9/11 Five lawyers: Trial will become their platform to the world

posted at 10:12 am on November 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

But hey, don’t worry.  Eric Holder is confident that a federal judge can keep them in line — because terrorists are so used to playing by the rules:

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain “their assessment of American foreign policy,” Fenstermaker said. “Their assessment is negative,” he said.

Uh, thanks for clarifying that, genius.

Meanwhile, the DoJ continues to give us the Chip Diller “All is well” spin:

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, “we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past.”

Exactly. Just like they did with … Zacarias Moussaoui. And in that case, which turned into a media circus, with Moussaoui grandstanding as often as possible and using the trial as a platform for his propaganda, the DoJ and the court only had one defendant. This will have five, and at least one (KSM) with slightly more on the ball than Moussaoui, who was a little too screwy even for al-Qaeda, according to the 9/11 Commission.

Speaking of Chip Diller moments, remember this scene? The stampeding hordes will look like a Sunday stroll compared to the media crush coming to the Big Apple for this trial:

Update: Dave Feigel at Slate makes the case that anyone who may have to appear in a federal court facing criminal charges should be opposed to this decision — entirely for their own self-interest:

In an idealized view, our judicial system is insulated from the ribald passions of politics. In reality, those passions suffuse the criminal justice system, and no matter how compelling the case for suppressing evidence that would actually effect the trial might be, given the politics at play, there is no judge in the country who will seriously endanger the prosecution. Instead, with the defense motions duly denied, the case will proceed to trial, and then (as no jury in the country is going to acquit KSM) to conviction and a series of appeals. And that’s where the ultimate effect of a vigorous defense of KSM gets really grim.

At each stage of the appellate process, a higher court will countenance the cowardly decisions made by the trial judge, ennobling them with the unfortunate force of precedent. The judicial refusal to consider KSM’s years of quasi-legal military detention as a violation of his right to a speedy trial will erode that already crippled constitutional concept. The denial of the venue motion will raise the bar even higher for defendants looking to escape from damning pretrial publicity. Ever deferential to the trial court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will affirm dozens of decisions that redact and restrict the disclosure of secret documents, prompting the government to be ever more expansive in invoking claims of national security and emboldening other judges to withhold critical evidence from future defendants. Finally, the twisted logic required to disentangle KSM’s initial torture from his subsequent “clean team” statements will provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time—a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.

This is why war criminals get tried in military tribunals, and American residents get tried in court.


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

But no, you’re right, it’s tough finding a lefty who might not think KSM’s the worst person in the world.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:03 AM

Pretty much, yeah. He’s scum. New Yorkers hate the guy. Americans hate the guy. The fact that you believe you think otherwise is more indicative of your personal prejudice towards liberals than anything else.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Conservative groups should carry protest signs outside the court building saying “Shut up terrorists. President Obama already said that you are guilty and will be executed.”

scrubjay on November 23, 2009 at 11:04 AM

I like it, but then they’d blame us when they guys go free.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Wrong as always.
1 By the Geneva conventions terrorists do not have rights, nor do insurgents, spies, and “holy warriors” By the Geneva conventions we can shoot them on site or throw a rope over a tree and watch ‘em dance.

2 Being water boarded is no fun, downright scary, and an effective way to convince someone to talk, it produces no lasting trauma to the subject which makes it not torture

3 quite a few military members (and intell folks) have been water boarded over the years and since we do not torture our military (OCS maybe close) water boarding is not torture

LincolntheHun on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Is there a message here? Yes! DO NOT TAKE PRISONERS!

MaiDee on November 23, 2009 at 10:49 AM

I like your style!!! That should set the trolls off this morning. HEHE!

LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Why is it that liberals always have vapors over a little waterboarding of terrorists but have no qualms about piercing the head of an 8-month fetus and sucking its brains out?

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

I haven’t been waterboarded but I’ve almost drowned a couple of times. It wasn’t pleasant but I have had no lasting effects – psychological nor physical. So, what’s the big deal about waterboarding? The waterboardee has the power to stop it, if not prevent it from even happening.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM

So the Wizard of Smart, Eric Holder, says “Failure is not an option.” Left unsaid was “Failure is a possibility that we wouldn’t be facing had we accepted KSM’s guilty plea before the military tribunal.”

olesparkie on November 23, 2009 at 11:19 AM

The only people who agree with you are the people who authorized the torture themselves (John Yoo, etc.)

