Powered by TypePad

« Saving Stress And Saving Money (At The Cost Of A Few Lives) | Main | It's Not A Recession, It's An Opportunity For Racial Reconciliation »

November 17, 2009


Dan Collins

Yeah, then there's the paradox that Hasan can't get a fair trial at Ft. Hood, but by golly KSM's going to get one in NYC.


TM:"OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court? "

Why didn't I think of that?

Gosh, even Buchanan sounds rational on this--Is Holder a true credentialed moron or not?
Only an Ivy League law school graduate (or two, ahem) could come up with such a dumb decision and such a risible rationale for it.


If Eric Holder were honest, he'd probably explain that we shouldn't be killing al Qaeda on the battlefield either. We should be capturing them and taking them home for trial. The KSM model is the preferred model. Obama/Holder would try all US enemies in a civilian court, if they thought they could get away with it.

Kerry let it out of the bag when he referred to terrorism as a law enforcement problem in that NYT mag interview back in 2004 (thank you, Matt Bai). That's how they all think.


And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?

I love this!

Tom Bowler

I still say the purpose of a civilian trial is to give KSM a forum for complaining about his torture at the hands of the evil George Bush. I expect his first person testimony will hit the front pages about the time Democrats will be needing a lift in their various re-election campaigns.

A win-win for Obama. Holder will get his conviction while demonstrating administration moral superiority.


You know, I really have to wonder if these people are as short sighted as they seem. One true irony of this is that it may produce an official judicial finding that waterboarding isn't torture.

Of course, Holder could order the prosecutors not to contest a defense motion to declare it torture, but if he did that, he would be ordering them to violate their legal and ethical responsibility to make the best argument possible for their client (the US government).

BTW, wasn't Holder the same guy saying on CNN back around 2002/2003 that al Qaeda didn't even qualify for Geneva Convention EPW status. Now he's saying they should have all the constitutional protections of a US citizen?

What's up with these guys?


I don't think 'find the real killers' is going to work in this case, even among the most jaded NYers. Even Lupica, is figuring
this out. They try this and they will reap an awesome backlash.


A big Thank You to the Dallas Morning News, which has confirmed for us that The Pentagon is not and has never part of "the military".


Ranger--the govt will not rely on any post-waterboarding confession is my guess. It will use independent evidence that cannot be traced to it at all.

Money transfers, emails, confessions of others, etc.
As for the claims the govt will have to turn over classified docs to KSM if he continues to insist on representing himself--My bet is the judge will appoint counsel for the express purpose of reviewing any classified material and offering assistance (but not the info therein) to the defendant. A similar sort of thing was done in the Moussaoui trial.
Still classified stuff will get out invariably, but there will be some judicially imposed controls keeping the defendants from seeing it directly.


Ah, Save Ferris--perhaps that's the briliant Holder's ace in the hole--try them in NYC only for the attacks there, then back to a military tribunal for the Pentagon attacks if Plan A fails.

Jim Ryan

If one of these terrorists attacks some kangaroos, try him in a kangaroo court.



Well, if the trial doesn't lead to a discussion of waterboarding, the hard left is going to be very dissapointed. On the other hand, if plan be is to play the old double jepardy game (by trying them again for essentially the same crime in a differnt court), then Holder and Obama are going to look pretty bad at the end of this whole thing.

BTW, if the plan is to use evidence gathered before 9/11 through tracking of communications and money transfers, this trial is going to make the Clinton era anti-terror people look like fools for not being able to stop this before it happened. (Of course, that may be the real plan here, to derail the Clintons before they can mount a run at Obama in 2011).


Here's what I'm wondering:
We have US Military personnel serving around the globe, and it is my understanding that they are rarely subject to civilian courts in foreign countries. I know there were two Marines in Korea who hit and killed a (some?) little girl(s) a few years ago who were tried by the US military rather than Korea. It led to several huge anti-US protests there.

