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?

It took 1 person in the Moussai trial to get him life in prison instead of death. 1 person, who never explained why he voted no on death.

lorien1973 on November 18, 2009 at 4:11 PM

I could say incompetence, but that just doesn’t quite do it justice.

John the Libertarian on November 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM

KSM won’t be freed even if he’s acquitted, or there’s a mistrial. They’ll just re-arrest him on another charge and then tuck him away back in seclusion at Gitmo indefinitely.

Then why go through all of this? Show trial. Nothing more than a show trial to prosecute the Bush Administration.

Enoxo on November 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM

No judge is going to free the mastermind of 9/11 on a technicality

Most judges would. That’s why they made the federal bench.

Chris_Balsz on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Hmmm.

So it’ll be ok then to waterboard suspects prior to trial and then still have a -fair- trial?

Well then. The local criminals are going to have a tough time of it.

memomachine on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

It’s a show trial all right. The question is, who will be putting on the show? Even Obozo doesn’t know.

I can see why the White House line is that “nobody here” made the decision. Yeah, maybe nobody made the decision, period. The decision just coalesced out of the air, and fell onto poor Eric Holder’s desk.

Do these clowns have any clue at all???

Cicero43 on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Who’s the boss?

faol on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

When Nixon called Manson guilty 40 years ago, he was meddling in a state trial without having seen the evidence.

Hello! Nixon was “acting stupidly.” TOTUS and Holder are nuanced. Right Wing Rubes get it together.

Branch Rickey on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Obama using KSM to bring Martial Law to America

read that and wrap your head around it

jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 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. It’s a show trial, root, stem, and branch. Jonah Goldberg:

If you know its a show trial, I know its a show trial, THEY know its a show trial…why the hell are we going to move forward with this?

In the immortal words of Leonidas…this is madness!

javamartini on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

So where is the presumption of innocence if the president and a.g. predict the outcome of the trial.

fourdeucer on November 18, 2009 at 4:16 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.

This is the guy who’s letting American troops die while he takes his sweet time determining whether he’ll send them the resources they need. This would be the war resulting from, yes ladies and gentlemen, the 9/11 attacks.

This is the guy who sent terrorist suspects to an all-expense paid permanent vacation to an island paradise.

This is a guy who marks up problems in the Middle East to Jewish settlements.

If KSM gets out on a technicality, Obama will blame it all on the Bush Administration’s handling. And the media will push the narrative into the heads of Americans.

amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM

My biggest fear is that these guys are found not guilty or aquitted. What happens then?

milwife88 on November 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Who’s the boss?
faol on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Soros

kingsjester on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

All I heard was, “SUCK IT, dumb-asses!”

kagai on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

No judge is going to free the mastermind of 9/11 on a technicality

No….so when KSM appeals things like his Miranda Rights not being read to him. He will be denied, and new case is created to throw out Miranda Rights all together.

One of many things this is losing us Civilians in favor of Martial Law

jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

It wasn’t pre-judging pre-judging. Yes Obama thinks we are that stupid. My freaking iPhone auto-capitalizes his name. Bah!

daesleeper on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

And even at that, let’s say Obama does immediately detain KSM and the courts permit it to stand. Then why are we going through this circus to begin with?

amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Obama IS standing with his muslim brothers now. Rest assured, this a-hole will walk!

capejasmine on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

My biggest fear is that these guys are found not guilty or aquitted. What happens then?

milwife88 on November 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM

He goes back to indefinite detention. That’s why this is a show trail.

Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM

And even at that, let’s say Obama does immediately detain KSM and the courts permit it to stand. Then why are we going through this circus to begin with?

amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

To Put Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld, etc. on Trial

jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I don’t care whether what he said was right or wrong, it was just so powerful, strong and decisive that I came away quite impressed with our very potent president.

myrenovations on November 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Really, champ?

I get goosebumps and a tingle when you say that AP.

Knucklehead on November 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM

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.)