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM
And me. To me, if you can do it to soldiers in training, it’s not torture.

hawksruleva on November 23, 2009 at 11:10 AM

And me. I could understand your being upset if we sawed their heads off with a dull knife, now that would be torture. I`m just saying!

LSUMama on November 23, 2009 at 11:21 AM

have no qualms about piercing the head of an 8-month fetus and sucking its brains out?

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

B/c one has to do with eugenics, the other does not…

Ozprey on November 23, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Pretty much, yeah. He’s scum. New Yorkers hate the guy. Americans hate the guy. The fact that you believe you think otherwise is more indicative of your personal prejudice towards liberals than anything else.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM

You’re right. Let’s search for the source of my prejudice towards liberals.

Could it have resulted from Code Pink activists shipping aide to terrorists killing our troops?

Maybe it was the president’s moral leader of 20 years saying we deserved 9/11.

Or his church reprinting the terror manifesto for Hamas.

Or the liberal attorneys who line up to defend terrorists every chance they get.

Or the liberal attorney who was recently ordered to jail for abetting terrorism while defending a terrorist.

Or the liberals who decided to give KSM a stage from which to preach his jihad propaganda.

Or the liberals who lined up to defend Jose Padilla. Or the morons who wanted to bomb synagogues in New York.

Or the liberals who expressed disappointment when the Taliban failed to kill Dick Cheney.

Or any other example of liberals apologizing for terrorists or abetting them in some way.

But no, it’s just my ignorant prejudice.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Has Lance Ito been appointed to the Federal Bench in NY?

Is it too late to get him there?

Khun Joe on November 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Yep, basing your opinion of New Yorkers on the dozen or so people you just listed is prejudiced. You don’t seem to realize how incredibly stupid, and offensive it is to imply that people there sympathize with a man responsible for killing thousands of their friends and family-members.

But no, it’s just my ignorant prejudice.

Good. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:32 AM

have no qualms about piercing the head of an 8-month fetus and sucking its brains out?

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Maybe we could come up with some term we could give the execution so we could get the pro-abortion people on our side.

How about “delayed abortion” or “better-late-than-never-term abortion”?

Lily on November 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM

“would explain what happened and why they did it.”

Insanity.

We know what happened and why. There is no reason that this country, and especially the families of the victims need to listen to these scumbags get their moment in the spotlight.

This is exactly why Obowma wanted this trial. He hates America, they hate America. He will let these animals spew forth their hate, then use it to justify more pre-emptive surrendering, pandering, aplogizing and of course bowing and scraping to our enemies while promising that he is The One to make it all better.

This Oboma fella is pure filth.

reaganaut on November 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM

So let me get this straight: the 9/11 5 will will enter pleas of “not guilty” but they are not denying the charges. Instead they will be basing their novel defense on justifiable mass murder. Do I have that right?

muggedbyreality on November 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I’m sure CAIR will see to it they are tried by a jury of their peers.

All it takes is one MMINO (Moderate Muslim In Name Only)to hang a jury.

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM

This Oboma fella is pure filth.

Left out the “W”. Irony.

reaganaut on November 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

If you are going to take one person’s statement as fact, so be it. But don’t expect us to believe him.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Ok, then don’t link to him when trying to argue the complete opposite of his point.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:05 AM

LOL! Great selective editing of my post. Alinsky would be proud of you. I notice you are afraid to address the reason I said what you quoted-that Feige provided no reason why the trial should be held in NYC, and provided no reason for eliminating other venues.

Care to give it another try?

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 11:35 AM

But no, it’s just my ignorant prejudice.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM

As a New Yorker, I’m sure Allahpundit is surprised to hear that he sympathizes with KSM.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM

How about “delayed abortion” or “better-late-than-never-term abortion”?

Lily on November 23, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Retroactive abortion?

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM

What these guys have to say probably won’t be much wore than what Obama says about us regularly…and often on foreign soil.

blue13326 on November 23, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Yep, basing your opinion of New Yorkers on the dozen or so people you just listed is prejudiced. You don’t seem to realize how incredibly stupid, and offensive it is to imply that people there sympathize with a man responsible for killing thousands of their friends and family-members.