Are we opening up a can of worms here? If we argue an act of war on US citizens is a matter for civilian courts, will other countries throw this back at us/our soldiers overseas?

Mike Huggins

Sorry, but this is all I can think of right now. (Viewer Discretion Advised).

Jack is Back!

A pre-trial word prediction analysis in descending order of usage:

Great Satan
Laura Bush
The Bush Twins
Canadian Club
Strip Clubs
Lap Dances
Flight Schools
Exploding Shoes

The list is expandable at your pleasure.

Mike Huggins

fearless Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson
Skull and Bones


If one of these terrorists attacks some kangaroos, try him in a kangaroo court.

You'd think KSM had attacked Broadway.

(Because it's a show trial.)


And even by Holder's logic, what is the Pentagon if not a military target?


They will be Granted Amnesty,and have to pay five thousand dollars and go back to the end of the Terrorist Line.


It's just too bad we'll never hear the truth about who is responsible for the situation we're in today. How Chinagate led to 9/11


They will only be granted justice when they have their healthcare Rationed and cannot get much needed treatments when they get older on Universal Healthcare for Terrorists.


Did any reporter think to ask Holder about the attack on the Pentagon?

D. Ch.

Don't call Obama and Holder to account just for being Ivy League, etc., even though that sort of background certainly does tend to discourage common sense. What makes them truly bad news, however, is that they are both affirmative action babies, and have in the past never been called to account for mushy, impractical thinking (as long as it was expressed in good, grammatical English). Really, if they looked good in a suit, and spoke well in person, they had it made...


Still seeking an answer to this question:
When a jihadi makes it to paradise because he has successfully murdered innocents, will the virgins who greet him there be young women who were victims 'honor killings' at the hands their own family members? Do the Muslims commit 'honor killings' in order to populate paradise with virgins?


But these two don't look good in a suit and they don't speak well in person.


"And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?"

It would seem that Obama & Holder are deliberately seeking to encourage terrorists - and indeed any enemy combatant anywhere at any time in the future - to target the civilian population rather than military targets, aren't they, since any terrorist who murders private US citizens will now be assured of getting a much more generous platform to propagandize for their cause whilst defending themselves in the much more amenable milieu of a civilian court than they would before a military tribunal.

In one fell swoop, this ridiculous decision by our allegedly intelligent President has exponentially enhanced every American civilian's value as a target for terrorists around the globe and exponentially reduced our security within our borders.

But using Holder's bizarre legal logic tying the mode of prosecution now to the victim's status rather than the crimminal's and extending the Holder Doctrine to its logical conclusion, shouldn't Muslims who kill Christians & Jews now be tried in front of exclusively Christian & Jewish juries as well?

Frau Quatsch

Jim Ryan and bgates get my vote for the PUK Uplift of the day. Keep 'em laughing.

Why is no one advocating rehabilitation of our terrorists? Isn't that the American Way? A KSM water park?

Frau Quatsch

Yes, Rocco, and that brings back memories of Gorelick *and* Sandy "Pants" Berger, lobbyist to the Chinese. It's so easy to forget all the details.


--If one of these terrorists attacks some kangaroos, try him in a kangaroo court.--

Presumably a car bomber will be tried in traffic court.
And if John Larroquette dies in the explosion it will be night court.
No contradiction here either. Idiots.

Right Wing Conspirator # 5

I heard that KSM has had a life-long sweet tooth which he indulged by eating...Twinkies !

Can you see where this is headed ?


The idiots being the Dallas Morning News nitwits of course.


I still say the purpose of a civilian trial is to give KSM a forum for complaining about his torture at the hands of the evil George Bush.

I don't see this as a big win for Obama, though I don't doubt Holder sees it this way. I can't imagine the American public feeling too sorry for KSM, and 60% probably feel that real torture would have been just what the doctor ordered. The public will also see that Holder gave this scum a public forum. The NY Times will eat it up, but the American public, not so much.


shouldn't Muslims who kill Christians & Jews now be tried in front of exclusively Christian & Jewish juries?