You may be headed there, but just in case:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/68373-ashcroft-holder-lacks-legal-authority-to-order-terror-trials

Ashcroft says this must be a decision by the guy in the Big Chair.

cs89 on November 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Will it be allowed? Obama signed an executive order granting them a constitutional right to the writ of habeas corpus.

amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM

Hopefully, this thing will start up around midterms. I wonder if the public will be privy to discovery demands by the defense.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I pray you are right. I have so many questions about this whole situation. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that the majority of Americans find this disturbing. Not much comfort, just a little bit.

milwife88 on November 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM

On the one hand, I want to cry. I worry about the effects this circus trial will have on our national security.

On the other hand, I am laughing my head off at our Clown in Chief. Not only does he (again) vote ‘present’; he may have just given the defense a holy grail.

TN Mom on November 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Maybe he thinks Bush and Cheney acted stupidly .

borntoraisehogs on November 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Rest assured, this a-hole will walk!

capejasmine on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

No, he won’t, but it will send a very dangerous precedent down the line…someone needs to take him out before he ever gets here, I don’t see this administration changing their mind so don’t see any other options.

javamartini on November 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM

Judge Roy Bean: Yes sir we are gonna give ya a fair trial right before we take ya out back and hang ya.
________________________________

Could there be a clearer indication that this is a show trial at the expense of New York citizens? I hope every penny spent on this charade is tracked and reported over the years this trial will take to reach a conclusion.

joedoe on November 18, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Obama should resign.

saiga on November 18, 2009 at 4:23 PM

To all libs,

As a police officer I look forward to the precedents this case will set. Just think (yeah right) about all of the wonderful new police procedures me and my fellow officers will be allowed to use to obtain justice. OK, OK, I am kidding. You libs are really playing with fire here and should be the first ones, if you had any integrity, complaining about the possible civil liberties precedents this could set. This should be handled by a military tribunal where it belongs and not by a civilian court.

Howcome on November 18, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Then why are we going through this circus to begin with?

amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Apparently, so Obama can convince the world that he’s not Bush. Smart power FTW!

jwolf on November 18, 2009 at 4:24 PM

He’s not going to let KSM go if he is aquitted?

He let the Black Panthers free affter they were found quilty of threatening violence and intimidation at a Philadelphia polling booth.

This trial is all about the last chance to try Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/CIA on charges of torture, cruelty, and purgery. So what if the consequences lead to more attacks and the deaths of innocent people.

jerseyman on November 18, 2009 at 4:24 PM

God help us. Barry gets more ignorant of reality upon a daily basis. Or maybe it’s either ignorance or corruption. I wonder…?

Griz on November 18, 2009 at 4:24 PM

If KSM gets out on a technicality, Obama will blame it all on the Bush Administration’s handling. And the media will push the narrative into the heads of Americans.
amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM

I agree- I think Obama’s and Holder’s analysis went something like this: if the terrorists are convicted- great; but if the terrorists are not convicted because of “torture” or something the US government did- Bush gets blamed and that also is great.

LASue on November 18, 2009 at 4:24 PM

I thought The One had won. No?

This guy has no concept of authority and responsibility. Holder is HIS Attorney General. Whatever Holder does lands on your plate, champ.

Pass the salt.

BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Sounds like Obama is passing the buck.

texasconserv on November 18, 2009 at 4:25 PM

Judge and Jury: “Not Guilty”

Judge: “Take him away. Life sentence”

Crowd: “Hey, he’s not guilty”

Obama: “So what. I won”

BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM

just laughed when he says he’s ultimately responsible…

the same guy who has thrown just about everyone under the bus….

cmsinaz on November 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM

The historical figure whom Obama most resembles is Wile E. Coyote.

beatcanvas on November 18, 2009 at 4:27 PM

He was for saying that KSM will be convicted before he was saying that he is against it. Er something.

Trusser13 on November 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM

I always take the blame….BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

deidre on November 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM

They’ll just re-arrest him on another charge and then tuck him away back in seclusion at Gitmo indefinitely.

Enoxo on November 18, 2009 at 4:14 PM

I don’t think this is correct. Once within the criminal justice system, the Gov’t has a duty to charge a defendant and try him promptly; and to take its best shot in a single trial; there is no endless series of trials on lesser included offenses. if there is an acquittal, the trial judge will order the defendant’s release. that’s how it works. They can deport him on an immigration basis, but their ability to detain him after acquittal is nil.

