In Guantanamo, he has rejected the efforts of lawyers to protect his rights.
Even a lawyer for the ACLU, which has been helping to safeguard the rights of the terror gang, conceded that the likelihood they go it alone in court is high.
"It's quite possible that these defendants will undertake to represent themselves," Ben Wizner said. "They've been trying to fire their lawyers the whole time so they can be executed."
Experts say it's possible Mohammed will plead guilty, seeking a quicker path to death.
Experts also say that real American-style legal work on his case can be tremendously effective:
"The first thing they're going to do is challenge all of the evidence and say all of it is the fruit of waterboarding," [lawyer Alan] Dershowitz said.
Posts
78 comments:
It is possible KSM may do a Gary Gilmore on this, but KSM biggest motivation is his own ego. While I think he will get convicted and probably executed, I would not count on the path to that being at all easy or in our benefit. He knows he can use this trial to promote himself and his cause. Look for him to do so.
Experts say it's possible Mohammed will plead guilty, seeking a quicker path to death.
Makes sense to me.
I just want to know how they'll find a jury? Who hasn't heard of 911 and are they mentally competent to be on a jury?
Ron Kuby is right about this:
"[Mohammed's] goal in the legal system is not to beat the rap. His goal is to use the legal system as a forum for his own ideas and to embrace martyrdom through that system."
I hope I am wrong on how this plays out, but I suspect that "Judgment at Nuremburg" this will not be. Holder and Obama gave KSM a hell of a last request, a chance to play (granted KSM's own sick twisted version) of "A Man of All Seasons."
KSM must know that a guilty plea will get him nothing but a quick sentencing and years on death row pining for martyrdom that will not come.
His strategy will be to enter a not guilty plea and to act as his own defense so that he will not be constrained by courtroom niceties. If his histrionics go too far he will be bundled away, and can claim that his "rights" have been trampled. No matter how you slice it, this trial will damage the United States. I can't believe that Obama wants to damage the United States, but what other conclusion is possible?
As his stand-by counsel, I would advise Mr. Mohammed to wear a skimpy golden-roped string bikini.
This assumes that KSM can't have a court bailif shove a ball gag in to KSM's mouth faster than you can say non compos menis.
My aunt was in the french underground during WW!!. After the war she married my uncle, a soldier, and he returned to the U.S. with his new bride. To her dying day she believed fervently that the failure of so many to recognize early on the danger of nazi ideology caused a terrible war that didn't have to happen.
Islam, for a fundamentalist Muslim, is not just about the hereafter. It is about a political agenda as well. I think leaders and people of the West better be very careful and wise.
A clever ploy for Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be to seek the wisdom of Alpha Liberal for his defense.
AL: "I can see New York from here."
"I can't believe that Obama wants to damage the United States"
I can. The base of current leftist thinking on the United States of America is that we as a nation are too powerful, and that drastic measures must be taken in order to "level the playing field" so that all those other sad nations weeping on the sidelines can get to play too. They really do think like this: the world is like a big junior high, and the brainy kids (liberals) and foreign exchange students (all non-Western foreign countries) are being harassed and overshadowed by the jocks (the USA). This is Revenge of the Nerds without the funny jokes.
I thought of another disadvantage of trying captured enemy leaders.
They'll just lawyer up and shut up. If there's no value in cooperating, because the information may be used in a death penalty trial, why talk (especially since we can't force them to do so)? KSM cooperated and now the government is trying to kill him.
From the perspective of winning the war this makes no sense. If we are going to kill enemy leaders, just use a drone.
Of course, that's exactly the decision that's been made.
I'm starting to see journalists express some skepticism of drone assassinations. A few are honest enough to admit that assassination has become so popular because capture is wrought with so many headaches. There's little intelligence value and a lot of bad PR.
The Predator strikes are the Phoenix program of this war. How it came to be that killing enemy leaders, and whatever civilians happen to be around, has come to be more accepted than capture is yet another example of the law of unintended consequences.
Fred4Pres said...
It is possible KSM may do a Gary Gilmore on this, but KSM biggest motivation is his own ego. While I think he will get convicted and probably executed, I would not count on the path to that being at all easy or in our benefit.
