It’s like this administration thinks it’s spelled Librewtea and Just Us while sitting around drinking John Yoo-Hoos’s or something.

Am I the only person left who still remembers a legal concept called presumption of innocence? Am I the only one who remembers that the whole point of a trial is that the outcome is not certain?

I actually appreciate what Gibbs is doing, he’s highlighting exactly how our legal system works now.

You remember correctly, and you’re probably not the only one, but your remembering is appropriately implied past-tense, because that legal system is in the past.

This reminds me of the Charles Manson trial, back in 1970/71. NIXON said something like this back then, during the trial. What did Manson do? Made hay out of it: “The president thinks I am guilty. Why have a trial?” And, for once, I agreed with Manson. Why, indeed? At the trial, all the defense attorneys insisted there be a mistrial, due to the POTUS telling the American people their clients were guilty. It was a pretty big deal, with the trial being stopped, jurors questioned as to their thoughts, etc.

Show trials like this fall under the heading “bread and circuses”. KSM, who has assuredly done terrible things, can be killed or imprisoned indefinitely – he’ll be out of action in either case. I’d prefer life in prison. But the point is that the sensationalism surrounding the trial is destructive. It distracts people and focuses them on the trial of one Very Bad Guy while in reality there are just much bigger issues. If I had my way newspaper editors would regard the trial of KSM as barely newsworthy for a brief period of time, if not never newsworthy at all.

That was really cute

eggggzactly

Why even have a trial indeed! To suggest that the outcome is known in advance is to admit that we’re talking about a “show trial”.

Did Gibbs just taint the prosecution?

Maybe Mike Nifong is writing talking points for Gibbs, helping him taint the jury pool.

See Shell’s comment at #3 above.

C, you don’t understand.

It’s the Star Chamber.

It’s an outrage and a disgrace. Thanks for calling them on it.
STUPID STUPID STUPID

Excuse me. The administration are the ones that are prosecuting KSM. They are not required to be impartial at this point. They have determined already that there is enough evidence to proceed. Their job is to provide the evidence to convince an impartial jury. Their job is not to be “impartial” in doing so.

The difference between the Nixon comment and that of Gibbs was that Nixon was commenting on a case he was not prosecuting. There is no such issue with the administration and Gibbs.

It’s the Star Chamber.

No, it’s not. I have lived and practiced law inthe Southern and Estern Distircts of NY for most of my life (there was a brief exile living in New Jersey, but I could still commute to court).

There are very good judges and practioners here, people with ethics and high standards who would never stoop to participate in a Star Chamber.

And that is my point, by suggesting otherwise, Gibbs just slandered a lot of good people and our criminal justice system as well.

The Administration has already said that if he is acquitted he will never be released. So why are you bothered by the fact that it is also saying he is guilty. It’s a show trial. The outcome is pre-determined. They could hold it in the basement cell at Alcatraz for all the difference it makes.

Dana Perino in a suit.

If Rahm is so worried about Obama’s “popularity” that he sends Gibbs out to sell “Hang ‘em High” to the bloody rightwing, wait until middle America gets a bead on the crap he’s trying to sell them in his insurance-subsidy reform legislation, the continuing bank bail-out-secrecy fest, and his and Obama’s inability even to staff their administration without first getting a permission slip from the Republicans.

At this point, it no longer matters whether it is Obama or Rahm who is more loquacious but just as incompetent as Bush. It matters that they fix it, and remember that they were hired by the public to run a government, not to spend eight years running a campaign.

To use an admittedly geeky Star Trek analogy hehe…we continue our national slide from Federation-style justice to Cardassian-style justice.

—————————-

A quick lesson in Cardassian Justice:

* You are denied knowledge of what you are accused of until your trial.

* You can never know who your accusers are…for *security* reasons.

* Trials are a show for the public, to explain how the guilt was determined, not to find a verdict.

* The verdict is always predetermined- guilty.

* The duty of your spouse is to get you to valiantly accept the charges and execution.

The administration are the ones that are prosecuting KSM. They are not required to be impartial at this point. They have determined already that there is enough evidence to proceed.

Gibbs isn’t prosecuting anything. DOJ is, and they have a spokesperson and a whole press office and everything. And DOJ has very tough written guidlines about pre-trial statements, so as not to prejudice a fair trial.

Gibbs has no clue what he is doing and how much damage he is doing in terms of the jury pool. He needs to STFU and leave this to the professionals.

“Excellent federal judges of SDNY…”? May I call your attention, counselor, to U.S.A. v. Aafia Siddiqui? Judge Berman did his level best to preside over a kangaroo court. His defendant isn’t even legally in the country, having been illegally rendered from Afghanistan by the FBI. He has allowed federal prosecutors to introduce terrorism everywhere they could in a trial that is about attempted murder. He has permitted strip and cavity searches of the defendant as a precondition to meeting with her attorneys or appearing in court, and when she declined, therefore, to appear in court, he ordered her to do so. He has permitted special, and intimidating, searches of spectators in full view of the jury, and specifically questioned them on September 11th during selection, insuring that those chosen knew this was a 9/11 al Qaeda terrorist case regardless of the courtroom pretenses otherwise. He specifically wrote into his handed down opinion of her competency hearing that she had the right to testify in her own defense at any such hearing, and he specifically forbade her from doing so. And he ruled that a prisoner being subjected to 24/7 lights and cameras and FBI surveillance (with badges covered so she didn’t know they were FBI), dependent on her surveillors for food, drink, and to use the toilet, subjected to a male FBI agent watching bandages on her sternum and abdomen being changed and while she urinated, on, including, morphine, percocet, haldol, etc. having been shot in the abdomen, worried about the fate of her three children, and believing she is headed back to a black site prison, was giving information to people who had not Mirandized her or given her consular access, “voluntarily and knowingly”.

Sure, the “excellent federal judges of the SDNY”. For all that, she may be acquitted, the prosecution really has no case and is borderline executing a coverup of attempted murder of a prisoner in custody. Then we shall see what he does with an acquitted defendant who has no papers to be in the U.S. because she was illegally brought here, who all of New York City refers to as “Lady al Qaeda”.

Excellent federal judges. Not. Pants pissing fearful of ‘da terrists’ more like it.

Robert Gibbs, cannot legally know exactly what that evidence might be. So, how could you [he] possibly know if KSM is going to be convicted? How do you [does he] know that?

Because it is a political decision, not the rule of law.

Gibbs just testified that he is partaking in a cover up.

The man was tortured. For all we know he was innocent. He is the fall guy, they always have one. The co-conspirators that tortured him do not want his trial to result in any evidence of torture that would be admissible in court. What has been done to him is a lot more important legally than whatever he did.

Why? Because 9/11 was an inside job.

Grossly and outrageously inappropriate comment by Gibbs. Pandering to the right. He should retract the comment immediately and apologize.

Sounds like a good reason to take back our country to me.

That does sound like an incredibly inappropriate statement. If I was his defense attorney, I’d be all over it. Nothing like prejudicing the jury way ahead of time.
D’oh!

Oops, I guess I owe you a drink. Bartender?

No, you’re not excused. You need to go back and read the post.

Part of Cynthia’s point was that Gibbs’ comments just made the job of the defense attorneys a helluva lot easier.

“You remember correctly, and you’re probably not the only one, but your remembering is appropriately implied past-tense, because that legal system is in the past.”

I agree. This is not the DOJ we had as recently as the clinton era; pat robertson u grads are running the show trials now.

karen

Yes but newspaper editors have been very involved in selling us an illegal war and implementing torture as policy. I think they are co-conspirators and have committed treason.

What if his trial turns into an indictment of them?

