PDA

View Full Version : KSM and Others Trials In NYC Why?



Kathianne
11-15-2009, 05:14 PM
Right, cameras might be denied, but not the press. I'm sure there will be times that they 'go to chambers', but that's not the solution.

Best thing I've seen, links at site:

Power Line - Trying KSM: Why? part 2 (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024956.php)


TRYING KSM: WHY? PART 2
November 15, 2009 Posted by Scott at 7:59 AM

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania last year during the campaign, Barack Obama addressed the Supreme Court's Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. Obama asserted that the "principle of habeas corpus, that a state can't just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process -- that's the essence of who we are." He explained:


I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.

John Hinderaker and I derived some precepts for trial lawyers from the Nuremberg trial in "Lessons from the cross-examination of Hermann Goering." In the course of researching that article I was reminded that the Nuremberg trial was conducted before a military commission composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. The most prominent surviving Nazi leaders were brought for trial before the Nuremberg tribunal in late 1945. Winston Churchill had proposed, not unreasonably, that they be summarily shot. The victorious allies nevertheless subsequently agreed that they would be brought before a military commission to be convened pursuant to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945.

In the Boumediene case, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court's urging. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants' "day in court" occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.

The Nazi war criminals were given no access to American courts. Their rights were governed by the charter annexed to the London Agreement. Here is the fair trial provision of the charter:


In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:

(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.

(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.

(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.

(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.

(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

The charter provision on the appeal rights of the Nuremberg defendants was even shorter and sweeter. There were no appeal rights. Article 26 provided: "The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review."

In short, the procedural protections afforded the Guantanamo detainees under the statute before the Supreme Court in Boumediene substantially exceeded those accorded the Nuremberg defendants. Obama's unfavorable comparison of the legal treatment of the Guantanamo detainees with that of the Nuremberg defendants suggests that he did not know what he was talking about.

The revised system of military commissions now applicable to the Guantanamo detainees affords Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. -- the perpetrators of 9/11 -- all the protections to which American law entitles them. Now Obama -- to whom the decision must be attributable, regardless of the pretense that the buck stops with Eric Holder -- has chosen to bring KSM et al. to federal court in New York for a civilian trial as though he and his colleagues were common criminals. Why? Doing so carries with it certain necessary consequences and obvious risks that have already been the subject of informed comment:


1. Obama confuses the commission of crimes with acts of war. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon constituted acts of war.

2. Obama cloaks KSM et al. with all the constitutional protections to which American citizens are entitled under the United States Constitution.

3. Obama affords KSM et al. a public forum for the waging of their war by other means.

4. Those who apprehended and detained KSM et al. treated them as enemy combatants from whom valuable intelligence was sought and received. Trying them in federal court creates otherwise unnecessary issues regarding the admissibility of this evidence and provides them another avenue of attack on those defending the United states against them.

5. The treatment of evidence in connection with the trial raises a serious threat that national security will be compromised.

6. The trial of KSM et al. in New York by itself raises severe security risks.

Given the availability of military commissions to try KSM et al., one asks why Obama has chosen to bring them to trial in federal court in New York. One searches Saturday's Washington Post story on the decision in vain for an explanation.

No consideration of justice, history or tradition weighs in favor of treating KSM et al. as criminal defendants. Against the predictable negative risks and negative consequences, advocates of Obama's decision offer airy considerations of public relations. It is hard to take any professed rationale of a civilian trial seriously.

Judging Obama's treatment of KSM et al. by its predictable effects rather than its apparent intentions, one arrives at a harsh conclusion. If Obama sought to subvert fundamental American institutions or to confuse the understanding of the American people -- upon both of which America's future depends -- he would proceed as announced.

