Video: Obama prejudges KSM’s trial, denies that he’s prejudging it

posted at 4:10 pm on November 18, 2009 by Allahpundit

In fairness to The One, I don’t understand why America’s prosecutor-in-chief can’t express confidence in convicting a guy whom his own DOJ is trying. When Nixon called Manson guilty 40 years ago, he was meddling in a state trial without having seen the evidence. Not so here, but oh well. This is indeed a gift to the defense, although aside from giving the court an extra procedural headache to dispose of, it won’t matter ultimately. No judge is going to free the mastermind of 9/11 on a technicality and no president is going to let the mastermind of 9/11 walk free even if one did. It’s a show trial, root, stem, and branch. Jonah Goldberg:

Every day it appears more and more that the White House wants it both ways. They want to claim that this is a fair trial but also an act of venegeance. The terrorists will be treated as if they might be innocent — key to a fair trial — but at the end of the day they’ll get their comeuppance. If KSM & Co. get off on a technicality, don’t worry, they’ll still be locked up, but when they’re convicted the White House will claim it was always a fair process. They’ll get a fair trial from an impartial jury in New York, but it’s “fitting” and “poetic justice” that the jury will be drawn from the community that was viciously attacked on 9/11. Fair but vengeul, honest but foreordained, instructive to the world but really just about the law: the rhetoric from the White House and the Democrats isn’t persuasive to those who listen closely and certainly won’t be persuasive to foreigners Obama is determined to impress.

Just so. Goldberg followed this with another smart post about how bending over backwards to convict KSM will lead courts to set precedents that’ll actually undermine civil liberties, to which I’d simply add that it ain’t just courts who’ll be massaging their principles to arrive at the predetermined result. How else to explain noted death-penalty opponent Eric Holder saying today that he intends to seek death for KSM? That’s a political concession to vengeance and a reprisal for an act of war … to be carried out in a civilian courtroom.

Below the “prejudging” clip, you’ll find a guy known for blaming others for his every last political difficulty asserting, with all apparent seriousness, that the decision to try KSM in civilian court was made entirely by Holder based on a close consultation of the law. (More on that in the next post.) Really, champ? Knowing that the foreign-policy credibility of the Democratic Party for years to come rests on getting a conviction here, you rubberstamped a decision made by someone who thought it’d be super keen to pardon Marc Rich? What could go wrong? Click the image to watch.

o-prejudge


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

How else to explain noted death-penalty opponent Eric Holder saying today that he intends to seek death for KSM?

KSM was captured on the battlefield, and the military could have killed him there, no questions asked. But then we wouldn’t have heard him sing about other terror plots.

So should we send him back on the battlefield, and kill him now?

Steve Z on November 18, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Goldberg followed this with another smart post about how bending over backwards to convict KSM will lead courts to set precedents that’ll actually undermine civil liberties

Whoah, excellent point. Can’t wait to see what my lefty friends will say about that.

bitsy on November 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM

How can they claim that they will get the death penalty for sure? Doesn’t the jury have to agree unanimously to vote for death? I heard that one juror is all it takes to stop it.

Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Steve Z:

Actually, he was dragged out of bed by Pakistani security and then turned over to the US…I think that is true.

Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Whoah, excellent point. Can’t wait to see what my lefty friends will say about that.
bitsy on November 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM

They don’t care. “We won”. End of discussion.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on November 18, 2009 at 5:30 PM

No judge is going to free the mastermind of 9/11 on a technicality and no president is going to let the mastermind of 9/11 walk free even if one did.

…and no right minded blogger would think of having to eat those words…

nolapol on November 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Plz watch this tonight and then recalculate the sanity of this regime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5NgA0Qwx94

macncheez on November 18, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Obama talks
KSM walks

MaiDee on November 18, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Couldn’t any attorney for KSM worth his salt easily file for a change of venue on the grounds he couldn’t get a fair trial in NY? Asking anyone American whether they heard of 9-11 attacks would surely result in a positive answer and such would make the possibility of a fair trial any where a tough bet, no? All I would have to do is ask ‘where you upset by the attacks?’. They say yes, of course and I can argue that I cannot find an impartial jury. Maybe I am misguided but that point hasn’t been raised with all the talk of amendment rights.