Let the AG, the US Attorney and the Chief Judge handle it. You guys go back to doing the stuff that you are good at.

Is anyone at the WH able to do good – or well – at anything besides talking points?

(Someone needs to slap them with a cluebat, to remind them that the verdict and the sentence come after the trial, not before.)

Did we fall into the Twilight Zone and another dimension where McCain got elected? Or Bush got a 3rd term? Where’s Rod Serling?

I am starting to think the perpetraitors of 9-11 escaped all responsibility.Why was the focus of Sep.11th shifted from Bin Laden to KSM?
Why is it that Bin laden is not formally charged with 9-11?This is another cover-up brought to you by your shadow government.

Forward, backward, inward, outward
Come and join the chase
Nothing could be drier
Than a jolly caucus race

Backward, forward, outward, inward
Bottom to the top
Never a beginning,
There can never be a stop

This post makes me shudder. I was aware our justice system had fallen apart, but now I see its dust. Because there is NO WILL to fix it. None at all. Why is there no outcry other than FDL? Where are all those educated boomers who along with their parents benefitted from a post-war semblance of democracy, meritocracy and GI Bill income distribution? Why is there no interest in justice? Why did we sell our birthright for a mess of Bush/Obama pottage?

ksm and roeder are in the same bucket.
people who have admitted their crime.

(assumes some facts in evidence based on news reports)

That just depends on what color you are, for the red or black person it has been like that from day one.

I’ve been mentally calling it Bush 44 for a month now.

KSM’s “confession” is not the same as Scott Roeder’s confession.

Roeder wasn’t tortured.

Jeezuz Christ! Some members of Obama’s adminsitration can be really stupid assholes can’t they. Thanks for giving the right-wingers a talking point to endlessly blovate on until the trial is over Gibbs…

Thanks for giving the right-wingers a talking point to endlessly blovate on…

Actually, most of the right wing bloviators will be praising Gibbs for his truthiness on this one.

OK, I’ll bite: “You guys go back to doing the stuff that you are good at.”

What would that be?

Sentence first. Then the verdict.

With no reflection of the officers of the Courts diligently performing their duties, the consequence of this Gibbs’ misuse of “freedom of speech” is to turn the criminal justice system into a set Star Chamber proceedings.

The Government’s actions is talking about the outcome of the trial, poisons the Jury pool to the extent that the proceedings become a Star Chamber, as the founders of the US well knew.

In the UK, as well as having parliament’s question time (a good practice), all criminal proceeding are sub-judicae, and the there is a serious risk of being in contempt for behaviors like Gibbs’ or the US press’ custom of endlessly speculating on a trial, and prejudicing the defendant.

As for “freedom of speech,” free speech is already circumscribed, fighting words, and commercial speech are clear examples. There is no practical reason, except for pandering to purient interests, from providing defendants with such protection.

Why is it that Bin laden is not formally charged with 9-11?

What makes you so sure he won’t be? We don’t know yet what the KSM indictment will say. It may, like the embassy bombings indictment, inlcude OBL as a defendant. Why do you think it will not?

KSM’s “confession” is not the same as Scott Roeder’s confession.

Roeder wasn’t tortured.

Marcy Wheeler and I have previously speculated that the evidence to be used against him might all pre-date his capture, which would take the torture issue essentially off the table.

I think they are religiosexual sadists and were turned on by his initials. Every time I see ‘KSM’, I see “King of SadoMasochism.” I think it is the vibes they all give off about him.

There are a whole bunch of New York and DC types who practically drool over discussing him and his torture. It reminds me of guys talking about a porno movie or whorehouse in the presence of a lady (me), so it sounds just like a cover up.

A week and 1/2 ago I helped put on a CLE about free speech and the courts for federal practioners. I wish we could have asked the panel about this.

Marcy Wheeler and I have previously speculated that the evidence to be used against him might all pre-date his capture

Even if this is true, it sounds as if some body has already sorted through the evidence and decided that there was enough to determine his guilt before the trial even begins.

Obama is beginning to remind me a little of Louis XVI.

Do these people want to be absolute monarchs or not. First they determine that there’s enough evidence to find him guilty and have a show trial in New York. Hey, it will show the world that America gives everybody a fair trial.

Then the right wing attacks and the Obama Throne blinks. Hmm. Maybe we shouldn’t have this in NYC. But hey folks, we all know he’s going to be executed anyway so love us, we’re tough.

This is a weak absolute monarchy ping ponging back and forth in response to whatever the right does.

I have no indication that anyone at SDNY thinks that KSM would have a show trial. I expect it to be real trial, until proven otherwise.

That’s why Gibb’s comment makes me so mad.

Yes of course our justice system has fallen apart. It isn’t obvious in the U.S., like it is in broken or breaking countries elsewhere on the globe, but the rule of law rests on a foundation of law enforcement — police, federal investigators, military investigators, and the like. During the Bush administration, these people were compromised by having all of their data and methods mixed with those of the “Intelligence Community”.

Fast-forward to now, when FBI agents can’t tell whether they’re collecting intelligence or gathering evidence, when methods fail to distinguish criminal suspects from intelligence targets, when courts admit arguments like those of Scott Macintosh in the Brendan Mayfield case stipulating that the point of the trial is to incarcerate the terrorist, the charge and guilt are unimportant, and the point of holding a prisoner is to mine them for information. Of course you have broken justice. After the Rasul v. Myers and the Blackwater decisions in April/December 2009 out of the DC circuit and the DC district courts respectively, with the stamp of approval of the SCOTUS in November in the formeer, and you get such spectacles as FBI agents testifying that they interrogated drugged prisoners under duress to gather intelligence, and brilliant judges in SDNY admitting such “evidence” into a court of law. No worries about Miranda, if it ever gets to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice is a well-known crusader all his life against Miranda, anyway.

The FBI/State/local databases on criminal suspects have been fused and corrupted with intelligence speculation and link analysis, the FBI itself has been diverted from its primary mission, the lawyers at the DoJ are almost entirely Bush/Cheney recruits using the same arguments in their cases as before the new administration took office, the integrity of the U.S. Attorneys has been impugned by Mr. Rove, and the SCOTUS forfeited all impartiality in a 2000 political decision.

Yes, it’s fallen apart. But we’ll defend unto the ends of the earth, as good little liberals, the ability of such a system to render justice to “terrorists”. But only because the alternative is even worse “justice”.

I have no indication that anyone at SDNY thinks that KSM would have a show trial. I expect it to be real trial, until proven otherwise.

So you’re saying there was a chance a jury could find KSM “not guilty” and he could walk out the door?

I thought if they found him “not guilty” the government was simply going to rearrest him and try him again.

Presumed innocent has been dying a slow death in this country for years. People often read stories about people arrested and seem to immediately know that the individuals will be found guilty of whatever they are accused of by the police. We know this because most people can’t afford a good lawyer and the public defenders are underfunded and understaffed. So Gibbs, ignorant lout that he has shown himself to be on multiple occasions, says what nearly everyone already accepts as fact. Given the ability of KSM to defend himself against the vast legal exceptionalism around terror accusations and monetary advantages of the US government the trial is almost forgone.

The only time the verdict is in question is when a corporation or people within a corporation are accused, then even a conviction can be just a step to later vindication. The rollback on the Exxon Valdez verdict being a classic.

Gibbs should have kept his mouth shut but he is just a reflection of commonly held beliefs.

Perhaps if KSM incorporated before the trial in order to heighten the sense of suspense.