But no, it’s just my ignorant prejudice.

Good. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:32 AM

You’re an idiot. I didn’t list a dozen or so people. In 2004, just three years after 9/11, 49% of New York City residents told Zogby they believed the U.S. government let 9/11 happen. You’re telling me there can’t be more than a few people out of that 49% that might just think KSM shouldn’t be convicted and executed?

Even beyond that, how many people were involved in helping Code Pink aide terrorists? How many attorneys line up to defend the several hundred Gitmo inhabitants that there were? How many people were involved in the decision to give KSM the mic? How many people listened to the drivel at Jeremiah Wright’s church over decades? How many people lined up to defend Jose Padilla on the blogs, in columns, and on television?

If you think that all totals just about a dozen people, you’re a bigger idiot than any of us previously though.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM

Has Lance Ito been appointed to the Federal Bench in NY?

Is it too late to get him there?

Khun Joe on November 23, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Ouch.

BTW I would love to see Federal Judge Harold Baer got the case. He’s in the same court. But he will never get the chance, because he ruled in 2003 in a lawsuit that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks. he was appointed by Bill Clintoon, by the way.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 11:39 AM

As a New Yorker, I’m sure Allahpundit is surprised to hear that he sympathizes with KSM.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM

I say there are New Yorkers who sympathize with KSM and believe he should be set free because they bought the MoveOn.org talking points. There’s too high a risk that a few might end up on a jury.

You respond by implying that I believe ALL New Yorkers, including libertarian-conservatives, would do that. Gotcha.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

BTW, I’m sure the potential jury pool includes writers like Katha Pollitt and Eric Alterman. With Looney Toons like them, KSM and the others will walk free.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Holder is reasonably certain they will be convicted. But, since he is a lefty, he prefers that they are not sentenced to death but instead to home detention.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

If liberals feel like a New York jury would be unfairly prejudiced against these tools in a civilian court room, then why aren’t THEY arguing for change of venue? Wasn’t Tim McVeigh tried in Denver because it was believed that he couldn’t get a fair trial in Oklahoma? It seems to me almost that the liberals want it to go this way, so they will have yet another thing to argue in a motion for appeal, or worse, to argue for mistrial. I don’t see how this won’t happen given that heretofore they’ve been treated according to the rules that are in place within the military judicial system, but suddenly now we’re going to try them according to the rules of our civilian criminal courts.

I think liberals are being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous about all of this. Let us all concede this fact: The world has changed. Used to be enemy combatants wore uniforms and acted upon official orders from the leaders of their sovereign state. Now we have a new kind of enemy in our midst, one that acts outside the parameters of a sovereign government (but which in many cases has their tacit blessing nonetheless; seriously, could a Middle Eastern nation attack this country in any kind of traditional manner? Of course not, they don’t have the means). The rules need to adapt to meet this new challenge. We would never have thought to try captured Japanese who participated in the bombing of Pearl Harbor in a court room in Los Angeles. Likewise, a court room in New York is hardly an appropriate venue for trying terrorists today.

NoLeftTurn on November 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I say there are New Yorkers who sympathize with KSM and believe he should be set free because they bought the MoveOn.org talking points.

That’s what voir dire is for.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

I’m not going to spend the day arguing with morons who have moved on to knocking down straw men.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

It will not be a good day for Obama when this trial opens.

AnninCA on November 23, 2009 at 10:54 AM

With motions and legal tricks, it will be years before any of the terrorists see a trial. It is more important to make each and every day “not a good day” for the filthy liar in the White House.

Any way possible to make the rat bastard traitor fail and be disgraced beyond all redemption other than the redemption from God above.

highhopes on November 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM

That’s what voir dire is for.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Oh yes, let’s assume people who sympathize with terrorists are going to tell the truth when they know doing so would keep them off the jury.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Holder is reasonably certain they will be convicted. But, since he is a lefty, he prefers that they are not sentenced to death but instead to home detention.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Whose home? When these trials result in acquital, where are these terrorists supposed to go?

highhopes on November 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Why is it that liberals always have vapors over a little waterboarding of terrorists but have no qualms about piercing the head of an 8-month fetus and sucking its brains out?

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM

Because as I have tried to explain many times before, liberals are Vampires.