Thunderstorm129 on November 18, 2009 at 5:41 PM

The Anointed One obviously believes in predestination.

Dhuka on November 18, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Slightly OT, but the below info speaks to the reason Obama has gotten away with his lying lies and has been heralded as some kind of god. The excerpt below is from a lengthy article about well founded, documented and advanced techniques used in speech and conversation to induce hypnosis. Not in the way we usually think of hypnosis, but hypnosis defined as being able to use certain methods in one’s speaking patterns in order to bypass the rational conscious of the listener and to implant strong feelings and beliefs in the subconscious of the listener. When I first started reading it I thought it was way too far out. But I have read the whole thing and it answers many questions as to why a nobody like Obama should have become president in the midst of an irrational and cult-like frenzy. Anyway, I am linking it and giving a small excerpt for those who would like to read it. I found it fascinating.

http://www.pennypresslv.com/Obama's_Use_of_Hidden_Hypnosis_
techniques_in_His_Speeches.pdf

Here is a sentence from one of Obama’s speeches and the follow up analysis:

“The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great – a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.”

He starts out saying things nobody can disagree with, and building emotion. Again, he uses causality to link beautiful and emotional concepts he conjures up to himself with causation language that logically is completely without any logical support. Why use this language of causation without any basis for it, when
there is no need for causation language “the only reason.”

More importantly, yet again, Obama links these beautiful concepts with causation to a statement that is both
verifiably true in the literal sense in order to implant the meaning he has built into it. He talks about “the
fundamental promise that has made this country great”, and says “a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.” He uses language about the promises that make this country great and builds that meaning into “that is why I am standing here tonight.” He doesn’t say “that is why I am running for President.” “I am standing here tonight” is something more easily and immediately verifiable and serves as a more literal and effective pacing statement. When your mind accepts the statement “that’s why I am standing here tonight” as absolutely true, it allows it to pass into the
subconscious. However, this statement has two meanings, 1. that he is in fact literally standing there, and 2. the meaning he built into himself standing there, he is there to make sure that we are living up to the fundamental promise that has made this country great. When your mind accepts “that’s why I am standing here tonight” as absolutely true, all meanings attached to it are absorbed into the subconscious as true, because your subconscious mind cannot differentiate and rationalize which meaning he intended.

What he is doing is no coincidence and no accident. He is repeatedly setting up language patterns that support subconscious beliefs of why he should be President to intersect and be embedded within statements immediately verifiable by the subconscious as absolutely true, such as “that is why I stand here tonight”, or “we meet at one of those defining moments.” Then, the audience sees him standing there as he says it, processes this below the level of conscious awareness, and unknowingly accepts
subconscious programming as absolute truth consisting of all of the underlying meanings he has set up to correspond with the obvious surface statement.

Nobody just happens to speak like that. Not once, let alone again and again, one after the other.

tigerlily on November 18, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Is it better that 99 guilty go free rather than 1 innocent person be condemned if one of those 99 guilty is KSM or OBL?

JohnJ on November 18, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Obama is a coward. He won’t take responsibility for anything.

therightwinger on November 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Dude.

In clip number 2 President Obama says he would feel comfortable not running again in 2012.

I’ve never heard a sitting President say that before. Makes you wonder what economic horrors are in store for us in 2010 and beyond that would compel him to admit that.

Mike Honcho on November 18, 2009 at 6:20 PM

What a child.

Denying responsiblity in advance and in arrears.

Pre-judging and then denying he has pre-judged.

Well, maybe the word “cookies!!” on the cookie-jar didn’t mean cookie when he put his hand in it.

Thank goodness he’s a “constitutional scholar”.

But hey, it’s just another step on the road to being a banana republic.

Now we have show trials.

These people are the worst kind of morons. Dangerous ones.

notagool on November 18, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Obama prejudges KSM’s trial, denies that he’s prejudging it

The question many people ask is whether one can make words mean so many different things, to which the Boy Emperor replies “The question is whom is to be master – that’s all”.

Cheshire Cat on November 18, 2009 at 6:48 PM

How did anybody this F’n stupid get this far in politics?

Cybergeezer on November 18, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Obama used his exit strategy. He exited to China.