Bambi, of course, thinking the death penalty is one of those barbaric American customs for which he must apologize, would refuse to execute him and commute the sentence. But, then, KSM wouldn't get what he wanted - martyrdom.
Trapped in such a quagmire between respecting diversity and multiculturalism, and passing Kerry's Global Test, The Won's head just might explode.
Hmmmm...
Tyrone Slothrop said...
I can't believe that Obama wants to damage the United States, but what other conclusion is possible?
You've been on Pitcairn Island since last Christmas, haven't you?
" They really do think like this: the world is like a big junior high, and the brainy kids (liberals) and foreign exchange students (all non-Western foreign countries) are being harassed and overshadowed by the jocks (the USA). This is Revenge of the Nerds without the funny jokes.
"
I LOVE the old conservative mind-reading trick, where conservatives tell us "libs" what we really think!
For her next trick, Andrea will tell me what I am going to have for lunch tomorrow!
Is it that hard to just shoot people now-a-days?
Andrea, it seems to me you're rather new here. If not, my apologies, but in any case, I love your comments!
It will be fascinating (and I truly hope not in a nightmarish way) to see how this trial goes. It could bury the liberal approach to this for a long while, or it truly could bury us as a country as well. With the sympathetic media these terrorists have, it is not impossible.
This is a battle that must be won. I hope we're up to it as a country.
The base of current leftist thinking on the United States of America is that we as a nation are too powerful, and that drastic measures must be taken in order to "level the playing field" so that all those other sad nations weeping on the sidelines can get to play too.
But he still won't play basketball with women.
The ACLU/Obama administration will keep the stream of Gitmo folks coming until they get one who doesn't want to die, and who will allow them to try Bush and Cheney.
Yes, Obama wants to hurt America, to bring us down a peg, so everyone will like us.
Jason-
We do just shoot them. As long as we are smart enough to avoid capturing them, which is hard to do with a drone, just shooting them is perfectly OK.
Barack Obama is intentionally putting into danger the people of the United States.
He should be stopped.
There is absolutely no constitutional guarantee that foreign combatants get access to our courts.
Obama is doing this intentionally. He is doing this deliberately to undermine American concepts of justice and war and to exact revenge on his critics (such as former Vice President Dick Cheney).
It's dangerous and unnecessary.
We'd better impeach this stupid son of a bitch now, legally, through the Congress ... before some individual gets it in his mind to do it themselves.
Obama has no right to endanger Americans in order to protect rights of foreigners that he contends exist, but that are not enumerated in our Constitution, or juris prudence.
Obama is acting outside the Constitution and his authority.
And so he should be stopped by the Congress.
The Dershowitz column about this was interesting, because he laid out a lot of the problems a trial would cause, then said it was a good idea. He didn't really explain the advantages. I suppose maybe those are supposed to be self evident.
"For her next trick, Andrea will tell me what I am going to have for lunch tomorrow!"
Well, I don't know what it will be, but I'm sure I know what it won't be: anything from McDonalds. Because you're lot have spoken, and McDonalds is off the island! So no, you won't be ordering a delightfully greasy Big Mac just oozing cheese and savory sauce in a soft, warm bun. Or maybe you won't be eating a Quarter Pounder with everything. With fries -- McDonald's still does good fries, hot, crisp, salty. You won't be having that.
Damn, I'm hungry. Gotta go!
Argh: "your lot," not "you're lot." I need my breakfast.
wv: frogis... not on the menu.
Honestly, can you please articulate what exactly is so scary about trying KSM in a civilian court? How exactly will it endanger the U.S.?
If Bush had followed the advice of the uniformed military and set up military courts under the existing UCMJ instead of setting up these unworkable and probably unconstitutional military tribunals, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. Instead, the most reasonable course is to resort to the civilian courts if we don't want every action appealed to the Supreme Court.
This is a lose-lose and stunningly stupid idea from Obama.
His poll numbers will drop like a rock in the next set of polls.
Apparently Holder and Obama have already forgotten about Zacarias Moussaoui, and the total mockery he made of the US court system back in 2002. I see nothing good coming from this unbelievably foolish decision. Nothing good at all.
Ignoring for the moment the "torture" argument. How can the government use any statement by any of these guys in a civilian courtroom if they wren't mirandized by some GI when captured?