GTR640 on November 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Whose home? When these trials result in acquital, where are these terrorists supposed to go?

highhopes on November 23, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Your home.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Because as I have tried to explain many times before, liberals are Vampires.

GTR640 on November 23, 2009 at 11:50 AM

I just thought they were leeches. Thanks for clearing that up.

:)

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 11:57 AM

I don’t get this guy Fenstermaker. He’s obviously a bright guy, but he acts like a terrorist ambulance chaser.

He graduated from the USAF Academy in 1984. Got a MS in aeronautical engineering from University of Washington in 1986. Got his JD from Harvard in 1994 and an LLM from NYU in tax law in 1997. So, some time between 1986 and 1991, he left the USAF. Seems like they don’t demand much for a free, top quality education complete with room and board and job placement.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Oh yes, let’s assume people who sympathize with terrorists are going to tell the truth when they know doing so would keep them off the jury.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM

LOL. Well then I guess we should just never have jury trials right? The problem you point out is applicable to every single jury trial, ever. If you don’t have confidence in the voir dire process that’s terrific, you can lead a crusade against it. But it’s worked pretty well for us, for a pretty long time.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 12:03 PM

You know what? Let’s just acquit them right now! Lets have a summit at the White House where the terrorists can explain why they think we should all be killed.

Then, after Obama considers all of their arguments, if he decides they are correct, we must all resign ourselves to extermination. He is our duly-elected representative, and must obey him.

Otherwise all of your talk about principles and the rule of law and your so-called “shining city on a hill” is all just hypocrisy. If Obama decides we must die, so be it.

I for one will cheerfully volunteer to be beheaded first.

GTR640 on November 23, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Just one Muslim on that jury is gonna get some serious threats.

GTR640 on November 23, 2009 at 12:06 PM

So, some time between 1986 and 1991, he left the USAF. Seems like they don’t demand much for a free, top quality education complete with room and board and job placement.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Excellent research, sir. I googled his offices on Park Ave yesterday. What an a$$hole.

But you know what he’d say? These prisoners have rights (?) and therefore he is simply vindicating those rights.

GTR640 on November 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Yeah, there’s a big difference between taking the chance when it comes to a white collar crime and taking the chance when you’re talking about an international terrorist who’s murdered 3,000 people.

If the system is so reliable and fantastic, why is Holder still trying some of KSM cell mates in military trials? It’s not as if they’re any more war criminals than KSM.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM

An addendum to the Obama-Holder foolishness and misguided philosophy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547571230575110.html

onlineanalyst on November 23, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Yeah, there’s a big difference between taking the chance when it comes to a white collar crime and taking the chance when you’re talking about an international terrorist who’s murdered 3,000 people.

That “chance” has been taken in every jury trial ever, not just with “white collar crimes”. That “chance” has been taken with rape trials, murder trials, and mass-murder trials. That was an unbelievably weak response, and it’s clear you’re aware you’ve been argued into a corner. The sad thing is, I bet you won’t even re-think your position, you’ll just block it out of your memory and carry on with your idiocy.

Pathetic.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM

So they are going to plead not guilty, but they will claim responsibility for the attacks? So then their defense will be, what? The Great Satan made them do it?

Spectreman on November 23, 2009 at 10:23 AM

The twinkie defense? They were deprived as children? Or most likely we asked for it because support the Jews..

katiejane on November 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

K-Lo at NRO’s “The Corner” reports:

New Yorkers are not taking it well, thank goodness; via Debra Burlingame:

NEW YORKERS TO HOLDER:
“WE WILL FIGHT YOU ALL THE WAY!”

Last Wednesday, a group of 9/11 family members and New York first responders attended the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Attorney General Eric Holder testified about his decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 9/11 co-conspirators in a New York City federal court. Mr. Holder stumbled through several tough and pointed questions about the dangers of giving war criminals the same rights as American citizens and blurring the mission of our war fighters. He was visibly unnerved by the presence of the families and the first responders. We want to keep the pressure on him, as well as President Obama, who we were shocked to learn was AWOL on this reckless decision.

Nearly two weeks ago we sent a letter signed by 300 family members to President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. After Mr. Holder’s announcement last Friday, another 120,000 people (as of today) have signed the letter in support of our position. Many of these individuals are family members from all three attack sites, active & retired FDNY, PAPD & NYPD, first responders from throughout the country and active, reserve and retired members of the military.