JOHN adds: On our radio show yesterday, Andy McCarthy proposed an explanation that amplifies on Scott's last paragraph. He suggested that the Obama administration views KSM et al. as its allies (my paraphrase) in its war against the Bush administration. Obama expects them to make their treatment by the Bush administration, real and imagined, the centerpiece of their defense, with the possible result that Bush, Cheney, and others may be indicted as war criminals by European countries or international courts, thereby satisfying the far left of the Democratic Party, which Obama represents. I'll post a podcast of the interview when it's available.

bullypulpit
11-16-2009, 04:06 PM
Why not? Worried that the Constitution isn't up to the task of trying terrorists? Tell that to the plotters and actors in the first WTC bombing who are still sitting behind bars in US prisons.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

gabosaurus
11-16-2009, 04:10 PM
Are criminals usually tried at the general area of the crime? Do you not trust the American justice system?

I have seen suggestions and comments that the terrorists should simply be executed without a trial. Many have been in agreement that they don't deserve a trial.
Wouldn't that lower the U.S. to the level of a terrorist nation?

Kathianne
11-16-2009, 05:38 PM
Show circus trial. Even Glenn Greenwald agrees and doesn't think getting back at Bush is worth this. But you guys just keep it up.

Tell me, if these folks walk or are not allowed to even if acquitted, (Greenwald's contention), how are you going to feel about the justice system then?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66557-140-911-victims-families-bring-suspects-before-tribunals


140+ 9/11 victims' families: Bring suspects before tribunals
By Tony Romm - 11/05/09 01:10 PM ET
More than 140 survivors of those killed on Sept. 11 are now pining Senate lawmakers to keep the attack's suspected planners out of federal courts.

In a letter to the chamber, sent on Thursday, the families urge lawmakers to support Sen. Lindsey Graham's (R-S.C.) amendment, which would essentially ensure that the terror suspects would be tried instead before military tribunals.

"We adamantly oppose prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in Article III courts, which would provide them with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve," the victims wrote. "We believe that military commissions, which have a long and honorable history in this country dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America."...

Daniel Pearl's family, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/14/danniel-pearls-family-dis_n_358153.html


The mother and father of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl are disappointed with the federal government's decision to try Pearl's professed killer and Guantanamo detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City, according to The Hill.

Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, told the New York Post that the Justice Department's decision made him "sick to the stomach."

The foundation started by Pearl's parents, Ruth and Judea Pearl, released a statement to The Hill Saturday night, explaining their disappointment. The Hill:

We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists...
The Pearl family is not the first to object to the federal trial for Guantanamo detainees. The Washington Post has written that a public trial could be the "perfect arena" for smug Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's huge ego. And that a trial for the "9/11 mastermind" could provide him with "the attention he craves."

Pearl was beheaded in 2002, after he was kidnapped in Pakistan. He left behind a wife, Mariane, and young son, Adam Daniel, who was born three months after Pearl's murder. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to killing Pearl in 2007.

jimnyc
11-16-2009, 05:53 PM
I think Obama is trying to put a "face" on to other nations by bringing them away from military tribunals to the American justice system.

I am 100% against any terrorists being on American soil, but am unafraid of them being put on trial in NYC. Personally, I can't fathom any judge or jury not giving them at least 3000 life sentences, if not death.

gabosaurus
11-16-2009, 05:56 PM
Dubya once promised that the 9-11 criminals would be captured and brought to justice.
When Saddam was captured, he was put on trial in Iraq. It was a show trial.
What kind of "justice" do you want? Any trial of this magnitude is going to be a "show trial."
High profile murderers are put on trial on a regular basis. Some (like OJ Simpson) are acquitted. Others (like Tim McVey) are not.

What makes this trial any different than, say, the DC Sniper? The crime was committed in Manhattan. The original trial venue should be Manhattan.
Though I am sure there will be a change of venue request.

Are military tribunals for military criminals? Like the Fort Hood murderer?

Kathianne
11-16-2009, 05:56 PM
I think Obama and Holder are using these trials to appeal to the left, especially because of Afghanistan. This will be a circus of jihad by court, with Bush administration turned into defendant-without representation.

