Brief recap from Part 1
Senator Graham: Well, it does not depend! If yer gonna prosecute anybody in civilian court, our law is clear that at the moment custodial interrogation occurs the defendent, the criminal defendent is entitled to a lawyer, and to be informed of their right to remain silent. . . .
[And further in the video..]
Senator Graham says: Mr. Attorney General, the only point I'm making is that if we're gonna use Federal Court as a disposition for terrorists you take everything that comes with being in Federal Court. . . [Lee says, including the altogether valid possibility of acquittal through due process - that is our justice system.]
Lee says: Neither Anthony Weiner nor Attorney General Holder seem to have the slightest handle on what Senator Graham is pointing out. And what Senator Graham is saying really is only the beginning.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial won't be a quick trial, and it will be quite messy. But I won't go into those details here because while most of those are horrifying in themselves, those details are not my focus in this article.
What makes my skin crawl here is, I've heard the kind of talk you saw in Part 1 quite a lot in the last day or so and it is continuuing to sound like something other than actual "rule of law" in action here ...
So far, I've heard:
WEINER on O'Reilly: Some -- I'm not exactly sure I understand what the concern is here. If the concern is that this guy's not going to get put to death, I don't think you have to worry about that.
WEINER on O'Reilly: maybe the best thing should be that this guy gets acquitted and comes to Brooklyn and then get his comeuppance there.
Weiner on Morning Joe: Look . . . (inaudible? a name?) if you want have an international trial in the Hague I'm gonna find that a lot less satisfying than having this guy face his accusers, have the accused get a chance to come in and say what this means, have a jury of New Yorkers say, "You're gonna be put to death, Pal." That, to me is the way you mete out justice in this type of a thing ...President Obama, before leaving China: “I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."
[Later the President 'qualified' what he said. Or, one might perceive it as him having "corrected" our impression of what he said ... "What I said was, people will not be offended if that's the outcome."
But that's not what he said, what he said was "when" and "when," not "if"]
Attorney-General Eric Holder – made it equally clear that Mr. Mohammed won't walk free, even if a New York City jury fails to convict him or a federal court judge tosses out the case.
Mr. Holder bluntly asserts "Acquittals, claims of asylum and even judicial orders freeing them won't result in releases."
Mr. Holder bluntly told the Congressional hearing - “If there is not a successful conclusion to this trial, that would not mean that this person would be released,”
Mr. Holder made it clear that even if a federal judge orders the Department of Justice to release Khalid Sheikh – a release order could be circumvented.
The Attorney General said: “It's hard for me to imagine a set of circumstances, given the other things that we could do with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed” that would result in him being freed."
Lee says: Excellent example of "rule of law" rather than of THE rule of law ...
High recommendation for the due process of United States law, don't you think?
A statement among many statements by some top Liberal Progressive leaders, including our own President Obama; statements exemplifying "justice working in an open courtroom."
Surely that's an attitude which honors our unique legal system; one which "has worked for two centuries and been admired worldwide."
And btw, it will be the system which will be on display during this trial and which will be "a pulpit for American justice." [Quotes in this paragraph were lifted from this Kansas City Star editorial]
But wait, there's more . . .
See:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial - It's a Mindset... Part 3
Go back to:
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 11
I understand Holder thinks he will win - or says in places that is what he thinks. But ... well ... maybe you should read it again. He also said this:And that is my point.
These men are not going free ever even if the court finds them innocent. Holder will have to find a reason to scoop em up or re arrest them ... or lock em up for their own safety.
In any case Holder has made it clear they are not going to get the benefit if the verdict is anything other than guilty. Which makes this at best a show trial ... at worst a fake trial or kangaroo court.
There is no reason for it since Holder himself has said if the "jury fails to convict him or a federal court judge tosses out the case" "Mr. Mohammed won't walk free."
These men, or at least this sheikh guy, are not going to get a fair trial but they will get the chance to belittle and disparage us, drag this out as long as possible (which could be years), and live on our dollar in the mean time. +shrug+
My opinion is, as nauseating as it is, if we are gonna afford them the benefit of our legal system, try them as common criminals ... we should be fully prepared to accept whatever legally transpires; should that be a guilty verdict, great. Should the court throw it out; fine. Should the court release them because of a technicality; whatever. Should a jury find them innocent ... sheesh. If we are going to put them into a criminal trial, we should be prepared to accept and follow through with whatever verdict comes down (which Holder is not) or ... figure out a better way to handle them.