We are holding a press conference on Tuesday, November 24, at noon in Battery Park, Clinton Castle for the 9/11 families and first responders/survivors. We chose to hold it on Thanksgiving Week in the hope that our fellow Americans will join us in sending our prayers and messages of thanks to our troops and first responders, who will bear the brunt of these dangerous decisions made in Washington.

At that time we will announce the details for a large rally in New York City on Saturday, December 5 at noon, to tell Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama and their supporters in Congress: “We will fight you all the way!”

Debra Burlingame, for those who need a reminder, is the sister of one of the pilots who lost his life because of the 9/11 terrorist plotters.

onlineanalyst on November 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM

That “chance” has been taken in every jury trial ever, not just with “white collar crimes”. That “chance” has been taken with rape trials, murder trials, and mass-murder trials. That was an unbelievably weak response, and it’s clear you’re aware you’ve been argued into a corner. The sad thing is, I bet you won’t even re-think your position, you’ll just block it out of your memory and carry on with your idiocy.

Pathetic.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM

It’s not a chance that’s taken with war criminals. It’s not a chance that’s been taken with people who’ve murdered 3,000 people and dragged us into a war. Which might be why Obama originally supported a military trial for KSM and his cohorts.

I’m not the one backed into the corner. A majority of people across the country, including a majority of Democrats, agree with my assessment that KSM doesn’t belong in a criminal court. A poll from CNN exposed that just the other day. Obama’s falling approval rating backs that up.

Whatever MoveOn.org pays you, they should double it.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM

My only interest in hearing from these murderous thugs is to get the names and home addresses of anyone else who was involved. Assuming they aren’t going to provide this information, I’m not interested in hearing their ranting attempts to justify murdering nearly 3,000 people plus all the others slaughtered before and after 9/11 in the name of Allah.

Jill1066 on November 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM

But you know what he’d say? These prisoners have rights (?) and therefore he is simply vindicating those rights.

GTR640 on November 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM

They have the right to be represented by competent counsel, they do not have the right to be represented by him – or more accurately, he does not have the right to represent them.

He has been chasing down these clients for several years now and muscling in on the attys that have been appointed to represent them. He’s been filing motions on their behalf though, he is not appointed counsel and he has gotten in trouble for it. He has claimed to represent at least 3 or 4 of them which creates a conflict of interest. This was done pro bono. The government has hired attys to represent them, so why would anyone do it pro bono — unless they are a filthy terrorist lover?

Defendants do not have the right to choose their court appt. atty. The other military attys don’t like him. And I see no where that he has capital trial defense experience. And now he’s talking nonsense about giving these creeps a forum?
Dispute Erupts Over Lawyer for Detainee

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Or most likely we asked for it because support the Jews..

katiejane on November 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM

You say that with a bit of sarcasm but that is exactly what they are going to rant about.

Blake on November 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM

i can’t wait to see the defendant’s witness list.. i’m thinking

W
Billy Jeff
Rummy
Tony Blair
Jerry Lewis

why Jerry…because he’s still the funniest infidel alive!

DrW on November 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM

why Jerry…because he’s still the funniest infidel alive!

DrW on November 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Only in France.

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM

9/11 Five lawyers: Trial will become their platform to the world

That seems much like an admission of their clients’ guilt.

Kralizec on November 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM

How is KSM’s world view any different than Obama’s & Holder’s?

Connie on November 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM

And why are we dignifying KSM with a picture of him in his Muslim garb? I prefer the fat, hairy, sweaty pic used in the past.

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Whatever MoveOn.org pays you, they should double it ask for their money back.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 1:00 PM

Two considerations for KSM’s trial.

1 Kentucky windage.
2 Tennessee elevation.

MaiDee on November 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

And why are we dignifying KSM with a picture of him in his Muslim garb? I prefer the fat, hairy, sweaty pic used in the past.

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Ron Jeremy threatened a copyright infringement lawsuit?