Its not just a show trial. It is an astonishing national security gamble with no discernable upside. Horrrendous judgment; world class stupidity.

My prediction is these trials will never happen. Chairman Maobama will reverse Holder, quietly, and the Press will instantly forget it ever was announced. If we are lucky, Holder will announce he’d like to spend more time with the family, and someone at least minimally competent will be appointed to replace him.

james23 on November 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Besides all the troubling legal issues of a civilian trial one of the most troubling to me is their desire for martyrdom. Who knows to what extent sympathetic radicals will go to provide that martyrdom. What a disgusting situation they have brought on us. Lord grant us mercy.

fourdeucer on November 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM

With the Obama administration, the rule of thumb is the exact opposite as it would be with anyone else:

Never attribute to incompetence what you can more easily attribute to malice.

Daggett on November 18, 2009 at 4:31 PM

read that and wrap your head around it

jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:15 PM

A jumped the shark moment.

Obama has unleashed something in America far, far more dangerous than any excesses Bush might have committed. He has taken all the horrible compromises we must make in war and driven them into the heart of the civil legal system. If the courts do not set Khalid Sheikh Mohammed free, the cancer of martial law will metastasize into the entire justice system.

We may eventually wish we had never caught the bastard at all.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM

I may be wrong, but Holder hasn’t the authority to go the SecDef and take a enemy combatant from military custody for civilian trial does he?

KSM and the other jihadis are military prisoners, in military custody and have been named enemy combatants.

This authority had to come from Obama – no where else. For him to claim otherwise is a lie.

catmman on November 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM

“We’re gonna give this varmint a fair trial and a fair hangin,” -Marshall Holder.

Akzed on November 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:32 PM

It makes perfect sense how that is going to happen when you think about it.

jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Obama is positioning himself for dealing with a potential disaster in 2010 and how to overcome any chance to remove him from office in 2012. Will it be ‘quietly’ by flooding the ballot boxes with votes from cartoon characters, dead citzens, or illegal aliens or more drastic with martial law, suspension of elections, or emporer for life status due to a major crisis (economic, terrorist, or international)

jerseyman on November 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM

My prediction is these trials will never happen. Chairman Maobama will reverse Holder, quietly, and the Press will instantly forget it ever was announced. If we are lucky, Holder will announce he’d like to spend more time with the family, and someone at least minimally competent will be appointed to replace him.

james23 on November 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM

I truly wish it would happen just as you have scripted it here, but I am VERY skeptical. We’ll see.

jwolf on November 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM

Rest assured, this a-hole will walk!

capejasmine on November 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

I’m thinking that might actually be the best outcome of this trial. After the Obama “justice” department botches the case, the moment KSM walks out of the courthouse, there will be thousands of angry New Yorkers waiting in the street to get their hands on him.

Something tells me they won’t be quite so merciful.

UltimateBob on November 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM

“It was Holder’s Idea”

Plausible deniability. With a boss like Barry, I’m surprised he doesn’t make his staff carry swords to commit sepuku on demand.

portlandon on November 18, 2009 at 4:34 PM

OT: Is O’BowMao for real? Who is he lecturing here?

mizflame98 on November 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM

someone at least minimally competent will be appointed to replace him.

james23 on November 18, 2009 at 4:30 PM

I hear Sandy Burglar is shopping his resume around…

BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Will it be allowed? Obama signed an executive order granting them a constitutional right to the writ of habeas corpus.

amerpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:19 PM

He also signed one closing GITMO by January.

I pray you are right. I have so many questions about this whole situation. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that the majority of Americans find this disturbing. Not much comfort, just a little bit.

milwife88 on November 18, 2009 at 4:22 PM

I’m right there with you, but you should also take some comfort knowing that if KSM were released, it would spell Obama’s doom with near Marie Antoinette levels if he were to successfully attack this country again, and there’s no way Obama would allow that, even out of his own self interest. So even if you don’t think he has the country’s best interest at heart, it’s easy enough to believe he has his own, and that will be enough to ensure KSM is never freed.