Nice sentiment, Cynthia, but it’s becoming increasingly likely that there isn’t going to be any trial at all, at least not one before a civilian court with anything remotely resembling fair rules of evidence. It really doesn’t matter what people at SDNY think because if these bipartisan bedwetters have their way, it’s all headed for military tribunals:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31trial.html?hp

Too bad. I was really curious to see how effectively the SDNY gang could keep evidence of the relentless torture of KSM out of the trial record.

What does SDNY have to do with anything? It seems pretty clear this whole thing is being run out of the WH.

Gibbs if anyone hasn’t been paying attention is an idiot. Yes, it was a stupid statement but most of the time he seems either out of the loop or just poorly informed. Under Bush, we had bots and BSers. In the Obama Administration, I get the impression that the Press Secretary has been downgraded even further. If Rahm and Axelrod want to get a story out they just leak it on their own. With Gibbs, it’s almost like all he knows is what he reads in the newspapers rather than providing them content.

uh, KSM was tortured to get that confession. The CIA waterboarded him 183 times in a month and did other things. Then the CIA destroyed the tapes of the confession.

You let me torture Robert Gibbs for 30 minutes and I promise he will “confess” to planning 9/11 as well.

The whole idea that we would seriously allow a person to go to trial after being confined and tortured systematicly for years is absurd.

The fact that we have “progressives” and liberals arguing that it’s a good thing just because Obama is in the White House is sad.

Very sad indeed.

[modnote: please, no suggestions of violence.]

I don’t know about the walk out the door part, but the outcome of any trial is never certain.

Having said that, it is my subjective belief that due to the large amount of evidence that the prosecution had availbale to it from the Bojinka investigation and the embassy bombing case and the USS Cole case, that KSM probably has really lousy odds.
I am also assuming that Preet Bashara will put some of his best talent on the case to minimize the likelihood of a prosecution screw up that tanks the case

This is an interest phrase

I expect it to be real trial, until proven otherwise.

Was the trial really supposed to be about the SDNY proving itself “not guilty”?

They could give KSM a real trial, where he’d probably be found guilty, but, even if found not guilty, there was no risk because the feds would simply arrest him after it was over.

But then the SDNY could say “look. We tried.”

This is a far, far cry from Pakistan where the lawyers actually put on their suit and ties, went out into the streets, and fought it out with the security forces.

You let me torture Robert Gibbs for 30 minutes and I promise he will “confess” to planning 9/11 as well.

I witnessed a right wing rally at Foley Square a few weeks ago “protesting” having the trial in Manhattan.

Lots of the “protesters” had signs with Obama’s photo next to KSM’s photo with the caption “Enemies of America Domestic and Foreign”.

So for the majority of teabaggers Gibbs is already working for a guy from Kenya named “Hussein”.

The funny thing is this crowd was so pathetic, elderly, white and unrepresentative of NYC as a whole they made me laugh.

I guess the White House is more afraid of these clowns then I am.

ya know, the NYTimes sounded the death knell of this trial a couple days ago based upon some anonymous background stuff from someone in the administration. At fisrt I thought it was Rahm, I think I owe him an apology.

Rahm, I apologize.

It later came out that David Axelrod got his head bitten off by the head of a real astate lobbying group and a day or so later, some anonymous trial baloon gets floated in the NYTimes.

So, now Axelrod is my chief suspect.

Yet, in the last 24 hours Axelrod has both tweeted (so I’m told,I don’t read tweets, nor know how to tweet) AND has walked back that idea on TV. He know says that the adminsitration is merely looking at the possibility of alternatives in view of the complaints of some New Yorkers.

There is obviously a tug of war going on voer this tiral and we don’t know yet how it will turn out.

In the meantime, I am super duper disappointed in Mayor Bloomberg for going all bedwetter over this.

We’re neither down the rabbit hole nor playing chess. We’re playing with the imperfect but still workable American system of justice, which is fast becoming a contradiction in terms. Wait until speech=money crowd gets together with that money=immunity from criminal liability crowd. Are they gonna have a party.

What does SDNY have to do with it? until a few days ago, SDNY was supposed to be the venue for the trial. Plans were being made. The names of AUSA’s likely to be on the trial team were already being floated.

SDNY has everything to do with it

I guess the White House is more afraid of these clowns then I am.

That’s possible. But my guess is they don’t care anymore about those people than they do the progressives who got them elected to office.

The truth is, this is all about protecting the Bush administration as we have seen over and over again.

By persuing this case and getting a conviction no matter what, the White House will effectively absolve the Bush administration of the torturing of KSM and others. They will be able to say “see? they were found guilty by a jury of their peers”… Bush was justified in what they did.

That’s what this is about.

Actually, I think Ecahn makes my point very well with the Queen of Hearts reference

That crossed my mind as I typed, I have to admit.

Not just the WH puppets du jour?

The real damage the Obama adminstration has done to this country is to have placed a bi-partisan seal of approval on many of the corrupt and illegal practices of the Bush administration.

Once KSM is “convicted” his relative guilt won’t just be the result of illegal torture… it will have the facade of legitimacy veneered over it as that he was found guilty in a “fair and balenced” court of law.

By persuing this case and getting a conviction no matter what, the White House will effectively absolve the Bush administration of the torturing of KSM and others. They will be able to say “see? they were found guilty by a jury of their peers”… Bush was justified in what they did.

Apples and oranges. The torture of KSM was SUPPOSED TO BE about getting actionable intelligence that would either lead to capture of OBL or help prevent future attacks. It would make no sense to torture KSM to get evidence against KSM.

Such evidence would be excluded in both civilian and military trials and besides as I said above, they supposedly have truckloads of nice admissable pre-capture evidence from prior cases. They don’t need his confession for that.

They’d certainly do that if the jury couldn’t reach a verdict.

(I know of one person who was told, flat out, after a mistrial, that if they didn’t plead to some charge, they’d be tried again and again, until the prosecution got the verdict it wanted. This was in a case where the prosecution had one (poor-quality) witness, and nothing else, and the defendant couldn’t afford a second trial or even a lawyer who would fight the DA.)

gulp.

Good day for a marathon of The Matrix on cable. ;-)

So what did we really get from the appointment of Preet Bashara as USA for SDNY? The same prosecutors are still in the same cases running the same fear and loathing arguments as during the Bush administration. The point of a prosecution doesn’t seem to be convincing the jury of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but rather convincing the jury that their families will be in danger if they let the defendant go free regardless of guilt. That isn’t justice, or wasn’t in a country on these shores just a short time ago.

The only difference I see is that we no longer have an USA in SDNY who continues to write or update documents on how to subvert international law to do renditions while pretending to be a prosecutor independent of the executive branch and the Congress (Michael J. Garcia wrote such stuff for CRS and the State department, following the Jack Goldsmith doctrine that of how to do an end run around GCIV Article 49 prohibitions on deportations in armed conflict).

This is the Queen of Hearts justice: sentencing comes first, then the trial.
To be fair to Gibbs, Obama too had made some prejudicial remarks in the past about this – guessing that they will be found guilty.
As for the change of venue, it was decided by some Wall Street CEOs who were told by the NYC commissioner Ray Kelly that traffic to work would be bad during the trial (Wall Street is close to the Court House). So, Bloomberg obliged his fellow billionaires and was obliged in turn by the White House.
Anyone who insults New Yorkers over this is clueless. We didn’t exactly have a vote in it.

Thanks for pointing this out, Cynthia. Mr. Gibbs gets my award for the best busting of one’s own myth. TPTB and MOTU sometimes forget that we’re not supposed to know it’s all stage-managed, especially when it comes to meting out Justice.