He left Holder holdering the bag.

drjohn on November 18, 2009 at 7:01 PM

We’re gonna have a fair trial and then a first-class hangin’

29Victor on November 18, 2009 at 7:20 PM

How did anybody this F’n stupid get this far in politics?

Cybergeezer on November 18, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Chauncey Gardiner

BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 7:40 PM

In fairness to The One

There you go right there. Classic Allahpundit. He just can’t help himself.

Sharke on November 18, 2009 at 7:58 PM

This isn’t about KSM. It’s about Eric Holder, and his frustrated attempts to investigate and ultimately have a public trial against George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, for a multitude of perceived sins.

Since Holder was thwarted in his quest, the KSM and Gitmo war crimes mates being tried in NYC will be the very public back door for trying Bush et al.

It’s that simple. That’s why Holder’s responses at the Congressional investigation today were so lame to the point of being obsequious. He had to cover up his true hidden agenda, and at the same time appear to be concerned about his boss’s, BHO’s, concerns about International public opinion.

KendraWilder on November 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM

Wow, AP, you really beclowned yourself this time. The rationalization and excuse-making for astounding feats of incompetence, bad faith, and arrogance by O and his side have reached a shark-jumping moment.

Sure, you give him about 30% of the derision he deserves for his (help me, I ran out of adjectives months and months ago) stunning and absurd little act about the whole thing being Holder’s baby. But the attempt to beautify O’s stupendously dumb and irresponsible comments is amazing. Especially as it’s 1) about the 500th jaw-dropping blunder in just 10 months, and 2) the whole idiotic move to bring this into civilian courts is his effing idea.

You’

IceCold on November 18, 2009 at 9:18 PM

In fairness to The One, I don’t understand why America’s prosecutor-in-chief can’t express confidence in convicting a guy whom his own DOJ is trying. When Nixon called Manson guilty 40 years ago, he was meddling in a state trial without having seen the evidence. Not so here, but oh well.

You want to know why? Because the purported purpose of the trial is to show the world how “fair” the American justice system can be. That purpose is radically undermined by the chief law enforcement officer saying, in effect, “First we’ll give him a trial and then we’ll hang him.” It doesn’t matter that much, realistically, because I never thought that the American justice system would ever impress people who say, openly, “Islam is incompatible with Democracy” and who cry for the imposition of Sharia law, but it is a bit galling to see the man who makes a big deal out of this rhetorically tip his hand that he doesn’t really believe his own BS. “Unlike Bush, we’re going to do this the right way — the way that upholds our values — but don’t worry, the fix is in.” You can’t figure out why that might be a problem?

The comparison to Nixon is ridiculous. The Manson family wasn’t dragged out of a some military tribunal already successfully underway under a grandiose pretense that Nixon would show the world how fair Americans could be to drugged out, psychopathic hippies, with the prez at the same time reassuring middle America that the outcome of the trial was predetermined.

Obama’s problem is that he is trying to please two constituencies: the morally vain elites in front of whom he must in spectacular fashion differentiate himself from Bush, and normal people. He is trying to thread the needle by adopting the familiar trappings of civilian justice for the elites who hated Bush’s approach while at the same time not offending normal people whose sense of justice is that KSM shouldn’t be treated like a normal citizen with the possibility of getting off. He is trying to split the baby and reassure two parties with incompatible goals without addressing the underlying dilemma. Obama’s solution to this dilemma is what Orwell pegged as “Doublethink,” trying through force of will to convince people that justice (trial determined by one’s peers) and not-justice (fixing the trial in advance) are in fact one and the same thing.

If NFL refs said, “We will review the play in the booth, New England fans, but don’t worry Indianapolis, the ruling on the field will stand,” we would immediately see the idiocy and hypocrisy and yea, injustice of the referee. This is, in effect, what Obama is doing, and that’s why it’s a problem.

shazbat on November 18, 2009 at 9:23 PM

How can they claim that they will get the death penalty for sure? Doesn’t the jury have to agree unanimously to vote for death? I heard that one juror is all it takes to stop it.

Terrye on November 18, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa, you mean a jury has to confirm sentence even after Dear Leader has decreed the time honored legal precedent of “sentence first, verdict later”? Somehow the Queen of Hearts running a tighter ship than Obama doesn’t surprise me.

jarodea on November 18, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2