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM

At each stage of the appellate process, a higher court will countenance the cowardly decisions made by the trial judge, ennobling them with the unfortunate force of precedent. The judicial refusal to consider KSM’s years of quasi-legal military detention as a violation of his right to a speedy trial will erode that already crippled constitutional concept. The denial of the venue motion will raise the bar even higher for defendants looking to escape from damning pretrial publicity. Ever deferential to the trial court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will affirm dozens of decisions that redact and restrict the disclosure of secret documents, prompting the government to be ever more expansive in invoking claims of national security and emboldening other judges to withhold critical evidence from future defendants. Finally, the twisted logic required to disentangle KSM’s initial torture from his subsequent “clean team” statements will provide a blueprint for the government, giving them the prize they’ve been after all this time—a legal way both to torture and to prosecute.

Is it better for an American to trust that Holder is merely stupid, or is it better for one to assume he actually wants to use “the 9/11 five” to establish precedents expanding prosecutorial powers? Or does it even matter whether he’s intentionally or unintentionally destructive? What will Americans do, who share Dave Feigel’s understanding of the actions of this man Holder?

Unless one is fortunate enough to be in a position to force Holder’s removal from office, it seems the lawful answer one must give is, “Nothing, other than maybe write a letter.” Discussion itself seems so tightly to constrict the range of possible answers that discussing what to do seems futile or even pernicious.

Kralizec on November 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM

Well all I can say is that if this trial turns into a circus, public opinion is going crush Obama and the Democrat leadership into oblivion.

From your pen to GOD’s eyes.

oldleprechaun on November 23, 2009 at 1:26 PM

What ’0′ wants is a stage to highlight the worst of America, bith real and imagined, so he can bring the fundamental revolutionary change he seeks. Welcome to North Venezuela.

TinMan13 on November 23, 2009 at 1:27 PM

***
I’m all for giving the enablers of the 9/11 “man caused disaster” (previously known as a TERRORIST ATTACK) a suitable platform to put America on trial. And I also want to give them a “very brief” chance to make their speeches to the victims.
***
My platform design will include 5 ropes and 5 trapdoors. Close the trial to all T.V., reporters, etc.–with a total news blackout. Put attorneys in jail for contempt of court at the end of each day if they “leak” information. They can resume “defending their clients” every morning.
***
And the terrorist’s last speeches should sound like this, “Bang–Alla…AAAARRRRRRGH!! Followed by some snapping, choking and swinging sounds. Send them on to meet their 72 demons in Hell.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on November 23, 2009 at 1:29 PM

why Jerry…because he’s still the funniest infidel alive!

DrW on November 23, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Only in France.

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM

An oldie but a goodie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgRfhrAQCi0

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Why are we so kind to people who want to annihilate us? Make a public announcement that KSM will be buried alive in a pig’s skin-thus negating any hope of spiritual salvation. Then maybe we can start commanding respect again.

As for Hasan. Any truth to the rumors that he is crippled? If so ship him to my apartment. I’ll put him outside my apartment door, face up, as a door mat. A guy’s gotta’ wipe his dirty feet on something.

MaiDee on November 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 1:34 PM

lol
:)

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I’m not the one backed into the corner. A majority of people across the country, including a majority of Democrats, agree with my assessment that KSM doesn’t belong in a criminal court. A poll from CNN exposed that just the other day.

amerpundit on November 23, 2009 at 12:20 PM

In that CNN poll, only 34% said KSM and the others showed be tried in a civilan court. 64% said military tribunal.

An ABC poll had it split down the middle-48% say military trial, 47% civilian

The latest C-BS “poll” has 54% saying military trial, 40% civilian trial.

So far those are the only 3 polls on this that Polling Report has up. But in 2 out of 3 of them, the majority of Americans say a military trial is the only way to go.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 1:45 PM

MaiDee on November 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM

+1000

Disturb the Universe on November 23, 2009 at 1:46 PM

LOL. Well then I guess we should just never have jury trials right? The problem you point out is applicable to every single jury trial, ever. If you don’t have confidence in the voir dire process that’s terrific, you can lead a crusade against it. But it’s worked pretty well for us, for a pretty long time.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Liberal fool, you know the threat of acquittal comes from the bench not the jury box.

Chris_Balsz on November 23, 2009 at 2:47 PM

I’m not the one backed into the corner. A majority of people across the country, including a majority of Democrats, agree with my assessment that KSM doesn’t belong in a criminal court

Your “assessment”? LOL. What “assessment” have you provided? Every time you’ve attempted to make a coherent argument outside the narrow scope of your 2-3 talking points you’ve been absolutely decimated and argued into a corner. Don’t flatter yourself, you haven’t made any kind of “assessment”.