Kathianne
11-16-2009, 06:35 PM
Looks like I'm not the only one that thinks this is a huge mistake:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16/cnn-poll-americans-want-ksm-tried-in-military-court/


CNN Poll: Americans want KSM tried in military court
Posted: November 16th, 2009 04:06 PM ET
Washington (CNN) – Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

"The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular - even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S."...

Kathianne
11-16-2009, 10:27 PM
Hmmm...

http://wcbstv.com/politics/911.trial.paterson.2.1316155.html


Paterson Rips White House For NYC 9/11 Trial
New York Governor Says Trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 4 Others In New York 'A Decision I Would Not Have Made'
Reporting
Marcia Kramer NEW YORK (CBS) ―

AP

Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

"This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country," he said.

Paterson's comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President's decision....


Seems Hillary is trying to go for Obama, but doesn't quite make it:

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdqG8zuz4z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GdqG8zuz4z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>


It seems that Obama et al, never consulted with NY:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/11/16/2009-11-16_gov_paterson_911_mastermind_.html

and here:

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-is-not-decision-i-would-have-made.html

Jeff
11-17-2009, 12:44 AM
Dubya once promised that the 9-11 criminals would be captured and brought to justice.
When Saddam was captured, he was put on trial in Iraq. It was a show trial.
What kind of "justice" do you want? Any trial of this magnitude is going to be a "show trial."
High profile murderers are put on trial on a regular basis. Some (like OJ Simpson) are acquitted. Others (like Tim McVey) are not.

What makes this trial any different than, say, the DC Sniper? The crime was committed in Manhattan. The original trial venue should be Manhattan.
Though I am sure there will be a change of venue request.

Are military tribunals for military criminals? Like the Fort Hood murderer?

This guy is not just a criminal IMO, and should not stand trial in a civilized court room, there is nothing civilized about him , OJ was acquitted cause of where the trial was held, and there was a lot of talk of moving it before the trial and having it there was what most blamed him walking on

bullypulpit
11-18-2009, 12:49 PM
I think Obama and Holder are using these trials to appeal to the left, especially because of Afghanistan. This will be a circus of jihad by court, with Bush administration turned into defendant-without representation.

Did you ever, even for a moment, think that the trial was moved to Manhattan because Article 3; Section 2 of the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.</blockquote>

That being said, all GITMO detainees should have a trial by jury, rather than a military tribunal. Some will be acquitted. Charges against some will be dismissed as the evidence against them was obtained through torture...sorry, "harsh interrogation". Others will be found guilty.

Of course, there is always the very real possibility that evidence leading all the way to the Bush Oval Office about orders for torture, and other violations of US and international law by the Bush administration would be starkly revealed. Can't say I wouldn't shed any tears over that.

Placing these people in criminal courts, as opposed to military courts, reduces them to the stature of common criminals rather than brave soldiers fighting against the "great Satan".

Finally, as in so many other areas, the Obama administration is only taking half-measures. Bringing only some of the detainees into the criminal courts is insufficient. If <i>habeas corpus</i> is to remain a vital cornerstone of the US judicial system, ALL of the GITMO detainees must have their day before a jury...there to be exonerated or convicted.

Kathianne
11-18-2009, 01:40 PM
Did you ever, even for a moment, think that the trial was moved to Manhattan because Article 3; Section 2 of the US Constitution states:

<blockquote>The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.</blockquote>

That being said, all GITMO detainees should have a trial by jury, rather than a military tribunal. Some will be acquitted. Charges against some will be dismissed as the evidence against them was obtained through torture...sorry, "harsh interrogation". Others will be found guilty.

Of course, there is always the very real possibility that evidence leading all the way to the Bush Oval Office about orders for torture, and other violations of US and international law by the Bush administration would be starkly revealed. Can't say I wouldn't shed any tears over that.

Placing these people in criminal courts, as opposed to military courts, reduces them to the stature of common criminals rather than brave soldiers fighting against the "great Satan".