How about chain of custody issues on the material (e.g. laptop) captured with KSM?
Would a search warrant be needed in Federal court to have examined his laptop in Iraq?
what an F'ing can of worms Obama opened by crimalizing combat operations
My prediction is that the whole war on terror will die with a whimper. We can't capture and interrogate enemy leaders. No one wants to occupy their safe havens. Eventually, we'll have to stop assassinating their leaders because of public outcry. The only recourse will become putting them on trial, which will almost never happen. In short, back to the 1990s.
This trial is a microcosm of the desire to make the war go away with words rather than results. Trying KSM is for domestic consumption and does not bring us one inch closer to the goal of defeating the enemy. It's making us feel better about ourselves without protecting anyone.
Implicit in all this is the assumption that our own government is more of a threat than the enemy. Otherwise, why all the hand wringing over the legal status of this terrorist?
I understand that a lot of people feel that way, and I understand why, but it would be nice to have some consistency. Giving a trial to a mass murderer while dropping hellfire missiles on small fry in Pakistan is a paradox.
This whole thing is so incredibly convoluted.
I feel compelled again to draw a Rube Goldberg-style execution method like this one for Saddam Hussein. Except this time instead of a hanging, this one must end in a beheading activated by a hungry mongoose loosened by a series of tentatively related ridiculously posed mechanical causations to do what hungry mongooses do when presented with a plate of earthworms. The disturbed plate of worms could initiate the descent of a weighted bicycle wheel fitted with Jambiyas and not those good ones either with the saifani hilt but rather wobbly wooden-handled daggers with no carving or decoration at all and with blades filed to be ragged and dulled, the dagger-fitted wheel set in motion then building momentum with its descent, its whirling speed increasing until the edges of the blades finally make contact with KSM's neck. Kind of like Henry VIII wife-o-meter, except only a lot worse.
KSM admitted his guilt and asked the military judge to find him guilty and impose a punishment.
"Justice" (whatever that might be) can and would be served by following that procedure. Unless, of course, one wishes to argue that such proceedings are not "justice" for those subject to them.
So, tell me, if you can, what is the purpose of a criminal trial in New York City? It is not to impose "justice" on someone who has freely admitted to his crimes and has re-affirmed that admission to a military judge.
Please. Explain the legal purpose. I know the political purpose.
Well, perhaps KSM will do both. Get a "real American lawyer" to persuade the court to throw out most of the prosecution's evidence, and then conduct his own defense to advance his propaganda and martyrdom agendas.
That way KSM will control much of the narrative.
Or maybe his goal will be to create a hung jury, so he can do it all again.
Everyone assumes he will not try to beat the rap. Why? If he could gain an actual acquittal, that would serve his propaganda interests even better, it seems to me.
There would still be lots of ways to become a martyr.
The unpredictability element is pretty high here.
The Chipster still has it!
Does anyone seriously believe that the prosecution will even try to introduce any evidence obtained from KSM after he was captured?
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge him with the murder of Daniel Pearl. Show the video tape of KSM cutting his head off. Send it to the jury and ask for the death penalty. Bing bang boom off to the death house.
phosphorious said...
I LOVE the old conservative mind-reading trick, where conservatives tell us "libs" what we really think!
You don't think, that's the problem. You emote, witness all your faux glee at conservatives' supposed stupidity, your uncontrolled use of profanity and invective.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Professor Althouse, exhibit A.
Keep the Gitmo alumni in the general population and let the animals tear them to pieces and we'll look the other way.
That's how we were able to arrange the death penalty for Dahmer. Here's a broomstick, have at it.
Anyone willing to pass the hat to fund a lone wacko? I'd contribute.
^ Talking about the Gitmo alumni, not the POTUS. Back off, Napolitano.
WV bionsce
misspelling of Beyonce
Apparently Holder and Obama have already forgotten about Zacarias Moussaoui, and the total mockery he made of the US court system back in 2002.
Yes, it was particularly galling when he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. We were totally mocked.
So, Beth, in your world it doesn't matter what happens in the courtroom as long as there's a conviction. How Manichean of you.
Fred Frederson said...