At least I believe so.

Esthier on November 18, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.

They will have to overturn the requirement for Miranda warnings. They will have to overturn the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. They will have to overturn the right to face one’s accusers and to examine all evidence and evidence gathering methods.

Even if the courts throw out his conviction, the government will never allow him to go free, so we will toss out protection against double jeopardy if they try to convict with a military tribunal, and toss out the right of no imprisonment without trial if they don’t.

Our system of justice relies on precedent and equality of procedure. The same rules apply to every civil trial. We can’t say that it’s okay to deny the right against self-incrimination in one person’s trial while saying it’s okay in another. If the courts overturn the rights of one individual accused, it must overturn the rights of all of them.
Nothing good will come of this trial.

If it is conducted outside the bounds of normal civil law, it will be nothing but a corrupt show trial whose outcome was preordained by politicians. Instead of showing the world that America is a land of laws in which even our enemies receive fair treatment, it will show the world the opposite.

If it is conducted within the bounds of normal civil law, then it will force the courts to choose between letting a mass murdering terrorist walk free and setting dangerous legal precedents that will undermine the basic civil rights of all Americans.

From Chicago Boyz link

jp on November 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Possible scenario: after forcing a show trial, Obama/HOlder will use this precedent to convict any future political opposition.

jerseyman on November 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Obozo may think this will be a slam-dunk conviction and he is therefore not taking a political risk, but the evidentiary problems will be huge. It’s impossible to conceive that a judge will permit the use of KSM’s own statements if he was waterboarded to get them (and KSM can simply refuse to testify anyway). This means that evidence will have to come from others with firsthand information or from incriminating documents that can be properly authenticated. Both will require cooperative witnesses.

This was a serious mistake, and it looks like Barry is already in backwalking mode. It will be laid on somebody (not Barry of course!) when it all blows up and ends in an acquittal. I wonder how Eric Holder will look with bus tire tracks across his face.

Cicero43 on November 18, 2009 at 4:38 PM

You could say the incompetency is mind boggling, but this goes much farther than just calling it incompetency. This borders on insanity. The constant lies and deceptions are too obvious to hide it much longer.

volsense on November 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM

catmman on November 18, 2009 at 4:33 PM

John Ashcroft agrees with you. I don’t think Dear Leader can claim plausible deniability on this one. That’s the only good thing to come out of this.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:39 PM

There is another way to view all this folks. Obama and Holder apparently have decide that they accept some parts of the constitution but reject other parts. Specifically they are OK with giving a forign terrorist full rights under the 6th Ammendment, while at the same time saying up front that they plan to deny the same person the rights of the 5th Ammendment. But if they can prove they are right about the 6rh, then even a second year law student defense will be able to probve they are wrong about the 5th.

MikeA on November 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM

No judge is going to free the mastermind of 9/11 on a technicality

Our host means well, and his show trial point is well taken, but Wow this statement is naive and glosses over a terrible danger.

First, most judges would feel duty bound to order an acquitted defendant freed after the jury acquits him. It happens every day in every district in the country; its how the system works. Second, judges don’t “free” defendants on technicalities, but they do routinely preclude evidence, make-or-break-the-case evidence, on “technicalities” (aka the Rules of Evidence and case law precedent). If the gov’t can’t make its case after the evidence is precluded, Oh Well, that’s just another day in the criminal and civil justice system. Obama and Holder can protest, hold news conferences, whatever, but releasing acquitted defendants is a trial judge’s job, and most of them will do their job whether Obama likes it or not.

james23 on November 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Told someone else to make a decision based on the law? What???

The whole premise is flawed because if the law was being followed, this trial would not exist. The guy would be considered an out of uniform spy, and given a lethal injection. Anybody besides myself see this as another big waste of taxpayer money?

Danzo on November 18, 2009 at 4:42 PM

OT: Is O’BowMao for real? Who is he lecturing here?

mizflame98 on November 18, 2009 at 4:36 PM

I read this story earlier today. After it sunk in a bit, it was like a bomb went off in my head.