Finally, as in so many other areas, the Obama administration is only taking half-measures. Bringing only some of the detainees into the criminal courts is insufficient. If <i>habeas corpus</i> is to remain a vital cornerstone of the US judicial system, ALL of the GITMO detainees must have their day before a jury...there to be exonerated or convicted.

Nope. I'm more interested in Art I Sec 8. Why undo over 200 years of military and civil laws.

Insein
11-18-2009, 02:16 PM
Dubya once promised that the 9-11 criminals would be captured and brought to justice.
When Saddam was captured, he was put on trial in Iraq. It was a show trial.
What kind of "justice" do you want? Any trial of this magnitude is going to be a "show trial."
High profile murderers are put on trial on a regular basis. Some (like OJ Simpson) are acquitted. Others (like Tim McVey) are not.

What makes this trial any different than, say, the DC Sniper? The crime was committed in Manhattan. The original trial venue should be Manhattan.
Though I am sure there will be a change of venue request.

Are military tribunals for military criminals? Like the Fort Hood murderer?

These are enemy combatants, NOT American Citizens. They have procedures for that. Its not that they won't get a trial. They will. they just won't get the same rights as American Citizens get. They will get the rights that enemy combatants get under the constitution.

Insein
11-18-2009, 02:20 PM
Placing these people in criminal courts, as opposed to military courts, reduces them to the stature of common criminals rather than brave soldiers fighting against the "great Satan".


Do you think they care? They laugh at our pathetic system while using it to their advantage. Just because we try them as common criminals instead of enemy combatants does not mean that they feel their mission was less successful.

The problem we face is that the current administration again feels that we are not at war while the enemy has already declared it as such.

Little-Acorn
11-18-2009, 02:45 PM
9/11 wasn't a "crime", it was an act of war. (Or did you think the Germans' objections to our crossing the Rhine and invading their country in 1944, were based solely on the fact that we violated their laws against trespassing?) And the 9/11 perpetrators we captured should be treated the way combatants in war are always treated: Held without trial indefinitely, until the conflict is over.

Well, there is an extenuating circumstance. The Geneva Convention accords state that, if a combatant is found making war on a country without wearing a uniform to distinguish himself from noncombatant civilians, and especially if he is wearing civilians clothes in a deliberate attempt to hide among civilians and cause their deaths by atttracting enemy fire, he is to be treated as a spy. Spies are to be given field courts-martial, lined up against a wall, and summarily shot.

Far as I know, these terrorists never signed or agreed to the Geneva Accords. They certainly don't obey it. So, they are not subject to its usually-benevolent provisions. But I'd be happy to make an exception in their case.

Why are the terrorists getting a public, civilian trial?

To provide them a stage for a show trial, of course, where they can publicly berate the Bush administration, demand (and get) evidence formerly protected by U.S. govt secrecy rules, and make speeches for days on end about the horrors of having water poured on them and having to wear their underwear over their heads.

Plus the opportunity to be able to drag U.S. officers and troops from their posts in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., into the courtroom in NYC for "testimony", and otherwise screw up our military in any other way they can find.

What other reasons could the Obama administration have for pretending terrorists and enemy spies captured during war, are civilian "criminals"?

Kathianne
11-18-2009, 05:59 PM
Quite amusing and deadly serious. More and video at site. Note that it's a 'conservative site :rolleyes: :

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/11/obama-afghanistan-khalid-sheikh-muhammed.html


Video shows Sen. Obama thought a military tribunal was fine for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
November 18, 2009 | 1:40 pm
As The Ticket reported earlier today in this space, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder was on the Senate Judiciary Committee hot seat defending his decision to bring the alleged 9/11 terrorist masterminds onto U.S. soil for civilian trials instead of keeping them far away in Guantanamo Bay for a military tribunal.

Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, himself a former federal prosecutor, says he's amazed at Holder's simplicity claim and remains unconvinced that such a move, which could make New York City a target for potential new attack, makes any legal sense whatsoever.