Regarding our torture of KSM: it may be off the table, but it won’t be out of the room: when he walks in, in walks our torture with him. If the evidence pre-dates his torture, what’s been the delay? We tortured him, that’s an inconvenient fact, but now, in the interest of gong through the motions of due process, we’re just going to pretend it never happened? How can we try someone, anyone, when we know they were tortured in our custody, and the perps are still at large? Now, arguing for the greatest fidelity to the law means arguing in defense of the rights of KSM.

More poison fruit from a hopelessly poisoned tree, namely, the “war on terror.”

This is stage-managing and myth-making, under the color of law, making it a form of ritualized human sacrifice.

Yes, we tortured him, but we’re not holding our torturers to account, as is our solemn obligation under laws we helped institute. We’re the sole superpower, we’re exceptional. We’re going to pretend it doesn’t matter, then execute him, and call it a victory for the American Way.

It’s not like extrajudicial killing is new to the U.S. government. Ask my Iroquois ancestors, ask lynching victims, ask the innocent whom we execute in our prisons. Doing it so brazenly in daylight shocks me, of course, but I don’t think any serious student of US politics should be surprised that we’re about to do what we’ve long made a practice of doing: ritual human sacrifice of the Other on the altar of our fears in the name of “good governance.” It’s as American as apple pie.

Is he fit for trial? After all his been through?

Apples and oranges. The torture of KSM was SUPPOSED TO BE about getting actionable intelligence that would either lead to capture of OBL or help prevent future attacks. It would make no sense to torture KSM to get evidence against KSM.

This is heading into bizarroland territory.

They’ll update the Miranda rights into something like

“Any torture that is used against you to gain actionable intelligence will be excluded from your trial where, even though there is a 100% chance that you will be found, your execution will be based on evidence that has preceded by sticking this red hot poker [edited by mod].”

Oh, I know. The class warfare angle on this is just killing me. The small businesses in ChinaTown and Little Italy that are walking distance from the courthouse, would greatly benefit from the increase in foot traffic if cars are further restricted in lower Manhattan.

The “inconvenience” is to those who operate in a town car and taxi world, not a subway and sneakers world.

Whether or not KSM is fit for trial would likely be the subject of pre-trial motion practice. But you can’t get tot he pre-trial motions until you settle on the venue for trial.

This is similar to the the issues of what evidence to use, until you know what’s inthe indictment, you can’t actually address sentencing issues.

A lot of what’s being argued in this thread is all cart before the horse stuff

You are misunderstanding me.

I’m not saying it’s OK to torture him. Of course not.

I’m saying, as one who has slogged through each of the Yoo/Bybee memos as they were released, that the theory in those memos related to the president’s commander in chief power, not his law enforcement powers.

Therefore the ability of the president to order such techniques, could not be exercised in the law enforcement capacity.

The memos are crap and I totally disagree with them or the horrible acts that were perpetrated because of them.

I was merely explaining the “legal” basis

Cynthia’s “apples to oranges” statement doesn’t follow the known facts.

The members of the 9/11 commission have made it very clear that they found KSM guilty of being the “mastermind” of 9/11 based only on the “confession” generated by the CIA interrogations.

When they asked to speak with KSM, they were denied.
When they asked to see the videos of the confession, they were denied and the tapes were destroyed.
When they asked to watch a session with KSM though one way glass, they were denied.
When they asked to speak with and interview his interigators, they were denied.
They were finally “allowed” to write questions down and submit them to the CIA who would ask them of KSM and then return them. The answers were written in the interigators handwriting and KSM supposedly signed the paper.
Was KSM tortured into signing the CIA’s answers to the 9/11 Commissions questions? Probably.

That is the story of KSM’s “confession” and the ultimate root of this trial according to the 9/11 Commissioners.

After years of systematic abuse and torture that we know about, Robert Gibbs is promising KSM that if he plays his cards right, they will execute him after the trial. KSM has already stated he wants to die. It’s his only way out at this point. If the trial goes bad and he is not convicted, they will just give him back to the CIA… look at the case of Sami al Arain. He knows they will never let him go. The only end to his torment, is death.

The benchmark for stupid, ignorant, ego-maniacal behavior is Bush. And here, Gibbs has met that benchmark. Congratulations, a new low. Welcome to the new world where the domestic criminals go unpunished, undeterred, and the foreigners or those deemed to be foreigners are denied due process or basic human rights. Maybe we should let the Dutch handle these cases to free up resources to go after corporate crooks and government abuse.

I have some advice for Robert Gibbs.

Instead of being a weak and flaccid panderer to what he perceives the current public sentiment is, wake up and have the wisdom to use some better discretion and judgment next time. That is what quality leaders do, and the least you can do is set a better example.

The shorter version of that Robert is: Discretion is the better part of valor.

And another thing to remember is that we are a nation of laws, not men. No one asked you to render your presumptive judgment in this matter—that is for the courts. Spare us your presumption of guilt in favor of respecting the rule of law and its processes—and prove to us that you are genuinely better then your GOP predecessors.

Reading the typical moronic newspaper commentators at the Daily News on this is a trip.

I don’t believe for a minute that the president wants these terrorists convicted. The reason he insist that they are tried in civilian court is in hopes that they will get off due to the damaging evidence being thrown out because it was obtained by “torture”. Then they can return to the battlefield and kill more Americans. He is doing everything possible to protect the terrorists. No one will acknowledge that he considers the terrorists to be his “brothers”. At heart, the president is a Muslim, although, you will never hear that from his lips. The terrorists are also Muslims, so he will protect them, at all costs. Only because his own democrats listened to the voters, did they tell the president to relocate the trials from New York. If they are tried in GITMO, the evidence would not get thrown out! That’s also why he insist on closing the place. He doesn’t care how much money is spent on the trials as long as it is not in GITMO.

I wonder if Gibbs know that the people he’s pandering too will never ever ever accept Obama as president.

That is the story of KSM’s “confession” and the ultimate root of this trial according to the 9/11 Commissioners.

WHAT?!?

The 9-11 commissioner a) did not find anyone “guilty” of anything
b) the 9-11 report is not the “root” of any trial, the Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation is

nice catch

Where does this “confession” come from?

Was it before or after he was tortured?

What is the evidence that procedes the torture? Where does it come from? Is it evidence about 9/11 or about crimes that preceded 9/11?

Or is it evidence that somewhere somehow he talked about 9/11 with someone?

Yeah. Essentially the consensus seems to be that KSM is guilty. They should shoot him. And that Obama is worse than KSM because KSM wants to die and Obama wants to let him go.

The faux outrage at Gibbs is comical. Why no outrage at Obama’s comment (while in China) on Nov 18th when being interviewed on NBC?

“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

In addition to Obama’s statement, on the same day in testimony to the Senate Judiciary committee, AG Holder effectively stated KSM will never be released, even if acquitted in his civil trial.

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

Where’s the outrage at Holder?

The US Department of “Justice” is like the US Department of “Defense.”

Both merely support the rule of the oligarchs. If on some days they don’t do it with quite the same bloodthirsty vigor that doesn’t acquit the system, any more than a mass murderer taking a few days off makes them any less a mass murderer.

There are almost certainly good, well-intentioned people working within each of them. But that changes the overall intent and effect no more than the healthy functioning and moral integrity of a killer’s kidneys. Transplanted into a different body they might do good, but in this case their healthy functioning actually defends and sustains what they believe they oppose.

The real test of integrity is what people do not when things are easy, but when things are hard.

In our case the results of that test have been obvious for a long, long time.

Do NOT insult the excellent federal judges of SDNY by suggesting that any one of them would preside over a kangaroo court. Do NOT insult our entire criminal justice system.

