05:11:00 PM:
I am not a lawyer either, but I am wondering about whether these guys had their Miranda rights read to them, was an attorney present during questioning, being held years without charges being filed etc. Does any of that stuff get this case dismissed out of hand in an American court?
By JPMcT, at
Fri Nov 13, 06:48:00 PM:
I hope he gets a team of ACLU lawyers (their names made public), gets the charges thrown out by a liberal judge (his name made public)...and...best of all...gets released with a new suit, 20 bucks and a job application onto Canal Street in lower Manhattan at approximately 10 o'clock in the morning.
Justice will be served all around...maybe not the kind of justice that Mr. Obama had in mind...but justice nonetheless.
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 08:30:00 PM:
Gee whiz. I don't recall all this hand wringing when Bush decided to try Zacarias Moussaoui (the 20th hijacker who conspired with KSM to plan 9/11 but was arrested on an immigration violation before he could participate) in the ED of Virginia, and in a courthouse within spitting distance of the Pentagon. The case proceeded, Moussaoui was found guilty, and the world is still spinning.
SDNY has successfully tried AND convicted more than a dozen terrorists including Yousef who was responsible for the first WTC bombing, the terrorists responsible for the US Embassy bombings in Africa, and the blind sheikh who plan to blow up a bunch of NY landmarks.
So why all the consternation with this decision?
Oh that's right: IOKOWTRDI
By , at
Fri Nov 13, 10:04:00 PM:
Nice lame ass response. The federal court system is appropriate for this scum exactly why? Do you think there is even one shred of untainted evidence? Do you think this scum was Mirandized? Do you think there is a list of willing witnesses? Do you even think?
This is an entirely inappropriate decision, though on a scale previously unseen in the sad history of this evil administration, and a complete abdication of responsibility as CIC during wartime.
Moreover, it turns NYC into a terror target (along with millions of potential victims). The president is supposed to do many things, and he has many jobs, but turning our justice system and largest city into a focus of terror is not on the list.
By JPMcT, at
Fri Nov 13, 11:26:00 PM:
"The case proceeded, Moussaoui was found guilty, and the world is still spinning"
Yeah, Anon...that case ONLY took four years and was a circus.
What a SPLENDID world view of American jurisprudence...perhaps second only to the OJ Simpson trial.
Sorry, but if you think war criminals belong in our modern justice system, which shares many attributes with the jerry Springer Show...you are brain dead.
These war criminals need a speedy military review of the evidence in a SECURE location. The families of the judge and jury should be protected. The POLITICS of the death penalty should not enter the equation.
Foreign terrorists who come to our country and kill thousands of our fellow citizens do NOT...I repeat DO NOT...deserve the rights and due process afforded to American citizens.
To do so is juvenile, incompetent and frankly dangerous.
But..if you can't see the point in this...I clearly am talking to a person with the perspicacity of a fish. I'll save the energy of any further keystrokes.
By , at
Sat Nov 14, 01:00:00 AM:
"Having killed 3,000 people may dissuade even Yale"
Don't bet on it.
"To allow for the public examination of Bush-era anti-terrorism policies that Attorney General Eric Holder does not have the political courage, or permission, to publicize directly"
I'd buy this, but even guys who exist in a leftist echo chamber have to realize Bush will come out of this looking pretty good, though it may not be politically correct to say so. Does anybody seriously think the practice of torturing terrorists has anything other than the nearly unanimous support of the public? I'm starting to think the real problem with this administration is that the people running it are just really, really stupid.
By JPMcT, at
Sat Nov 14, 02:00:00 AM:
"the real problem with this administration is that the people running it are just really, really stupid"
Exactly...I keep thinking that they must have some master plan that evades me...but I keep reaching the same conclusion.
Scenarios:
1. The trial goes on for months and becomes a charade...Obama loses.
2. The guy is acquitted...Obama not only loses, but is tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
3. The trial is tolerable, but some Islamokook does something bad to someone related to the trial...Obama has the same disastrous reaction as he did to the Fort Hood homicides...he still loses ...BIG.
4. The trial is a vision of American jurisprudence. TV cameras are not allowed. The process is swift and the sentence is grave and sends fear into the hearts of Jihadists worldwide.
I only put number four in there for comic relief....
By Gary Rosen, at
Sat Nov 14, 03:03:00 AM:
"I'm starting to think the real problem with this administration is that the people running it are just really, really stupid."
That too.
By , at
Sat Nov 14, 12:10:00 PM:
Foreign terrorists who come to our country and kill thousands of our fellow citizens do NOT...I repeat DO NOT...deserve the rights and due process afforded to American citizens.
Heh. Tell that to the Bush administration! Since 9/11, there have been 119 terrorism cases brought in federal court involving 289 defendants. Conviction rate 91%. Of the 119 federal cases, four have been brought since Obama was elected, which for those following along, means that the Bush Administration brought the other 115 terrorism cases in federal court. Shocking!!!
Looks like the Bush Administration was just as "really, really stupid" as the current one.
Or looked at another way: smart enough to follow the law of the land after being slapped down in a handful of decisions. In 5-4 decision SCOTUS held (Justice Kennedy issuing the majority opinion) that prisoners had a right to habeus corpus under Constituiton and that it was unconsitutional for Military Commissions Act to suspend that right. Previous to Boumediene decsion, SCOTUS held in Hamdan that militray commisions set up by Bush violated military law AND the Geneva Convention. You have a problem with that? Pray a justice steps down next time your team gets elected President.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 14, 03:07:00 PM:
"Since 9/11, there have been 119 terrorism cases brought in federal court involving 289 defendants."