If Bush had followed the advice of the uniformed military and set up military courts under the existing UCMJ instead of setting up these unworkable and probably unconstitutional military tribunals
Oh boy Fred Frederson is here and the discussion can now go completely off the rails.
FF, take a look at this. If you do , you will learn that the United States Congress has established a legal framework for military tribunals in response to the Boumediene Supreme Court case. I'm looking forward to the next time you expose your ignorance, and have faith it will be soon.
I think this whole farce can best be summed up this way: The Left cannot be trusted with national security.
oops-- Hamdan, not Bioumediene.
Question for all of you out there... would you want to be on the jury convicting a leader of an international terrorist organization with at least a million fans? Some fans who could, possibly, live around the corner from your house. You know, the house you share with your husband, three adorable children and pet cocker spaniel?
Rialby said...
(W)ould you want to be on the jury convicting a leader of an international terrorist organization with at least a million fans?
That is indeed an excellent question and one that had not occurred to me. I suspect I would serve on such a jury if there were no way out, but I would much rather be excused.
Rialby, yes, the conviction matters. Does it not in your world?
What happens if KSM decides to make the case that W and Cheney were behind the attacks of 9/11 and starts pulling in evidence from "films" like "Loose Change"? Which side will leftists like Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Howard "It's an interesting theory" Dean be on?
Have the Moussaoui jurors been attacked? They or their families?
Of course the conviction matters. So does all the other stuff.
Which side will leftists like Rosie O'Donnell, Charlie Sheen and Howard "It's an interesting theory" Dean be on?
Since they won't be presiding over the trial, nor serving on the jury, who cares?
Rialby, you should read Big Mike's comment to which I responded, then. Pointing to the conviction counters his depiction of that trial as "total mockery" and "nothing good at all."
ZM jurors attacked? Not that I know of. Of course ZM was not KSM by any stretch of the imagination. KSM is effectively a proxy for OBL at this point since bin Laden has been dead for years.
Those jurors were kept anonymous. They also did something very nice for ZM by sparing him the death penalty. What happens if KSM isn't given the same gift?
Beth points to her comment to Big Mike that we've been discussing.
Uh, isn't that a bit circular? KSM may not be convicted. We do not know that he will. There are many NUANCES to this case that didn't exist in the ZM case. For example, KSM was not picked up in MN and he was not read his Miranda rights. He was waterboarded. He was kept in a prison in US custody without a speedy trial for years. Should I go on?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE KSM TRIAL IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE ZM TRIAL? Do you get that ZM made his trial a circus and that, in the end, prosecutors won a conviction but were DENIED THE PUNISHMENT THEY ASKED FOR?
"Since they won't be presiding over the trial, nor serving on the jury, who cares?"
42% of Democrats believe that the attacks of 9/11:
a) were executed by the Bush administration
or
b) the Bush administration knew exactly what was going to happen and let it happen anyway.
If Democrats make up 50% of the public, that gives us 1 out of 5 people in America who believe the above statement. That's 2 people on a jury of 12. That's 2x what it takes to hang a jury.
So, Beth, I care.
So you've confirmed the death of bin Laden. Okay. Good to know.
How is this substantially different than trying any brutal, organized killer? Juries, witnesses and district attorneys all over the world have to contend with threats.
You might as well argue that we can't do anything to combat specific terrorists for fear of retaliation. Why limit that fear to jurors?
What's that, Rialby? Can you type LOUDER?
"How is this substantially different than trying any brutal, organized killer? Juries, witnesses and district attorneys all over the world have to contend with threats."
Beth, it's different. You know why? Because this is a choice. Prosecutors in 99.9% of the other trials do not have the choice to kick it over to a perfectly constitutional military tribunals process. Obama did.
Oh yeah, and by the way, judges and juries in backwater, 3rd world countries where Islamism reigns regularly find themselves headless.
Also, I should add - we're not talking about shielding juries and judges from an organized crime ring like La Cosa Nostra. They typically kill as part of their business not because they think non-Italians are infidels.
We're talking about an organized religion with tens of thousands of very radical adherents who do not need a special dispensation from the Godfather to murder for vengeance.