Speaking of military tribunals, we went back into the video archives and found this C-SPAN tape below. Holder might want to watch it.

It contains his boss, Barack Obama, a brief member of that same Senate, in 2006 stating that a military tribunal was a perfectly fine way of handling such dangerous individuals as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Obama said the fight against terrorism was "an extraordinarily difficult war" where terrorists could plot undetected from within our own borders.

The freshman Illinois senator was defending a legislative amendment and pointed out that a military tribunal for Mohammed seemed just fine to him.

"The irony of the underlying bill as it's written is that someone like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is going to get basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's gonna have counsel. He's gonna be able to present evidence to rebut the government's case.... I think we will convict him. And I think justice will be carried out."...

bullypulpit
11-19-2009, 05:49 AM
9/11 wasn't a "crime", it was an act of war. (Or did you think the Germans' objections to our crossing the Rhine and invading their country in 1944, were based solely on the fact that we violated their laws against trespassing?) And the 9/11 perpetrators we captured should be treated the way combatants in war are always treated: Held without trial indefinitely, until the conflict is over.

Well, there is an extenuating circumstance. The Geneva Convention accords state that, if a combatant is found making war on a country without wearing a uniform to distinguish himself from noncombatant civilians, and especially if he is wearing civilians clothes in a deliberate attempt to hide among civilians and cause their deaths by atttracting enemy fire, he is to be treated as a spy. Spies are to be given field courts-martial, lined up against a wall, and summarily shot.

Far as I know, these terrorists never signed or agreed to the Geneva Accords. They certainly don't obey it. So, they are not subject to its usually-benevolent provisions. But I'd be happy to make an exception in their case.

Why are the terrorists getting a public, civilian trial?

To provide them a stage for a show trial, of course, where they can publicly berate the Bush administration, demand (and get) evidence formerly protected by U.S. govt secrecy rules, and make speeches for days on end about the horrors of having water poured on them and having to wear their underwear over their heads.

Plus the opportunity to be able to drag U.S. officers and troops from their posts in Iraq, Afghanistan etc., into the courtroom in NYC for "testimony", and otherwise screw up our military in any other way they can find.

What other reasons could the Obama administration have for pretending terrorists and enemy spies captured during war, are civilian "criminals"?

US and Allied forces crossing the Rhine was a part of a declared war against a nation state with an organized and standing army. Not at all analogous to the attacks on 9-11.

But more to the point, the right wing was all for criminal trials for those responsible for the first WTC attack...They were all for the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui. What's different about this? Nothing. We tried the military option under the Bush administration, and had bin Laden and his top lieutenants slip through our fingers at Tora Bora.

That the right has so little faith in Article 3 courts and the justice system is indeed disturbing. If you want a trial and sentence carried out in a day, fine, we can do as the Taliban do...drag the offender before an Imam, have him pronounced guilty and beheaded...all in an hour. But that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. It is, rather, a betrayal of the ideals this nation was founded upon.

When the right wing-nut punditocracy calls for drum-head courts and dismiss the Constitution, as Bill O'Reilly did the other night one can only ask "Why do they hate America?"

bullypulpit
11-19-2009, 05:57 AM
Nope. I'm more interested in Art I Sec 8. Why undo over 200 years of military and civil laws.

Just what about holding these trials in the district in which the crimes were committed conflicts with Article I Sec 8 of the Constitution?

Never mind that prominent conservatives and retired military personnel support trials in criminal courts...