Its a show trial. The system you are defending is a disgrace.

You posted a link that governs the criminal and civil cases and matters by all components (FBI, DEA, INS, BOP, USMS, USAO, and DOJ divisions) and personnel of the Department of Justice. It is not controlling over the administration or Mr. Gibbs. The position of the administration, including the DOJ, is that KSM is guilty. There isn’t an issue of impartiality on Gibbs part. The issue is whether they have enough evidence to convince an impartial jury he is guilty.

Considering the unique circumstances of this case there is no reason to suggest that Mr. Gibbs statement is going to poison the jury pool on KSM. If a potential jury pool hasn’t heard about KSM yet, they are very unlikely to become aware of the case through an interview with Robert Gibbs on a news show, or even the words of the President directly!

If you believe that Gibbs is stupid for his words, consider that he is simply repeating the words of his boss. “President Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and put to death, as a top aide urged Americans to trust their courts and not “cower” from terrorists.”http://www.infowars.com/obama-says-ksm-will-be-convicted-put-to-death/

Gibbs: ““He will be brought to justice, and he will likely be executed for the heinous crimes he has committed,” Gibbs said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “That you can be sure of.””

I really don’t understand the position of the posters here. Does anyone really believe that KSM should be released if the DOJ can’t get a conviction? Is there ever a case in which a sworn enemy of the state should be held without conviction in court? How about OBL? If he were caught and recanted all the information from his videotapes is there any circumstances in which you believe he should be set free? To think we should release people who do belong to an organization that is at war with the U.S. is foolish? Does anyone really doubt that KSM is substantially involved in plots against the U.S., or at the very least a member of an organization that is?

Do you have a link to a transcript or video?

While there are certainly morons responding to the dailynews some of the posts here are equally ignorant.

To think that the fact that an enemy of the U.S. can be held during a time of war precludes him from having a fair trial in court of law is equally moronic. There are sworn enemies of this country and any President who would release them simply because he can’t get a conviction due to tainted evidence would be failing his duty to uphold the Constitution; period. The justice system is bound to hold the mentally insane if they are found to pose a risk to themselves or others, should we be any less aggressive for the sane who hold equally diabolical designs?

Does anyone really doubt that KSM is substantially involved in plots against the U.S., or at the very least a member of an organization that is?

Obviously you do.

If you were genuinely convinced that he was guilty, you wouldn’t be afraid of the idea that if found “not guilty” he should be set free.

Is there ever a case in which a sworn enemy of the state should be held without conviction in court?

How far do you want to take this?

Does this mean life in prison for people who have actually committed terrorist acts? Or does it mean life in prison for all “sworn enemies of the state?”

Anarchists, pacifists, Quakers, various Marxist sectarians are all to some extent “sworn enemies of the state.”

Jail for life?

Are “we” putting people in jail for life for their acts or their thougts?

To think that the fact that an enemy of the U.S. can be held during a time of war precludes him from having a fair trial in court of law is equally moronic

Didn’t Stalin use the term “enemy of the people” or “enemy of the proletariat” or some more appropriate term?

How about an pacifist who’s a “sworn enemy of the state” and vows to oppose his country with every peaceful means at his disposal?

Jail without trial for life?

No one is a threat to himself or others simply because he harbors radical ideas or associations.

Do you really have a difficulty finding significant differences between pacifists groups and Al Qaeda? Are you unable to see the reason why we should detain one and not the other? Let’s say we have two mentally ill patients that have a difficulty with schizophrenic delusions. One hears voices telling him that he must wear tinfoil on his head the other is hearing that he must kill himself and his family. We should detain one and not the other. Why?

Let’s say we have two mentally ill patients that have a difficulty with schizophrenic delusions. One hears voices telling him that he must wear tinfoil on his head the other is hearing that he must kill himself and his family. We should detain one and not the other. Why?

And in this case you have some kind of medical board determining who goes free and who stays in prison for life.

That’s the key if we’re punishing thoughts not actions, isn’t it? Who’s in charge? Who makes the decisions. Who gets to play God.

So lets take the Teabaggers and the right in general. There’s ample documentation showing that a lot of them are “sworn enemies of the state” as long as Obama is president.

Do you put someone in jail for life without trial because he holds a sign up at a rally saying “Overthrow the Negro Kenyan Usurper?”

How about anti-abortion protesters. Should “we” throw Randall Terry in jail for life without trial?

Or do we only throw people like Scott Roeder in jail for life, people who have actually committed a crime?

You are on a very, very slippery slope. In fact, it makes me doubt your sanity. I think that maybe you should be put in jail for life without trial. Your ideas are dangerous to my liberty.

Sigh, Rahm used to send better trolls.

…..Considering the unique circumstances of this case there is no reason to suggest that Mr. Gibbs statement is going to poison the jury pool on KSM. If a potential jury pool hasn’t heard about KSM yet, they are very unlikely to become aware of the case through an interview with Robert Gibbs on a news show, or even the words of the President directly!…..

So, you admit the statements have the potential to taint the jury pool, but we just have to hope that the jurors don’t pay attention to POTUS or his Press Secretary.

To avoid further embarrassment, google on Mike Nifong and the Duke LaCrosse team.

“Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

I wonder what Ben Franklin would think if the choice was:

1.) A howling mob that wants a lynching

2.) A Stalinist administration that wants a show trial

Show trial or lynching? Stalin or Klan? Rope on a tree or a bullet to the head in the Gulag?

KSM is undoubtedly a pretty bad guy. But it seems as if we’re dealing with a higher level of evil hear than simple terrorism.

This lame brain’s whole function is to “carefully parce words” giving up little to “aggressive” press interagators… ”
This is a sad thing to see. It helps undermine justice. His stupidity is almost criminal. Sorry for the good people of the state of Alabama to have such a poor example to show, of their school system etc.

There’s a bright idea, conflate members of Al Qaeda and Tea baggers! It’s not like there are any differences. It’s not as if they are on a different continuum.

I am curious if any of you would consider the case differently if members of Al Qaeda wore uniforms? Do any of you question whether we are at war with Al Qaeda or whether KSM is involved in Al Qaeda? What is it that you believe our government must prove, that KSM is behind each violent act of Al Qaeda that he is accused of or simply that KSM is an active member of Al Qaeda, a group that seeks violence towards the United States?

PS. If the Tea baggers begin attacking the U.S. through violent means I have no problems if we start detaining those who are actively involved in perpetuating it; who have no intention of denouncing violence perpetrated by the Tea Baggers. The issue is violent acts, not free speech. WE ARE AT WAR WITH AL QAEDA because of violent acts, not because of violent speech.

Have we moved beyond the lame argument that Gibbs is the problem because of his comment? He was repeating the words of his boss. He is the spokesman for his boss. If you have a problem with what Gibbs said your problem is with Obama, not Gibbs.

P.S. Do some of you really think that Rahm is sending out trolls to Firedoglake? That’s really giving yourselves too much credit.

Who do you think funds Al Qaeda?

It’s our oil purchases from Osama’s family, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

These “democrats”
I voted for
turned out to be corporatist Fascists

be careful what you say…
Gibbs might make you a “high value target”
and disappear you

P.S. Do some of you really think that Rahm is sending out trolls to Firedoglake? That’s really giving yourselves too much credit.

It’s not Rahm.

But there are PR firms like Burston-Marstellar that us a system called “Tru-Cast” to surf the web looking for key-word phrases that have to do with certain policy choices or agenda items that their clients want to help shape discussion about.

When they find them, they have an entire staff that responds on websites and in chat rooms about the issue in pre-setermined manners on behalf of their clients. They have been doing it for quite sometime.