It’s not a chance that’s been taken with people who’ve murdered 3,000 people and dragged us into a war. Which might be why Obama originally supported a military trial for KSM and his cohorts.

What exactly is your point here? We deem the voir dire process too risky if a certain number of people were killed? If so, what’s the number of deaths necessary to deem the process “too risky”? 100? 1,000?

I’m really getting embarrassed for you now. I mean really, just stop.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM

ATTENTION EVERYONE:
The renowned legal scholar ameripundit has announced a brand new legal principle that he invented himself. From now on, if the defendant has killed too many people, he can’t have a jury trial because the voir dire process would be “too risky”. The precise number that must be killed in order for the process to be “too risky” will be announced shortly, I’m sure.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM

OK, class, notice how crr6 totally ignores ameripundit’s claim that a majority of Americans don’t want this trial held in a civil court, a claim which ameripundit backs up by citing a new CNN poll. Notice also how crr6 totally ignores the subesquent post I made citing the exact CNN poll numbers along with another poll that says the same thing. Leftist Selective Amnesia at its finest.

I’m really getting embarrassed for you now. I mean really, just stop.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM

What exactly is your point here? We deem the voir dire process too risky if a certain number of people were killed? If so, what’s the number of deaths necessary to deem the process “too risky”? 100? 1,000?

I’m really getting embarrassed for you now. I mean really, just stop.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM

This is such crap. The links people like you go to kiss Obama’s behind never cease to amaze me.

The truth is that the US Congress, and that includes his royal majesty Barack Hussein Obama, passed the Military Commissions Act for the purpose of trying people like these murderers. Two seperate decisions from the United States Supreme Court were taken into consideration when the bi-partisan act was passed, just to make sure the process would be legal.

But Obama and his ilk decide that they can have more fun putting Bush on trial, so the circus begins.

Never mind the fact that the judge and jurors might need police protection for years. Never mind the fact that a legal precedent is being set here that has dire national security consequences.

No, the America haters see an opportunity to drag the Bushies through the mud, so the hell with everything and everyone else.

Disgusting.

Terrye on November 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

OK, class, notice how crr6 totally ignores ameripundit’s claim that a majority of Americans don’t want this trial held in a civil court, a claim which ameripundit backs up by citing a new CNN poll. Notice also how crr6 totally ignores the subesquent post I made citing the exact CNN poll numbers along with another poll that says the same thing. Leftist Selective Amnesia at its finest.

We weren’t talking about whether the holding the trial in NYC is popular or not, we were arguing it on its merits. Ameripundit got desperate and started throwing out random poll numbers. Why would I respond to that? It has nothing to do with what we were arguing about.

I’m sure that he appreciates that you mercifully stepped in and tried to help him though. He certainly could use it.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

BTW, have you guys heard Paul Shanklin’s New York New York parody. Funny has hell.

Terrye on November 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM

crr6:

On its merits, it sucks. In fact the German government has already said it will not cooperate with the civil court if the state intends to pursue the death penalty. And since Obama has decided to take the idiot step of pursuing this in a civil court, instead of the military tribunal that evidence is needed to secure a conviction.

But then again, I don’t suppose you even know about the Hamburg cell that the Germans shut down or the evidence they got in the process.

In the military tribunal, these terrorists were going to plead guilty and happily die for the cause…now they want to grandstand, hence the German decision is a blow to the government’s case.

Idiots. That is what the Obama administration are, a bunch of incompetent idiots.

Terrye on November 23, 2009 at 3:30 PM

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 3:21 PM

“F”

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM

“Their assessment is negative,” he said.

You are telling me that these men who killed 3,000 Americans, who pleaded guilty, actually don’t like America?
This is going to be some trial…they aren’t the only ones on trial, Obama made a serious mistake, he is on trial also.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM

CNN is going to be spinning this on their afternoon cartoon show. Should be coming on any minute.

And best of all, Wolfie took a powder to stuff a turkey, and Cajun hottie Suzanne is running the asylum today. Geaux Saints!

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Had a tough time in reading comprehension in school did you?