Oh, I'd love to ask Holder that one.


A more reasonable argument would be that Hasan should be tried under UCMJ because he is a member of the military and committed the offense on base.

My Solomonic answer to this whole thing is to create a new federal district for these crimes and hold the trials in a bunker away from civilian centers. Cut teh baby in half!!

Jim Ryan

LAWYER #1: Objection!

JUDGE: I'll allow it. But make it quick, counselor.

LAWYER #2: Thank you, your honor. You were saying, Mr. Mohammad? The water. The pain. The memories.

KSM: Yes. The horror. When you're on the board, you...you....[STARTS BAWLING OUT LOUD].

LAWYER #2: Do you need a tissue?

KSM: I'm sorry. It's just... Some people can be so cruel. And hurtful. Afterwards we were watching Gilligan reruns and when they gave me the menu of entres to select from for the evening's dinner, I could hardly read the menu, what with the show on...and the horror of the waterboarding, of course. I think I just blurted out "I'll have the lamb". I don't know. I was upset for hours after the 'boarding. Hours!


jo the schmo

judge: were you read your rights
ksm: no
judge:case dismissed

Jim Ryan

Will acquitted terrorist KSM use the multimillion-dollar settlement monies he gains as a result of his civil suit against the United States to buy himself vacation homes, yachts and Rolls Royces? Or will he use them to fund suitcase nukes? An imponderable.


Don't you get it? The terms terrorist, terrorism and war on terrorism have gone down the memory hole, so he no longer has a concept of anything between soldier and civilian.


They also attacked the Pentagon. Did not some of our military die that day besides civilians?


Just remember Holder is responsible for the Marc Rich pardon. His specialty is setting criminals free. Clinton and Obama are cut from the same cloth and both will blame Holder. He should never have been confirmed by the Senate who he lied to during his hearing. Once an unscrupulous cad always an unprincipled lawyer.


He's testifying on the Hill on Wednesday and per the Weekly Standard blog the 9/11 survivors and other similar groups will be waiting for him.

This is an unjustiable and stupid decision and I'm already hearing someone hummminh,"under the nus....."

Tom Bowler

Ranger--the govt will not rely on any post-waterboarding confession is my guess. It will use independent evidence that cannot be traced to it at all.

Though my legal experience stretches all the way back to Perry Mason, I guess I'd better defer to Clarice. Regardless of how looney it seems to have a civilian trial, I don't imagine that the Obama administration is so looney they would want to actually lose the case.

Nevertheless Obama and Holder seem to have been hell bent to bring up the subject of torture, going so far a to revive that case against the CIA operatives, and bring Dick Cheney out of retirement to publicly slam them for it.

But the issue of torture may not even have to come up in the trial itself. NYT will have plenty of opportunity to mention it in its reporting: "The trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times by George W. Bush, began today..."

It may not play well with the American public, but then neither does health care reform and their hell bent for that too.


jo--If you were not read your rights, the case isn't dismissed,The prosecutors are barred from using anything you told them or any evidence they obtained as a result of your confession.To proceed then the prosecution would have to establish that every piece of evidence it wishes to introduce came to them absolutely independently of the confession. ("fruits of the poisonous tree" is the what this is called)


OMG. And if the next batch of terrorists are clever enough to attack an elementary school will they be tried in juvenile court?

What would they do if terrorists attacked a pig farm ?


My Solomonic answer...cut teh baby in half!!

Mine is to cut Hasan in half.

With the sharpest bone fragments we can pull out of KSM.


bgates--You are faster than a speeding bullet..but just as lethal.


Just wondering... if the government isn't going to rely on post-waterboarding confessions, then how does the waterboarding and other "torture" become relevant? I don't see how Obama and Holder get their show trial of the Bush Administration's excesses in the war on terror without discussing those excesses. However, no judge with an ounce of sense is going to allow irrelevant "Bush lied/tortured/personally beat KSM" testimony unless it's relevant to undermining a confession.