<center><a href=http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130035>Conservative media attacks of detainee trials undermined by support from ret. military brass, conservative scholars, and statesmen</a></center>

<blockquote> * Stephen Abraham, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Army Intelligence Corps (Reserves); Lawyer, Newport Beach, California

* Dennis Archer, President, American Bar Association, 2003-2004; Mayor, Detroit, 1994-2001; Associate Justice, Michigan Supreme Court, 1986-1990

* William Banks, Professor, Director, the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism; Laura J. & L. Douglas Meredith Professor of Law, Syracuse University College of Law

* David M. Brahms, Brigadier General (Ret.), U.S. Marine Corps, 1963-1988, Legal Adviser, 1983-1988; Practicing attorney; Member, Board of Directors, Judge Advocates Association

* Larry Edwin Craig, U.S. Senator (R-ID), 1991-2009, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 2005-2007; President, New West Strategies

* James P. Cullen, Brigadier General (Ret.), U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps; Chief Judge (IMA), U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals; practicing lawyer

* Sandy D'Alemberte, President, American Bar Association, 1991-1992

* John W. Dean, Nixon White House Counsel, 1970-1973

* Mickey Edwards, Member of U.S. Congress (R-OK), 1977-1993, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, 1989-1993; Former National Chairman, American Conservative Union; Founder, Heritage Foundation; Lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University

* Bruce Fein, former Associate Deputy Attorney General and Assistant Director, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice; former General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission; former Research Director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Covert Arms Sales to Iran; former Executive Director, World Intelligence Review; Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Resident Scholar, Heritage Foundation; Lecturer, Brookings Institute; Adjunct Professor, George Washington University

* Eugene R. Fidell, President, National Institute of Military Justice; Florence Rogatz Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School; Of Counsel, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP

* Louis G. Fisher, Specialist in Constitutional Law, Law Library, Library of Congress

* Sam Gardiner, Colonel (Ret.), U.S. Air Force

* Philip Giraldi, Francis Walsingham Fellow, American Conservative Defense Allliance; Former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer

* Michael S. Greco, President, American Bar Association, 2005-2006

* Robert Grey, President, American Bar Association, 2004-2005

* Lee F. Gunn, Vice Admiral (Ret.) U.S. Navy

* Don Guter, Rear Admiral (Ret.) U.S. Navy, 1970-2002;

* Robert Hirshon, President, American Bar Association, 2001-2002

* John D. Hutson, Rear Admiral (Ret.) U.S. Navy, 1973-2000; Judge Advocate General, 1997-2000; President and Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center

* David R. Irvine, Brigadier General (Ret.) U.S. Army; Former Deputy Commander, 96th Regional Readiness Command; former faculty member, Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School, 18 years; former Legislator (R), Utah House of Representatives

* Albert H. Konetzni, Jr., Vice Admiral (Ret.) U.S. Navy, Deputy and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Deputy Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command; Commander, Submarine Force, U.S. Pacific Fleet; Commander, Submarine Group Seven (Yokosuka, Japan); Assistant Chief of Naval Personnel for Personnel Policy and Career Progression

* Scott McConnell, Editor-at-Large of The American Conservative

* James E. McPherson, Rear Admiral (Ret.), Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, 2004-2006

* David C. Miller, Jr., Special Assistant to the President, National Security Affairs, National Security Council for President George H. W. Bush, 1989-1990; Ambassador to Zimbabwe, 1984-1986; to Tanzania, 1981-1984

* Melvyn S. Montano, Major General (Ret.) U.S. Air National Guard, 1954-1999

* Alberto Mora, Former General Counsel, Department of the Navy

* William H. Neukom, President, American Bar Association, 2008-2009

* Michael Ostrolenk, National Director of the Liberty Coalition; Founder and National Coordinator, Medical Privacy Coalition; President and Co-Founder, American Conservative Defense Alliance

* Murray G. Sagsveen, Brigadier General (Ret.) U.S. Army; Staff Judge Advocate for the State Area Command, Special Assistant to the National Guard Bureau Judge Advocate, Army National Guard Special Assistant to the Judge Advocate General of the Army; General Counsel, American Academy of Neurology

* Stephen A. Saltzburg, Attorney General's ex-officio Representative, U.S. Sentencing Commission, 1989-1990; Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1988-1989

* Daniel S. Seikaly, Chief of the Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia, 2001-2004; Associate Inspector General for Investigations, Central Intelligence Agency, 1998-2001; Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1996-1998