What is the evidence that procedes the torture? Where does it come from? Is it evidence about 9/11 or about crimes that preceded 9/11?

There was extensive amounts of evidence used in public trials about various Al Q plots. Including a plot called Bojinka which invovled flying airoplanes in to buildings and landmarks. 9-11 was just a variation on the Bojinka plot. The government has a captured laptop with the operational details. This is all public knowledge, it’s been out there for years.

There was also a lot of information gather prior to the the time tha KSM was captured.

All of this would be pre-torture

The faux outrage at Gibbs is comical. Why no outrage at Obama’s comment (while in China) on Nov 18th when being interviewed on NBC?

You might be new here. FDL went apeshit then, too. It’s not OK to say that, no matter who says it

You posted a link that governs the criminal and civil cases and matters by all components (FBI, DEA, INS, BOP, USMS, USAO, and DOJ divisions) and personnel of the Department of Justice. It is not controlling over the administration or Mr. Gibbs.

Exactly my point. I said the DOJ had a written policy. And that Gibbs, who doesn’t have such guidance or the experience that led to the policy should back off this topic (crimainal trials) and leave it to those who do know how to make public statements about crimanil trials that don’t taint the jury pool.

WHo’s advocating that KSM be released? Not me. I am advocating that Gibbs stop disssing the entire criminal justice system. Did you read my post?

You were asked specifically about evidence as it relates to KSM’s case, and what did you do? You talked about evidence against “al Qaeda”… not KSM.

That’s right. I remember the story of the laptop that just happened to get :left behind” with all that incriminating evidence on it. How nice.

I also happen to remember how the Joint Terrorism Task Force has been called out several times in the past for fabricating terror plots all across the country.

Of course, we only used to call them out on their BS when they were run by a republican administration.

I am curious if any of you would consider the case differently if members of Al Qaeda wore uniforms? Do any of you question whether we are at war with Al Qaeda or whether KSM is involved in Al Qaeda?

It WOULD make a difference if Al Q woar uniforms. We are not at war with Al Q, only nations can be at war with nations. Al Q is just an orgaonized crime syndicate.

Nothing more. Just lowly criminals. By calling it war, you elevate and validate them.

If the DOJ has a written policy, then the employees at DOJ need to follow it. If the issue being discussed is the politics of the KSM decision then Gibbs and the President have every right to comment anyway they want based on the guidelines they set for themselves and their administration. Gibbs was addressing the politics of it. Obama was stating his position regarding KSM’s guilt with the fact that even if KSM is not convicted Obama will hold KSM anyway, because the Constitution requires him to do it.

Mr. Gibbs comments, and the President’s comments, don’t taint the jury pool any more than the DOJ bringing a criminal complaint does in the first place. The position of the administration is to back the DOJ. The two need to be in sync.

You were asked specifically about evidence as it relates to KSM’s case, and what did you do? You talked about evidence against “al Qaeda”… not KSM.

I’m sorry, I believe if you check the transcripts and exhibits for the Ramzi Yousef Manila bomb plot trial (the Bojinka plot) and the 1996 indictment of KSM, you can get a pretty decent idea of just how very much evidence they have against him—all predating his torture.

KSM put into operation the plans that Yousef had proposed and developed.

Yousef was design and KSM was execution.

Operation Bojinka “…but in 2002 the Los Angeles Times will report that the police started the fire on purpose as an excuse to look around the apartment.”

hmmm. The LA Times reported that the police started the fire that gave them the opportunity to go into the location… and they just HAPPENED to find the incriminating evidence… hmmmm.

To Cynthia,

What crime do you think Al Qaeda is perpetrating? If they are a criminal organization what is their end game? As the aims of Al Qaeda are political I can’t understand why this distinction is helpful.

Secondly, the idea that Gibbs has confidence that justice will be able to prove its case does not suggest that he believes KSM will be tried in a Kangaroo Court. I don’t see that being a logical conclusion at all. The idea that KSM will be held even after acquittal also does not suggest that conviction is a foregone conclusion. As a man may be guilty of many crimes and may be found guilty of one but not another a man can be held for one reason while acquitted for another. KSM will be held because he is at war with the U.S. He may or may not be convicted for certain criminal acts and acts of war against the U.S.

If the law is followed, this man will be found to be not guilty for many reasons. There is scant evidence to convict him I suspect except a bunch “confessions” of the very reliable kind. hahahha

Mr. Gibbs gives a passionate appeal as to why KSM should be tried in a Federal Court as opposed to a military tribunal as advocated by his opposition. Firedoglake determines it to be pandering to the right. He uses the exact same words as his boss and is accused of being stupid; his job is to advocate the positions of his boss. Gibb’s words are being twisted to mean the absolute opposite of his intent. He is supporting the A.G. and defending the D.O.J.’s ability to fairly process a trial. He is suggesting the A.G. will be successful in his prosecution of KSM, and the DOJ has the ability to sentence KSM appropriately after conviction. This is seen as a suggestion that Gibbs believes the KSM trial will be held in a Kangaroo Court? Why? The conclusion is simply not logical.

PS. If the Tea baggers begin attacking the U.S. through violent means I have no problems if we start detaining those who are actively involved in perpetuating it; who have no intention of denouncing violence perpetrated by the Tea Baggers. The issue is violent acts, not free speech. WE ARE AT WAR WITH AL QAEDA because of violent acts, not because of violent speech

Do you think Randall Terry should be detained indefinitely without trial?

Because there’s a lot more proof of a connection between Terry and Scott Roeder than there is of a unified group called “Al Qaeda”. In fact, even the 9/11 Commission Report points out that KSM and Bin Laden did not have deep organizational ties.

Or is it that you have two standards, one for domestic terrorism and one for foreign terrorism?

Anyway, speaking of domestic terrorism, I’ve always wondered why they were in such a hurry to put Tim McVeigh to death. I wanted to hear him talk a bit more about some of the people he was involved with.

As bad as KSM is, I’d love to know everything he does.

If the law is followed, this man will be found to be not guilty for many reasons. There is scant evidence to convict him I suspect except a bunch “confessions” of the very reliable kind. hahahha

I used to think he was guilty. But now I realize we’ll never really know. Was he the mastermind of 9/11? Or was he just a mid level functionary they picked up, tortured until he confessed, then decided to set up as the fall guy.

FWIW, I have know idea of Bin Laden is still alive or not. Why would anyone smart enough to pull off 9/11 be dumb enough to try to take credit for the boneheaded Chrismas bomber.

And wasn’t it convenient that he started talking about global warming.

If you were a smart terrorist mastermind, would you really risk getting caught and put to death in order to mouth off about Copenhagen?

Who knows. We’re all in the wilderness of mirrors.

Or is it that you have two standards, one for domestic terrorism and one for foreign terrorism?

No it seems a “terrorist” is a “terrorist” to bsmithslo. Basically anyone willing to challenge the neoliberal power-structure is an “insurgent”, an “extremeist”, or a “terrorist”.

No it seems a “terrorist” is a “terrorist” to bsmithslo. Basically anyone willing to challenge the neoliberal power-structure is an “insurgent”, an “extremeist”, or a “terrorist”.

Well, if we’re punishing speech, intentions, or the likelihood of future criminal actions, I’d say that Randall Terry is a good candidate for preemptive and indefinite detention.

Neither KSM nor Bin Laden actually drove a plan into a skyscraper.

In fact, the only violence ever committed by Bin Laden personally was Killing Commmies for Christ (and Allah) back in the 1980s.

So when do we pick up Randall Terry and waterboard him? I’m sure he’ll confess to being involved in George Tiller’s murder if we pump enough water into his lungs.