I’ve got it figured out. See, how can one person quadruple the deficit in one year, and then, in that same year, talk about how bad increasing the debt is?

I think Spoc himself would be perplexed to explain how this could be.

Applying some Sherlock Holmes advice, it boils down to this: It is not logical or sensical for one man to do these two things, therefore, it is being done by more than man.

There are at least two Barack Obamas! There is no other explanation. Except, maybe if he has two speech writer who don’t compare notes…….and teleprompt HIM to say contradicting things….

BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 4:42 PM

It’s a show trial, root, stem, and branch.

Yes…and this is bad for 2 reasons. 1) He’s giving KSM the platform he wants more than anything else and 2) it gives Holder and his DOJ a foot in the door for more show trials…maybe next time against the ‘real terrorists’…the conservatives.

AUINSC on November 18, 2009 at 4:42 PM

It is hard to believe Slick Willie’s pardon pimp who is as against the death penalty as can be is now doing a complete about face. The smell of this is nauseating.

volsense on November 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Obama didn’t sign off on it???

I guess that zany madcap Holder just came up with this on his own and ran to the media with it before discussing it with anyone. Poor Barack, always the last to know. Luckily, with his strong and forceful leadership skills, and the help of his trusty sidekick TOTUS, he will be able to control this situation and instill confidence in the whole process, uniting the country and striking fear into the hearts of terrorists everywhere.

Or not.

This is going to be a terrible, terrible thing.

Boudica on November 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM

This Administration is a train wreck. The best we can hope for is that they occasionally get things right by accident.

Bruno Strozek on November 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM

And if he is convicted, his lawyers will appeal on the basis that it was the wrong venue. It will go to Scotus and the conservative jurists will shoot down the conviction, which is bad for conservatives, or worse, it will become a precedent and we must then try all terrorists taken into custody abroad and enemy combatants in court in front of a citizen jury. Scotus isn’t going to go along with a pick-and-choose method for determining what kind of court a defendent is tried in based on the probability of conviction.

Buddahpundit on November 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM

No judge is going to free the mastermind of 9/11 on a technicality

Really?

Convicted child molesters in Vermont are sentenced to time served, if that.

Sleep well.

BobMbx on November 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM

james23 on November 18, 2009 at 4:40 PM

yup, sure as God made little green apples. But AP doesn’t buy that one either.

MikeA on November 18, 2009 at 4:44 PM

The irony of the Obama interviewer standing in front of a Chinese architectural building is not lost on me.

YoungAmerican on November 18, 2009 at 4:46 PM

This whole thing reeks of Emmanuel and Axelrod. It’s a “Get Bush” tactic that’s going to explode in their faces just as “Get FOXNEWS” did.

ROCnPhilly on November 18, 2009 at 4:47 PM

The fact that Mr. Holder, while Deputy Attorney General, pushed for the release of 16 violent FALN terrorists against the advice of the FBI, the US Attorneys who prosecuted them and the NYPD officers who were maimed by them, suggests that he was perfectly willing to put politics before the national security interests of the country. (michellemalkin.com)

TN Mom on November 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM

Obama didn’t sign off on it???

I guess that zany madcap Holder just came up with this on his own and ran to the media with it before discussing it with anyone.
Boudica on November 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM

Not at all. He’s on record as having discussed it with two people before he reached his decision,..his wife and his brother.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:49 PM

interesting trickery here

Certainly an emotional issue here but judging by the timing it is just a distraction -funny how this terrorist related news bumped the more recent terrorist news off the radar.

if conservatives want to influence, they need to control the narrative and not be distracted every time the obamamachine decides to change the channel.

Aren’t the fraudulent congressional districts in the Stimulus a more deserved talking point?

Obama and RINOs are leading most of you around like blind sheep.

focus.

Ed Graef on November 18, 2009 at 4:50 PM

Banana Republic.

Dorvillian on November 18, 2009 at 4:51 PM

There is only one argument Sheikh Hussain of WH can throw out there which will make everyone shut up :
These showtrials will create more than 10,000 jobs in NYC !

macncheez on November 18, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Hey the legal system worked so well for Pinnochio’s mentor Bill “Guilty as sin free as a bird” Ayers
Why not extend it to his fellow terrorists!