Then those world-wide adherents of a fanatic philosophy will retaliate whether KSM is in court or in Gitmo. And yet we continue to fight terrorists, despite the possibility sof retaliation.
Drill SGT hit the nail on the head; if you make this a criminal prosecution, you immediately run into so many legal problems that if the judge doesn't order KSM immediately released, it will make a mockery of our judicial system.
"Then those world-wide adherents of a fanatic philosophy will retaliate whether KSM is in court or in Gitmo."
Beth, you're giving yourself a lot of breathing room there, huh? Why didn't you just write, "terrorism will probably happen and don't you dare blame it on the fact that Obama made a bad decision to bring a terrorist leader to the US for trial"?
It's so much easier to argue when you create the arguments for everyone involved, isn't it, Rialby? You're not only predicting the outcome of this trial, but what I'll have to say about it. Wow. I'll add that to your super secret knowledge about bin Laden's death.
Terrorism does happen. Do you claim to know all the reasons for it?
I can see the disadvantages, but can anyone explain the advantages of trying KSM by civilians in NYC? I'm not asking in a sarcastic way. I just don't get it.....The Italian translator of Satanic Verses was murdered. There were huge riots on the alleged destruction of the Koran at Gitmo. People got murdered over the Danish cartoons. There are so many ways this can go wrong and cause someone's death. And what do we win if everything goes right?
"If I were the prosecutor, I would charge him with the murder of Daniel Pearl. Show the video tape of KSM cutting his head off. Send it to the jury ..."
American courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur in foreign lands.
An American prosecutor cannot try KSM for the murder of Daniel Pearl.
This isn't about justice, folks.
Barack Obama doesn't want justice.
Obama wants chaos. He wants us fighting each other.
He is a danger to us, but we needn't put up with it. We have the ability and the Constitution grants us the power to remove Presidential who callously place Americans into harms way.
Barack Obama is dangerous. He needs to be forcibly removed from his job before more New Yorkers he puts in danger have to die.
"And what do we win if everything goes right?"
The cool kids in Europe will like us, just a little bit, maybe.
Joe said...
Drill SGT hit the nail on the head; if you make this a criminal prosecution, you immediately run into so many legal problems that if the judge doesn't order KSM immediately released, it will make a mockery of our judicial system
Mark O said...
KSM admitted his guilt and asked the military judge to find him guilty and impose a punishment.
snip
It is not to impose "justice" on someone who has freely admitted to his crimes and has re-affirmed that admission to a military judge.
so if KSM was tried for murder in a Military tribunal, admitted his guilt in front of a Judge, under what circumstances didn't Jeopardy attach.
If I were KSM, I'd let them empanel a jury then move to acquit due to double jeopardy from his other trial.
What T shirt would you wear to voir dire? To try to get on the jury, or to be sent home?
Randy said...
Experts say it's possible Mohammed will plead guilty, seeking a quicker path to death.
Makes sense to me
That was true for GITMO. But that was then, this is NOW.
Everything has changed. His ACLU lawyer will tell him and his Brother JIhadists just how much more damage they can do now that they are in civilian court. A series of things that will tie well paid lawyers happy to be delayed and tied up in knots - 3-5 years for change of venue lawsuits, chain of evidence custody lawsuits, discovery where Brother Islamists may determine through a leaky lawyer who captured KSM and comrades, who approved of this or that by name.
And lawyers that will spin all this through their media feeds...KSM's children were caught with him and not fed for 9 hours!! Oh, the humanity!!
For years.
Then the blessed majesty of the infidel court and their godless law will be on display for every Islamist to admire and love us for how good our justice is...just as we see Sharia councils and have nothing but admiration for them as homos are legally hanged, adulturous women stoned to death.
And what a time to have KSM give the speeches to a global audience he never would have been allowed in a tribunal at GITMO. Well done speeches in fluent English to Americans and the Global media market...then speeches in Arabic that target a different audience and require a translator to catch what he has said 5 seconds after it goes into Jihadist ears. Maybe some great recruiting speeches - telling all black, hispanic and white prisoners to convert to Islam and go to Paradise for killing the people that caught and convicted them.
And no doubt, it is KSM's Islamic duty, as a NYC ACLU lawyer will remind him and the 4 others to attack the previous administration, damage the US military and CIA as much as possible. REveal as many sources and methods as he can blurt out in open court or pass on to others in jail.