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM

This is going to be some trial…they aren’t the only ones on trial, Obama made a serious mistake, he is on trial also.

right2bright on November 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Should be interesting to see how they blame Bush for 9/11, seeing as the attacks were supposed to happen on Clinton’s watch.

In addition, bin Laden said that one of the main reasons for the attack wasn’t just American foreign policy at the time, but also Bill Clinton’s adultery. Will they also go after his fooling around?

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 4:16 PM

And the “true blue, red blooded, American patriot” attorneys are okay with this crap?

GFW on November 23, 2009 at 4:25 PM

The CNN feature on this was disappointing.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 5:19 PM

ATTENTION EVERYONE:
The renowned legal scholar ameripundit has announced a brand new legal principle that he invented himself. From now on, if the defendant has killed too many people, he can’t have a jury trial because the voir dire process would be “too risky”. The precise number that must be killed in order for the process to be “too risky” will be announced shortly, I’m sure.

crr6 on November 23, 2009 at 2:51 PM

What’s the fascination with numbers? If a hostile entity infiltrates America and murders one person, how is a military tribunal NOT the most effective way to handle it? It’s certainly Constitutional. It’s certainly cost effective. And it certainly protects the prerogatives of the US. The number of people killed have nothing to do with it. Neither does the amount of property damage. The intent and motivation, however, do. Our enemies (they’re still enemies, right?) need to understand that conspiring against the US doesn’t buy you a legal defense team and a trial by peers. There are no peers. There is no access to the American legal system. You plot, you lose.

nico on November 23, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Way. To. Fail. obama.

HornetSting on November 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM

This decision is a disaster on numerous levels. Holder is effectively giving the muslim terrorists a chance to reinflict 9/11 on the victims and he does not care.

Bozo and Holder are using this for purely political purposes and everyone knows it.

Worse, the people of NYC now have targets on their backs. Avoid the malls, subways and restaurants.

dogsoldier on November 23, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Remember when they said it was better that 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be punished?

How about 5?

Chris_Balsz on November 23, 2009 at 5:40 PM

Don’t worry Obama said they would be found guilty. Damn I love America.

CWforFreedom on November 23, 2009 at 6:18 PM

What’s the fascination with numbers? If a hostile entity infiltrates America and murders one person, how is a military tribunal NOT the most effective way to handle it?

As I recall, the Nazi saboteurs landed by Uboat were all given the electric chair, and the Supreme Court upheld it. And they didn’t actually kill anybody.

Chris_Balsz on November 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM

OMG, this tool lawyer was just on O’Really.

Didn’t answer a single question, not even when Bill asked him 3 times whether or not those folks who died in NYC on 9/11 were murdered.

Un-fricking-believable.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 8:27 PM

As I recall, the Nazi saboteurs landed by Uboat were all given the electric chair, and the Supreme Court upheld it. And they didn’t actually kill anybody.

Chris_Balsz on November 23, 2009 at 7:17 PM

From wiki

All eight defendants were found guilty and sentenced to death. Roosevelt commuted Burger’s sentence to life and Dasch’s to 30 years, because they had turned themselves in and provided information about the others. The others were executed on August 8, in the electric chair on the third floor of the District of Columbia jail and buried in a potter’s field called Blue Plains in the Anacostia area of Washington. In 1948, President Harry S. Truman granted executive clemency to Dasch and Burger on the condition that they be deported to the American Zone of occupied Germany.

Want more?

Lawyers for the accused, who included Lauson Stone and Kenneth Royall, attempted to have the case tried in a civilian court, but were rebuffed by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin.

Del Dolemonte on November 23, 2009 at 8:32 PM

Silly talk.

It’s a Federal courthouse, no camera’s no microphones.

I can’t believe you all fear the words of low life terrorist so much, especially non-televised words.

/shrug

NextGen on November 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM

September 11, 1683, Sobieski defeated Islamic invasion of Europe. Epiphany time again. It isn’t about the US, it’s all about Islam and their defeats by the West. Period

elclynn on November 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM

So murderers are us – are going to be able to advertise out of Manhattan, and everyone looks at this photo of KSM, and thinks this representation makes him “legitimate” Not the photo of him where he was grabbed in his grimy t shirt, where he looked like an out of work taxi driver?

Let’s start calling him Sheik or something. I mean if we are going really going to PANDER to murders.

Dr Evil on November 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2