* William S. Sessions, Director of the FBI, 1987-1993; Chief Judge, 1980-1987, and Judge, 1974-1987, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; U.S. Attorney, Western District of Texas, 1971-1974

* John F. Tate, President, Campaign for Liberty

* Colby Vokey, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) U.S. Marine Corps, 1987-2008; Lead Counsel for Guantanamo detainee Omar Khadr at Military Commissions, 2005-2007; Attorney, Fitzpatrick Hagood Smith & Uhl, LLP

* H. Thomas Wells, Jr., President, American Bar Association, 2009-2010

* Lawrence Wilkerson, Colonel (Ret.) U.S. Army; Visiting Pamela C. Harriman Professor of Government at the College of William and Mary; Professorial Lecturer in the University Honors Program at the George Washington University; former Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, 2002-2005

* Stephen N. Xenakis, Brigadier General (Ret.) U.S. Army, Commanding General of the Southeast Army Regional Medical Command; author on medical ethics, military medicine, and treatment of detainees</blockquote>

red states rule
11-19-2009, 06:17 AM
I do not care for Lindsey Graham, but he wiped the floor up with Eric Holder. Like Obama, Holder is in way over his head

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sG7lm8Sfbo4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sG7lm8Sfbo4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

red states rule
11-19-2009, 06:57 AM
AG Holder said even if KSM or his fellow terrorists are found "not guilty" they will be held anyway

Why is Obama and Holder wasting time, and money with this? Is it to try and appease their base?





'Heads I Win, Tails You Lose': In 9/11 Case, KSM Won't Walk Free Even If Found Not Guilty
Michael Isikoff
Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged on Wednesday a previously unspoken proviso to the controversial decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-conspirators in a federal court in New York: even if the defendants are somehow acquitted, they will still stay behind bars.

Holder's comments at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee would seem to turn the criminal-justice system on its head. The whole point of a criminal trial is to determine guilt—and if the government fails to make its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant walks free.

At least that's the way the system usually works.

But pressed today by Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, about what might happen "if, by some one in a million fluke, one of the defendants were acquitted," Holder responded in effect that they won't be released.

First, he noted, Congress has already barred any Guantánamo detainees from being released inside the United States. But then, pressed again about what would happen "if one of these terrorists" in the future were found not guilty or given a short sentence, Holder agreed that the Justice Department would still retain the authority to lock them up as enemy combatants.

"I certainly think that under the regime that we are contemplating, the potential for detaining people under the laws of war, we would retain that ability," Holder said.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/18/heads-i-win-tails-you-lose-in-9-11-case-ksm-won-t-walk-free-even-if-found-not-guilty.aspx

bullypulpit
11-19-2009, 09:49 AM
AG Holder said even if KSM or his fellow terrorists are found "not guilty" they will be held anyway

Why is Obama and Holder wasting time, and money with this? Is it to try and appease their base?

That being the case then...and hell must be freezing over...I agree with you. If they are to continue to be held, even if acquitted, the trials are no more than a kangaroo court where the verdict is in before the trial begins. Mr. Holder should be ashamed of himself.

The letter AND spirit of the Constitution must be upheld, else it is meaningless. If they are acquitted, they must be released.

red states rule
11-19-2009, 09:52 AM
That being the case then...and hell must be freezing over because I agree with you. If they are to continue to be held, even if acquitted, the trials are no more than a kangaroo court where the verdict is in before the trial begins. Mr. Holder should be ashamed of himself.

The letter AND spirit of the Constitution must be upheld, else it is meaningless. If they are acquitted, they must be released.

Goven Obama's comment on them being convicted and put to death, their defense attornies are salavating at the prospect of a criminal trial

This will be a liberals dream come true

The United States, Pres Bush, VP Cheney, the US militray, and the CIA will be put on trial for the entire world to see

Bottom line is, Holder was humilated by Sen Graham, and shows how unqualifed he is to be AG