Allah and Obama-Holder expect no less.
Somewhere out in Oprah-Land, where they talk about serial rapist-killers and the women who love them....and can't write enough love letters.
They have to run a new segment.
Muslim terrorists and the sometimes gay, always liberal, and sometimes Jewish & female lawyers who are in love with terrorist rights - and can't fight too much to get more for them!
This is Saul Alinsky gone into running the levers of power in the Executive Branch of our Federal Government. Holder will simply hold us up to our highest ideals so that we will be seen as wanting. What a brilliant strategy! All the world will get to despise us as much as Alinsky, Soros, Obama, and Al Queada have always despised us for boldly expressing Christian ideals in public as our strength to refuse bowing before their claims that they should rule over us. Holder's decision has Zero reasons except his and Obama's need to shame us internationally in hopes of weakening us. The War on Terror is over and the War on American Citizens by a Fifth columnist Army headquartered in the White House has reached a blitzkreig pace to finish us off before any more elections can take place.
This is really simple at its heart.
Either we have one set of rules for American citizens, and another for our foreign enemies... or we have one set of rules for everyone.
We have an inability to accept that our enemies are not Americans and should not be treated as Americans. That doesn't mean we shouldn't treat them by some set of rules and procedures. It just doesn't follow that they should be the same as applied to American citizens.
They are enemies, not just foreigners, not just people who have broken laws. I realize that the enemy label can be misused, but it seems to me that in cases like KSM it's pretty hard to deny.
Beth, if this man should be prosecuted, then I suppose you condemn FDR as a war criminal for allowing on-the-spot executions of Germans found operating on the battlefield out of uniform?
Why on earth don't we just take this twit out back, tie him to a stump, and shoot him? (Assuming he's no longer of any value)?
He's not a citizen, and he does not have the rights of a citizen. He's an unlawful combatant. Shoot him. If you want to waste time about it, then go all-out and hang the son-of-a-bitch.
Beth - "You're not only predicting the outcome of this trial, but what I'll have to say about it."
Clearly, you didn't understand what I was trying to say. Bringing this trial to New York adds an unbelievable amount of risk to the task of bringing KSM to justice. I cannot predict what will happen but I can list a dozen things that can go wrong that wouldn't have gone wrong if we stuck with military tribunals.
As for my belief that OBL is dead, why is that such a crazy thing to say? Many, including the man who wrote the book that was the basis for Syriana (a favorite of the Left) has said as much.
Well, all the Democrat spin doctors are saying, don't worry, we won't release him even if he is found not guilty.
So, in other words, we are going to have a show trial. Last week it was all about impressing the world with our compassion and our fabulous legal system. Today it's about a show trial.
The country's in the best of hands.
kentuckyliz,
"What T shirt would you wear to voir dire... to be sent home?"
One with the Kurt Westergaard motoon should work fine for that.
Rialby, I do understand what you've said, and I've responded to some specific points you've offered. I don't buy the argument that we can't try KSM; I'm open to other arguments as to why we shouldn't, but I don't buy the argument that we should be afraid to do so.
I haven't seen Syriana, sorry. Maybe he's dead, maybe he isn't.
American courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur in foreign lands.
An American prosecutor cannot try KSM for the murder of Daniel Pearl.
I don't have time to look up whether or not that's true, but it seems like KSM should be able to be tried for that, since Pearl was an American citizen and all.
Tyrone SlothI can't believe that Obama wants to damage the United States
Why not?
"American courts have no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that occur in foreign lands."
Wrong, see for example:
18 USC § 2332b. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.
"They have to run a new segment.
Muslim terrorists and the sometimes gay, always liberal, and sometimes Jewish & female lawyers who are in love with terrorist rights - and can't fight too much to get more for them!"
With a cast of thousands!
Remember Lynn Stewart? Lawyer to the last group of terrorists to attack the WTC? The one who acted as a messenger for the Blind Sheik and only had to serve a couple of months in jail?
Do you suppose that KSM's counsel will be of the same ilk - willing to sign and then violate secrecy agreements, all for the "greater good"?
Post a Comment