I disagree with the lighthearted/lightheaded statement that if KSM is found not guilty on a technicality, no harm no foul because they're just going to rearrest him on military charges. Supposedly, the whole point of trying KSM in a civilian court is to show the world that we're good guys and follow the rule of law. How is it going to look to the rest of the world if KSM wins his trial but we still don't let him go? And don't tell me Obama doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks; it's ALL he cares about.


One other little point: does the Dallas Morning News know that the most famous military tribunals in history, the Nuremberg trials, were SOLELY about crimes against civilians? Logically bankrupt and historically ignorant: your MSM at work.


Gov Paterson said the Administation told him SIX MONTHS AGO they were thinking of trying KSM in NYC:


I can't get into the heads of those sharp prosecutors from the SDNY who have shown such adeptness in the courtroom that they can put away men as innocent as Libby and Black and Kipnes so I can't see how they've outlined their case.

But upthread Tom Bowler hints at how the torture thing will come up and, of course, the ACLU has set aside $8.5 million specifically to defend KSM and his 4 buddies so you can be sure that even if it's a loser they plan to try every which way to may "torture" the issue..and since Holder has definied what happend to KSM as "torture" I can't imagine the balletic leaps the SDNY sharpies will execute in responding to that.


Let's not forget that about 24,000 people work in the Pentagon, roughly the same number as were in each of the WTC towers, so about a third of the people attacked were clearly in a military target. The fact that only a hundred or so were killed is due to the obvious differences in design and construction.

Publius, a.k.a. The Idaho Publius

Let's project this scenario down the road a bit. Assume that Holder gets his conviction.

On November 7, 2012, the Messiah is rejected by a sadder but wiser electorate.

The scorned and vengeful narcissist extracts his revenge on a hateful nation by pardoning KSH and Nidal Hasan on the morning of January 20, 2013.

Do any of you think our President is not capable of such behavior?

Publius, a.k.a. The Idaho Publius


Dave in OC

He won't because he doesn't want to live in a bunker for the rest of his life...

Publius, a.k.a. The Idaho Publius

As Clinton was leaving office people looked askanse when I asked who was looking out for the Presidential china, but we know how that turned out.

Besides, BHO will find retirement quite comfortable in Caracas, or Ahu Dhabi.

Gregory Koster

No, Dave, I think Publius has it right. The Once will crab and squawk that the Secret Service protection given him isn't enough, but a pardon is in the works if the plain people can him at the polls.

Zumkopf, at least one of the charges against Karl Doenitz at Nuremburg, involved attacks on Royal and US Navy crews by the U-boats.


"Besides, BHO will find retirement quite comfortable in Caracas, or Ahu Dhabi."

My guess is that Obama's plan does not call for retirement, any more than Fidel Castro or Chavez, or Ortega, or the guy who was stopped from taking over Honduras.

Frau Rechtsverdreher

Don't forget Holder's other experience with terrorists during his Clinton gig. He played an important role in the releasing of the FALN murderers. It was unbelievable that he could become AG, but, of course, Obama needed him for another of his "firsts."

Thomas Collins

I'm trying to think of a decision Obama has made as President that wouldn't have been made by Bill Ayers if he were the President. And so far, I can't come up with one.


When you've lost Lindsey Graham....and Holder has with this stupid decision:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/18/holder-testify-sept-trial-decision-capitol-hill/>Dumber than dumb




You know Graham was asked by the WH not to comment on the decision until the president could brief him directly. So his question is even more interesting.


What question, Jane?

Rick Ballard


Prolly - Are you insane?


I see, one of those understood inquiries...


newsbusters has a video of the Graham/Holder exchange. I've never seen Lindsey en fuego before and Holder looked like a dunce.

The comments to this entry are closed.