You see the acts of Al Qaeda as criminal acts. I never thought I would agree with Republicans on this but I do. Your premise is completely wrong. They are at war with us. Their acts, although criminal, are political as well. They are acts of war.

I hope I did not give you the impression that I don’t want a trial for KSM. I do. That is why I find it so odd that the left is attacking Gibbs so harshly for insisting that Federal courts are the best places to prosecute terrorists.

What crime do you think Al Qaeda is perpetrating?

- Murder
- arms smuggling
- money laundering
- false identity document distribution/identity theft
- vandalism on a grand scale
- possibly heroine distribution

(not so confident on that last one. Not sure if Al Q actually does it, or merely tolerates it when the afghanies do it. There is information that Al Q tolerated it when Afghans returned to cultivating poppy with the caveate taht it could only be sold to North America and Western Europe. When OBL lost all of his money, I wondered if maybe heroine money was propping him up and allowing him to feed his guys. I can tell you that Long Island is awash with really cheap, fairly potent heroine and kids are going to classmates’s funerals out here).

Not sure if Al Q actually does it, or merely tolerates it when the afghanies do it. There is information that Al Q tolerated it when Afghans returned to cultivating poppy with the caveate taht it could only be sold to North America and Western Europe. When OBL lost all of his money, I wondered if maybe heroine money was propping him up and allowing him to feed his guys.

‘

I thought Bin Laden’s sponsors in Afghanistan were the Taliban, who were supposed to have suppressed the heroin trade.

How exactly did Bin Laden get the power to give permission to Karzai’s brother or Rashid Dostum or any of the other druglords in Afghanistan that OK guys, now you have permission to deal?

I thought Bin Laden’s sponsors in Afghanistan were the Taliban, who were supposed to have suppressed the heroin trade.

How exactly did Bin Laden get the power to give permission to Karzai’s brother or Rashid Dostum or any of the other druglords in Afghanistan that OK guys, now you have permission to deal?

I the book “Growing Up Bin Laden” OBL’s son talks about being surprised to see that poppy growing had recommenced and that OBL said that although growing dope was sin, it was somehow OK if the dope wne tit he US. Give me minute There is a devestating quote. I’ll post it in a sec

Hey. I’ll give you the same quote.

Growing dope is OK with me. In fact, I think it should be legalized.

That doesn’t give me the power to allow Afghan heroin to come to Long Island. It’s just an opinion.

Where’s the money trail? Where’s the proof that Bin Laden, somewhere in his cave in Pakistan, is profitting.

And how does any of this apply to KSM? He’s been in jail for almost a decade. Do you become collectively responsible for any crime an organization you may at one time have belonged to committs?

Why not NARROW the scope of the prosecution and try KSM for the actions that led up to 9/11, not just tack on whatever seems convenient.

I mean, why exactly does anybody care if this guy is dealing heroin if they can tie him to 9/11?

Wouldn’t that be a bit like prosecuting Charles Manson for selling pot?

“I the book “Growing Up Bin Laden” OBL’s son talks about being surprised to see that poppy growing had recommenced and that OBL said that although growing dope was sin, it was somehow OK if the dope wne tit he US. Give me minute There is a devestating quote. I’ll post it in a sec”

Yeah… so herion is bin Laden’s fault too, huh? Nice. You don’t see a pattern developing here, do you?

Fact, ladies and gentlemen, according to everyone EXCEPT bin Laden’s son, the Taliban believe in a strict interpretation of Islamic Law. Which includes death for dealing drugs of any amount.

During the Taliban’s run Afghanistan dropped from being the #1 supplier of heroin to the world to barely producing any. Since the invasion of 2001, Afghanistan has jumped back to #1 and the President of Afghanistan, who we know faked at least 1 million votes in the last election yet we still support his regime, has a brother who is probably the biggest heroin dealer in the country, if not the world.

But bin Laden’s son said something else? Well, I guess we should toss all the other facts out the window, shouldn’t we?

Yeah… so herion is bin Laden’s fault too, huh? Nice. You don’t see a pattern developing here, do you?

Osama Bin Goldstein

From page 158

The driver shrugged, : Farmers here say that Taliban leader Mullah Omar has made a fatwa saying that the Afghan people should cultivate and sell the poppy plant, but only if it will be sold to the United States. The mullah said that his goal was to send as many hard drugs to the Untied States as possible so that American money would flow to Afghanistatn while American youth will be ruined by becoming addicted to the drug heroine.

My father grimaced, his expession puzzled. he knew from all he had heard that Mullah Omar, like most Muslims, avoided anythig to do with drugs. When he montioned this to the driver, the man said, “Yes. he god Mullah Omar has not been in favor of the drug trade. He made this fatwa only aginst the americans.”

All typos are mine.

Now, after this exchange, OBL fell on hard times economically. All of his assets had been frozen in Saudi Arabia, and later his fundraising network began drying up–all those disruptions of Islamic charites.

His family was living in a stone hut on Tora Bora at one point subsisting maily on rice and bread with eggs and the occassional can of tuna for protein. His followers depened on him for food.

So, I began to wonder what WAS OBl doing for money these days? And why is heroine everywhere on the east Coast (don’t know about the rest of the country) these days?

I ownder if OBL decided that Mullah Omar was right? I dunno.

But OBL has to be doing SOMETING to raise cash.

PS, I think he’s in Yemen.

Fact, ladies and gentlemen, according to everyone EXCEPT bin Laden’s son, the Taliban believe in a strict interpretation of Islamic Law. Which includes death for dealing drugs of any amount.

Well it’s possible that Islamic Fundies deal drugs just as it’s possible Catholics rape little boys.

BUT THIS TRIAL WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN ABOUT 9/11, not drug dealing. Why do they need the drug dealing charges if they have solid proof of Goldstei..I mean KSM’s masterminding of 9/11?

And is drug dealing now an “act of war?”

That has pretty significant implications for our relationship with Mexico.

Why not NARROW the scope of the prosecution and try KSM for the actions that led up to 9/11

Isn’t that what I have been saying? A Bout the pre- 9-11 evidence. Plus whatever evidence was gathered between 9-11 and KSM’s capture.

“Well it’s possible that Islamic Fundies deal drugs just as it’s possible Catholics rape little boys.”

That’s true… but it’s well known that Catholic Priests have been raping kids for a long time, what is also a well know fact is heroin production in afghanistan dropped by almost 95% under the Taliban reign and now under Karzai and his drug dealing brother it’s back up to #1. Those are facts. Religious doctrine aside.

OK. Let’s go on that evidence.

There’s evidence of KSM’s involvment in 9/11 that preceeds the torture.

So we’ll give the government a pass on torture in this one case. Bring in the evidence and let his lawyers challenge it. Even if his lawyers demolish the evidence in court, no jury in America will have the guts to vote “Not Guilty.”

He’s guilty. Bang. He’s dead. An inconvenient problem sovlved.

And we can all move on.

That’s true… but it’s well known that Catholic Priests have been raping kids for a long time, what is also a well know fact is heroin production in afghanistan dropped by almost 95% under the Taliban reign and now under Karzai and his drug dealing brother it’s back up to #1. Those are facts. Religious doctrine aside

I’m not willing to give anybody the benefit of the doubt based on religion.

BUT, there’s a problme here for th prosecution. I believe that the CLinton administration offered the Taliban money for suppressing the drug trade.

So if you’re the prosecution you’d probably want to drop the drug dealing charges since KSM’s laywers will be able to bring in the records from the 1990s.

And we all know nobody will allow that.