Shirley U Understand Me S. Nov 23, 2009, 9:40pm EST
Holder said: I wouldn't do it if I didn't think that we would not win. Read it again...he thinks they (the terrorists) ...will win.
I firmly believe there is something afoot here that no one expects.
The man was already in the process of a tribunal when bo stopped the process and all of the uproar about waterboarding, torture, CIA lying to np and trials for cheney, bush and others by holder was making the news.
There is more here than the trial of ksm...and his lawyer on tv said that ksm is going to be on stage for jihad... he had said he was guilty and ready to die, and now says he is not guilty.
holder will be expected to obey the law, but already he is going against legal precedent.
I firmly believe there is something afoot here that no one expects.
I think there might be too .... as I state here:
But, no real evidence except what seems to be common sense - and no way to "prove" common sense except through experience, which will come during and after the "trial" ...
Shirley U Understand Me S. Nov 23, 2009, 11:37pm EST
I wouldn't do it if I didn't think that we would not win...I really, Lee, what you are saying, but I was making another point related to your article....Holder actually said...int the words I quoted that HE EXPECTS THE TERRORISTS TO WIN! IF I DIDN'T THINK WE WOULD NOT WIN...
I firmly believe there is something afoot here that no one expects.
The man was already in the process of a tribunal when bo stopped the process and all of the uproar about waterboarding, torture, CIA lying to np and trials for cheney, bush and others by holder was making the news.
There is more here than the trial of ksm...and his lawyer on tv said that ksm is going to be on stage for jihad... he had said he was guilty and ready to die, and now says he is not guilty.
holder will be expected to obey the law, but already he is going against legal precedent.
Yeah ... of course they all will.
On this page (and in other pages elsewhere) Holder says: For me it's not a matter of "being afraid" of what they will say ... it's the fact we have to listen to it at all on our dime and time. Been there done that over it, as they say.
It's also a matter of this supposed criminal "trial" not being at all necessary . . . for the reasons they give anyway. It might be "necessary" in light of whatever their inner reasons are; but for a showcase of our legal system or as an example of how we mete out justice, it's just not going to be that given the statements already made by at least three of our government officials (Weiner, Holder, Obama). :(
Shirley U Understand Me S. Nov 23, 2009, 11:37pm EST
I wouldn't do it if I didn't think that we would not win...I really, Lee, what you are saying, but I was making another point related to your article....Holder actually said...int the words I quoted that HE EXPECTS THE TERRORISTS TO WIN! IF I DIDN'T THINK WE WOULD NOT WIN...
I firmly believe there is something afoot here that no one expects.
The man was already in the process of a tribunal when bo stopped the process and all of the uproar about waterboarding, torture, CIA lying to np and trials for cheney, bush and others by holder was making the news.
There is more here than the trial of ksm...and his lawyer on tv said that ksm is going to be on stage for jihad... he had said he was guilty and ready to die, and now says he is not guilty.
holder will be expected to obey the law, but already he is going against legal precedent.
Holder made the comment in answer to a question before a senate committee. I think it was a "Fruedian slip"....you know, when one says what they really think but do not intend to say...it just slips out.
How come all the money is being spent to provide "Constitutional" protections to someone who, not only is not a citizen, but has never even been to the States, when they know they are already driving the country into bankruptcy, and it's the "freedoms" and "rights" Americans have that jihadists hate so much?
As has been said about other things: they have a 'hidden "agenda"' (a list of things to accomplish). They are all bad and much harm is coming, I believe.
Shirley U, you said: Holder made the comment in answer to a question before a senate committee. I think it was a "Fruedian slip"....you know, when one says what they really think but do not intend to say...it just slips out.
Ahh yes ....
Shirley U you said: How come all the money is being spent to provide "Constitutional" protections to someone who, not only is not a citizen, but has never even been to the States, when they know they are already driving the country into bankruptcy, and it's the "freedoms" and "rights" Americans have that jihadists hate so much?
Ya got me ... +shrug+ Unless it is this barely 'hidden' other agenda. :(
Char said: Lee, I totally see what you mean! Out of one side of their mouth they say we will show the world how fair we are, but coming out of the other is absolute ability and intent to subvert the outcome if it were to be not guilty.