And not a single fucking one of them was involved in 9/11.
It's one thing to plan the murder of some Americans while in America and be arrested in America by American law enforcement officials with a warrant signed by an American judge. That happens all the time. That's what a criminal justice system is for.
It's quite another thing to plan, direct, and support what can only be adequately described as a criminal act of war from foreign soil where the only 'evidence' of guilt is obtained by secret agents, operatives, and classified collection platforms, many of which gained such information illegally and where the suspect himself was nabbed by a foreign intelligence agency.
This isn't justice. Justice is a result, an outcome, not a process. Justice would be if the military had executed him and dumped his body in the Indian Ocean immediately after the CIA had finished extracting every last morsel of usable information out of him . If this rotten piece of terrorist shit walks out of court a free man... well, I think I'd have to start betting differently on the 'Obama Assassination Pool.'
By , at
Sat Nov 14, 04:49:00 PM:
And not a single fucking one of them was involved in 9/11.
What are you the f*ck are you talking about? Moussaoui planned 9/11 along with KSM. He pled guilty to al-Qaeda conspiracy to crash planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. He was arrested before 9/11 because someone at the flight school he was attending to learn how to fly a 747 into the WH turned him in.
Jeez. How much "more involved in 9/11" can he be other than being one of the martyed dead pilots?
By , at
Sat Nov 14, 05:12:00 PM:
It's quite another thing to plan, direct, and support what can only be adequately described as a criminal act of war from foreign soil where the only 'evidence' of guilt is obtained by secret agents, operatives, and classified collection platforms, many of which gained such information illegally and where the suspect himself was nabbed by a foreign intelligence agency.
Only evidence gained illegally? You don't what the f*ck you're talking about: KSM admitted in a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera that he was the mastermind of 9/11We have the tape !! Plus, the Pakistanis didn't capture him until 2003 when they turned him over to us so his 2002 confession predates the waterboarding we delivered.
Since then he's confessed to being responsible for 9/11. TWICE. Most recently in Dec. 2008 when he and the other co-defendants to be tried in SDNY sent a written note to the militray judge announcing that they wanted to plead guilty to 9/11!
Dawnfire, I suggest you take a "single f*cking" hour--or ten-- to read up on the facts before you waste any more of our time here with your erroneous blatherings. Thanks for playing.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 14, 06:12:00 PM:
"Moussaoui planned 9/11 along with KSM."
Negative, kiddo. He was a failed foot soldier, convicted only for conspiracy, and tenuously.
"According to the Associated Press, three jurors decided Moussaoui had only limited knowledge of the September 11 plot, and three described his role in the attacks as minor, if he had any role at all."
"On April 22, 2005, in one of the court sessions near the end of that phase of the proceedings, Moussaoui surprised the whole audience by pleading guilty to all charges, while at the same time denying having any intention to produce a massacre like 9/11. He said that it was not his conspiracy, and that he intended to free Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman."
"On May 23, 2006, an audio recording attributed to Osama bin Laden said in translation that Moussaoui "had no connection at all with September 11... I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission... Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning to fly, he wasn't number 20 in the group, as your government claimed."
Hmm.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 14, 06:41:00 PM:
"Dawnfire, I suggest you take a "single f*cking" hour--or ten-- to read up on the facts before you waste any more of our time here with your erroneous blatherings. Thanks for playing."
You have no idea why that's hilarious, do you?
First thing, you might want to look up 'fruit of the poisoned tree.'
For another, read up on the fifth amendment.
Then, check out the history of the use of classified sources as evidence in trials; it's not a pretty one.
"KSM admitted in a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera that he was the mastermind of 9/11We have the tape !!"
Where? Can I see it? Hear it? Because all I see is a second hand report in English from 2003 in the Guardian that has a bit of a stench about it. (sure was neat, how all these details suddenly came to light the week that he was arrested eh?)
And even if that account is true, he didn't admit to planning 9/11. In fact, he specifically said that Ramzi Yousef was the coordinator.
Besides, admitting to something in a video interview does not a legal confession make. Nor does it serve as sufficient evidence for conviction; people lie on tape all the time.
Then there's this: "I never stated to the Al Jazeera reporter that I was the head of the al Qaida military committee." http://www.defenselink.mil/news/transcript_ISN10024.pdf
And lastly, I fully expect that (on advice of his defense lawyer) his confession will be retracted, probably accompanied by a statement about it having been an act of desperation, that it was beaten out of him by the terrible tortures administered by the mean old US government.
Given the politics in Washington now, I'd be surprised if the government even tried to use evidence associated with Khalid's interrogations.
So, a disputed interview statement, self-incriminating testimony obtained in part by torture, and a retracted confession equals... what? Because it seems to me like a recipe for a botched prosecution.
If it were so god-damned easy, most of the Guantanamo legal drama would never have occurred.
Talk to me some more about not knowing the facts... it fires my loins, and I need my cheap thrills where I can get them.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Nov 14, 06:44:00 PM:
Error: Ramzi bin al Shibh. Ramzi Youssef was an entirely different terrorist asshole who was also captured in Pakistan.
By Gary Rosen, at
Mon Nov 16, 01:10:00 AM:
"KSM admitted in a 2002 interview with Al Jazeera that he was the mastermind of 9/11We have the tape"
No doubt he was Mirandized first.