Flippin off the USA and using our system against us!
I fear we have an enemy within, a domestic terrorist!
I hope the CIA has the solution!

dhunter on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Watching that first clip… He clearly states “WHEN he’s convicted and get’s the death penalty…” Vice his “clarification” when he sais “IF he gets convicted…”

No… you said “WHEN he gets convicted, etc…” That’s prejudging in a show trial Mr. President. But that’s par for the course for your show adminsitration.

ExSubNuke on November 18, 2009 at 4:52 PM

Although hardly dispositive, it is hard for me to envision a court acquitting KSM only to have the executive branch say, “Well, that was the wrong answer, so we’ll lock him up anyway.” Once they have brought him into the country and handed him over to the jurisdiction of the civilian courts, on what basis can the administration ask for a ‘do over’? Is there a Mulligan rule in federal law?

jl on November 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Jury selection should be a treat. I wonder if multicultural clothing will be allowed.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM

I just don’t get how they expect to please their base, and the international community (but I repeat myself) here. No one buys that it will be a fair trial.

My bet is that the ‘compromise’ comes in the sentencing. He won’t get death. He may get life with apossibility of parole. Then everyone will ‘praise’ the fairness of the US legal system, and liberals will all be happy.

In the meantime, KSM gets 20 years to proselytize inmates and mastermind jihad from federal prison.

Firefly_76 on November 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM

So if it’s holder’s idea, you,BO, indicate as such that you have no intention of stopping any of your appointees when they are screwing up?
I was under the impression that as part of the definition of a leader, they are responsible for the decisions made under their watch.

Where is this ‘brilliant’ frigging scholar who, as libs, say, is Obama?
All that great research in the form of published papers surely attests to the fact that you know your way around the Constitution.
Ooops!

Badger40 on November 18, 2009 at 4:57 PM

if multicultural clothing will be allowed.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 4:56 PM

\

NOPE! Burkas will be required for women and beards for men!
Oh and swearing to tell the truth on the Koran!

dhunter on November 18, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Is there a Mulligan rule in federal law?

jl on November 18, 2009 at 4:55 PM

No double jeopardy, right? But aren’t there potentially several jurisdictions with the right to try him (feds, NY, DC, PA)?

Firefly_76 on November 18, 2009 at 4:58 PM

if conservatives want to influence, they need to control the narrative and not be distracted every time the obamamachine decides to change the channel.

Aren’t the fraudulent congressional districts in the Stimulus a more deserved talking point?

Obama and RINOs are leading most of you around like blind sheep.

focus.

Ed Graef on November 18, 2009 at 4:50 PM

That one already has a sacrificial lamb being readied for the knife, with several comfortable layers between himself and Dear Leader. This one is a little closer to the bone.

a capella on November 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM

perhaps a Beer Summit between KSM and Obama is needed to reconcile the prejudging

jp on November 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM

“SEEKING” does not equal “GETTING”

This is this administration’s normal MO…they want you to believe their words and ignore their actions…S.S.D.D.!!

Ltlgeneral64 on November 18, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Truly a show trial and a farce. Our Idiot President and his Court Jester Holder have been intellectually mugged, beaten and robbed by every right-of-center legal mind who bothered to type his thoughts on a blog.

They don’t have a whole brain between them.

Jaibones on November 18, 2009 at 5:05 PM

Do they REALLY think they are going to find one person, let alone, multiple persons that haven’t heard of and isn’t prejudiced to what happened in New York?

If this trial was really a civilian trial, this one would be the opitomy of the need for a ‘change of venue’…

Ltlgeneral64 on November 18, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Holder joining the rest of us under the bus in five, four, three, two….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 18, 2009 at 5:07 PM

What a circus our White House has just created.

kit on November 18, 2009 at 5:08 PM

Check this out. The Jury will have to be made up of Muslims, as ONLY they would be a jury of KSM’s peers.

The trial starts and they all start praying in the middle of the proceedings.

PappaMac on November 18, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Well Barry certainly has ‘plausible denieability’ down pat.

GarandFan on November 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2