Well this is from October of 2001.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/testimony_001.asp

The gist of the argument is that even though the Taliban suppressed the growing of opium, they still had enough stockpiled to continue to deal.

As I mentioned earlier, the Taliban enforced an effective ban on the cultivation of poppy last year, eliminating approximately two-thirds of the world’s annual illicit opium supply. However, while prices for opium and heroin have increased substantially over the past year, the flow of opiates out of Afghanistan has not abated. Narcotics interdictions by AfghanistanÂ’s neighbors show record seizures of Afghan opiates flowing out and precursor chemicals flowing in. This clearly indicates that Afghan heroin traffickers are drawing from their stockpiles, presumably with the knowledge and perhaps the collusion of some in the Taliban.

Could be true. Who knows.

You keep moving the target. Your question at 116 was about what crimes Al Q was committing? Not KSM.

SO I give you list of crimes, including one that I admit I don’t know that Al Q is committing,but I’m wondering about, and you say, “what has this to do with KSM?”

You asked about Al Q. And you also come back with “where is trh money trail showing aht the heroine money went ot OBL?”

Ididn;t say there was one. I admitted that I did NOT know if AlQ or OBL was invovled in heroine trafficing. I only jknow he tolerated it according to his son.

I also know that most of his money dried up and his people were practically starving in 2000 and that since that time international law enforcement has been pretty active drying up his funding stream.

So, where is a handy place that he might get $?

So if you’re the prosecution you’d probably want to drop the drug dealing charges since KSM’s laywers will be able to bring in the records from the 1990s.

WAit a minute! I never said KSM was facing any drug charges. You asked me, in repsonse to my saying that Al Q is just an organized crime syndicate, what crimes Al Q is committing.

And in repsonse, I gave a list of obvious criems Al Q–trhe organization–had committeed as well as some clearly identiifed specualtion that they might have branched out into heroine trafficing.

I NEVER ever said that KSm was going to be indicted for heroine. I have zero information that would support even idle specualtion of that.

Though the article pretty much says the same thing I did at first it ends with…

… presumably with the knowledge and perhaps the collusion of some in the Taliban.

“Preumably” and “perhaps”…?

That from a guy from Yale… where Skull and Bones is… at a time when they were trying to justify bombing Afghani civilians…

I also know that most of his money dried up and his people were practically starving in 2000 and that since that time international law enforcement has been pretty active drying up his funding stream.

So, where is a handy place that he might get $?

So if I were KSM’s lawyer would I be able to offer an alternatrive theory of the crime and say he got it from I don’t know some group that wanted 9/11 to happen as an excuse to I don’t know invade Iraq?

Ha Ha

Obviously not.

Anyway, this is all an academic discussion. He’s going to be found guilty and he’s going to be shot.

And Al Qaeda will remain a good excuse to invade whatever country we want. Because even if KSM does get a “fair” trial because he’s actually guilty even if he’s guilt has been predetermined, when the Palin administration comes in in 2012, all of that legal bullshit is going to be thrown out anyway and it’s Crusades baby.

Ha. Ha.

Yeah I’m skeptical too.

But this thread has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they should just forget the fiction of a trial.

It’s a waste of time.

And it’s a waste of time because, once again, you have a choice between two groups of people.

1.) The legalists, who want to run KSM through some kind of court before they put a bullet in his head.

2.) The “we’re at war with evil people who hate us for our freedom” crowd, who just want to put a bullet in his head.

For any trial to be legitimate, there would have to be at least a possibility that KSM could walk. And the political climate would make that impossible.

So the only honorable thing the Justice Department can really do is to say “look we’d like to give this guy a fair trial but the political climate makes it impossible.”

I realize this is the Pontius Pilate way out, but it seems more honorable than a trial with a predetermined outcome.

Thank god we have you to protect Kahlil Sheik Mohammed. You must be proud.

Not only do they not have real evidence against KSM except the torture confession, but the real problem is … how do they prove KSM could knock down 3 skyscrapers with two planes?

Oh wait… I forgot… “thermal expansion’… “first time in history”… yeah, yeah, yeah,… got it… sure it’s a cakewalk.

Thank god we have you to protect Kahlil Sheik Mohammed. You must be proud

Thank god we have to protect Dick Cheney and George Bush for committing an illegal invastion of a nation aka a “war of aggression” (the ultimate war crime)

Thank god we have to protect Dick Cheney and George Bush for committing illegal torture and rendition…

Thank god we have to protect Dick Cheney and George Bush for committing election fraud not once but twice….

Yeah, we are real proud of that too.

and one more thing Potfry…

“In sum, there is clearly a bipartisan and institutional craving for a revival (more accurately: ongoing preservation) of the core premise of Bush/Cheney radicalism: that because we’re “at war” with Terrorists, our standard precepts of justice and due process do not apply and, indeed, must be violated. To relieve ourselves of guilt and of the bad lingering taste left from having such discredited and unpopular leadership for eight years, we collectively pretended for a little while to regret the excesses of the Bush/Cheney approach to such matters. But it’s now crystal clear that the country, especially its ruling elite, is either too petrified of Terrorism and/or too enamored of the powers which that fear enables to accept any real changes from the policies that were supposedly such a profound violation “of our values.” One can only marvel at the consensus outrage generated by the mere notion that we charge people with crimes and give them trials if we want to lock them in a cage for life. Indeed, what was once the most basic and defining American principle — the State must charge someone with a crime and give them a fair trial in order to imprison them — has been magically transformed into Leftist extremism.” Glenn Greenwald

You must be proud.

“For any trial to be legitimate, there would have to be at least a possibility that KSM could walk. And the political climate would make that impossible.”

Brian: Absolute nonsense. Just like the insane can be picked up and held if they are considered a threat to themselves or others enemies of the U.S. can be picked up and held if there is a reasonable likelihood that they are going to continue to try to harm the U.S. Intent may be enough for detention even if there is no evidence of crime previously.

Are we really supposed to believe that the government is doing its job by waiting for a crime to occur? Is the government doing its job by letting suspected terrorists off on technicalities?

For all those who believe that there is no evidence in the KSM case I hope there is a trial, but I understand if it is unreasonable or irresponsible to allow discovery of evidence in these cases. The government can do these things by trial, by grand jury, or by military tribunal. Whatever it takes to do this fairly, cheaply, and which keeps our country safe.

Not that I want to side with Gibbs who is little more than a gibbering idiot whose main utility for the WH is that he just doesn’t shut up, but the fact that KSM will die after trial is a certainty.

First off the concept of the presumption of innocence for the accused in the commission of a crime is just a contrivence. It exists solely for the purpose of giving the legal system a patina of being extraordinarily fair and impartial. Something which can be accomplished perfectly well without the need of this contrivance.

It is straightforward and eminently fair to accuse someone of a crime if he is tied by evidence to the commision of that crime. At that point he is presumed guilty of that crime by the state who accuses him and will try to convince a jury of his guilt. That is the long an short of it.

Now the jury may well have to be convinced by the state that the accused is guilty but it also presumes nothing, it just keeps an open mind. But the state sure as hell believes the accused is guilty, there is no presumption of innocence on its part.

To throw in this superfluous idea that the state presumes the person they accuse of commiting a crime to be innocent is absurd and a contradiction. It is also completely extraneous to the ability to carry out a fair trial.

That Gibbs shoots off his mouth about this matter is no surprise as his verbal diarrhea is incontinent. But also it is a little beside the point.

Here is the transcript:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/18/2130523.aspx

temptingfate writes: “Perhaps if KSM incorporated before the trial in order to heighten the sense of suspense.”

Yes, because then he’d be a “person” and would finally enjoy the rights our Constitution provides.