Brief Recap from Part 2:
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."
But wait, there's more . . .
“Under the regime we are contemplating… the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Mr. Holder added, meaning anyone freed by the courts could simply be returned as an enemy combatant to indefinite military detention.
Lee says: Another excellent example of "rule of law" as many countries know it.
But is that THE rule of law we as U.S. citizens expect and are being told to take pride in getting a chance to show off? Is that THE rule of law which is or will be exemplified at this Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial? Is this the best Holder can come up with; is it the best he's got as the foundation for his upcoming "pulpit for American justice?"
My first reaction went something like this.
What!?
'Scuse me!?
Come again!?
And my reaction is the same every time I read those quotes and experience the attitude the quotes reveal.
Every time.
I have no problem with retaining the ability to detain under laws of war when they apply - and they seem to apply in this case; or enforcing whatever legal verdict a court comes to even in this case as distasteful and dangerous as it could be.
But it's one or the other!
Mr. Attorney General you have to choose. As far as I know, we the People of the United States of America do not espouse a cafeteria style rule of law.
For instance, when ya buy a new suit you can try one and if it doesn't work for you, you try on another ... until you find one you like.
When you are eating cafeteria style you can take whatever looks good to you, but if once you bite into it your taste buds rebel ... you can toss that and go try another bite of something else until you find something(s) you like.
When you are dating you can go out with a guy or girl and if they don't suit you, you just go out with someone else next time and keep doing that until you find the one you like best of all.
However, the legal system as I understand it, is not like buying a new suit, choosing the food you like, or finding the perfect date. You get one bite of the apple if you go the legal criminal court route (barring mistrial and maybe a few other obscure exceptions); it's not a matter of 'if this doesn't work out, if I made the wrong decision, if it doesn't go the way I want it to we'll try something else...'
No one in high government office should be heard suggesting, or in any way saying anything that could be construed as presupposing what the verdict will be!
And even if the verdict itself has not been presupposed (and no matter the immediate bactracking, it certainly was presupposed and virtually "ordered"), no one in high office can decide to just disregard the verdict of the courts; most especially NOT before the trial has even begun. But, that is just what Eric Holder has done ie: [[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." ]]
So again I have to say the Attorney General doesn't seem to quite have a handle on the principles Senator Graham tried to point out to him.
Mr. Attorney General, "given the other things" you could do with him, then DO those other things instead if you are not going to stand by the verdict of the court.
If you are not going to stand by the verdict of the court whatever that is (and there is every possibility this Sheikh could go free on a technicality if the actual law as well as the spirit of the law is followed). . . if you aren't going to stand by the verdict of the court, whatever that is, why go through a trial in the first place.
Why go through the motions of what seems to be shaping up as a farce of a "trial" in the first place? Do those other things rather than soil the court system in this way.
And I say to Congressman Weiner, the public at large, Mr. President, Mr. Attorney General . . . why go through the criminal court system at all if you don't feel able or are not willing to stand by whatever the court's determination is?
If you all are bound and determined to give this guy the protections of our legal system ... then do that. And if this guy Khalid whatever gets off scott free after all due process ... committ to allowing due process to be consumated!
Or find some other way to "handle" him and this problem you've crafted for yourselves.
Unless, it is not really to gain closure, or to fairly prosecute the defendent ....
Unless, the thing is more about the trial than about the crime, the defendent, or the verdict.
Unless this is, as some have seemed to imply, just a backdoor way to provide a public forum in order to virtually prosecute Bush and Cheney and their policies . . .
Mmm?
In any case I see the change Obama is bringing, because of who he is and what his worldview heralds. I see the adulterated attitudes contained herein in regard to the criminal trial of Mohammed - sooo, even if this trial takes place it can't possibly stand as that shining example of what our criminal justice system is supposed to be, what it is in many instances.
But what it might be an example of is what we may be getting a lot more of .... kangaroos:
~A judicial proceeding or trial which has a predetermined outcome or where the basic legal rights of a party are jumped over.
~In Nebraska State Bar Association, the Supreme Court of Nebraska used these words in regards to kangaroo court: "An irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular tribunal, or one in which, although conducted under some authorization, the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted."
~A judicial proceeding or trial which has a predetermined outcome or where the basic legal rights of a party are jumped over.
~In R v O'Dea, the Australian court used these words: "To describe the inquiry as a kangaroo court was to pour scorn upon the inquiry....
~"(A) kangaroo court ... an un-authorised or irregular court conducted with disregard for or perversion of legal procedure."
See:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial - It's a Mindset... Part 1
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's Trial - It's a Mindset... Part 2
Interesting Related: http://www.gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/NY5.pdf
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
email
print
Comments: 43
I know my post was long (yikes 3 parts) but it's not about what happens to the sheikh whatsizname. It's about the attitude and mindset of the people in "high" places irt the court system.
Whatever happens to this guy is also no nevermind to me. He could kill himself or get the death penalty ... life in jail ... whatever. In fact IF he is tried in a court of law with all due process and he is let free .... let him go. I won't like it but in order to abide by the rule of law, that is what should happen. Or do something else with him; preferable not in the U.S.
He himself and his dispostion is a side issue in regard to what I was trying point out, but I appreciate your comment and pov even so.
While both of these alternatives have a possible down side, neither is outside the realm of normal practice in our criminal justice system.
You said: Since he is not a citizen being found not guilty in a court of law would not mean he is free to roam about our country.
Then why try him? +shrug+ If the trial won't result in him being able to take advantage of the legal outcome ... and that decision has been made ahead of time (seems it has according to statements made by at least the three people I quoted in my article) - what's the real point of going through a trial that won't really have a viable outcome? +shrug+
Carol said: At a minimum grounds for deporting him would still exist and, with perhaps rare exception.persons who we are trying to deport are not allowed the freedom that would enable them to avoid deportation.
Um . . . deport him? If we don't bring him here in the first place there will be no need to deport him - in any case he is only coming for trial not to try to stay; so no need for a trial to try to deport him. If we want to send him back where he came from we can do it straight from Gitmo (if anyone wanted him) without a criminal show trial. Mmm? Unless I'm missing something.
Carol LeHane Nov 23, 2009, 1:23pm EST
Since he is not a citizen being found not guilty in a court of law would not mean he is free to roam about our country. At a minimum grounds for deporting him would still exist and, with perhaps rare exception. persons who we are trying to deport are not allowed the freedom that would enable them to avoid deportation. Clever maniipulation of the possible charges against him could also result in his immediate rearrest and holding him for trial for trial on charges that were not part of the original trial.
While both of these alternatives have a possible down side, neither is outside the realm of normal practice in our criminal justice system.
Said manipulation thus extending the time he has to spew poison in an open courtroom .. extending the amount of money spent on his defense.
Why do it anyway if there is the possibility the "charges" won't stick since there are other ways to handle this guy (per the Attorney General's quotes) . . .
Which brings me back to, and overlaps slightly with, something I touched on in my article:
Carol LeHane Nov 23, 2009, 1:23pm EST
Since he is not a citizen being found not guilty in a court of law would not mean he is free to roam about our country. At a minimum grounds for deporting him would still exist and, with perhaps rare exception. persons who we are trying to deport are not allowed the freedom that would enable them to avoid deportation. Clever maniipulation of the possible charges against him could also result in his immediate rearrest and holding him for trial for trial on charges that were not part of the original trial.
While both of these alternatives have a possible down side, neither is outside the realm of normal practice in our criminal justice system.
That's my point Jackie. They are not going to go free no matter what the verdict is - thus, the trial is nothing more than a show .... a leaping Australian mammal court. 8-/
Jackie A. Nov 23, 2009, 2:32pm EST
Carol, lets just say on the outside chance that he goes "free" he wouldn't ever make it out of NY to roam any place I am sure of that...
Maybe the answer would be, take no prisoners, oh I probably shouldn't have said that....but maybe just maybe think about it, our brave solders, fight for there lives every day, they capture them and we put on a mock trial for show, isn't that great.
Fly him over his home country, and at 30,000 feet kick him out. If Allah lets him live, then he can go free. On the other hand, If Allah does not, then he can go to hell.
We used to use that method of determining whether a person was a witch. Is that what you propose we return to?
He doesn't get to spew anything unless he chooses to take the stand, and then what he can spew is limited to being relevant to case. Even if he did manage to sneak some propaganda in who would listen to him? While the jury would be compelled to listen, considering where he is being tried, it would probably do more harm than good as far as his case is concerned. He would essentially be preaching to a choir that for the most part lives outside the United States, and given what they have been lead to believe about us. many of them would be dealing to trying to reconcile what they have been led to believe with his being placed on trial and given an opportunity to speak. Even given that opportunity it is highly unlikely he will say anything the choir has not heard before and from orators better equipped to incite and inflame passion.
By treating him and other terrorists as any other dangerous criminal is treated we display to the rest of world that we are a nation governed by a the rule of law rather the whims of those who desire a particular outcome. There is a strength in that has served us well for centuries and I for one am opposed to changing it and making vengence rather that justice our goal.
Carol ... I'll try to come back later or tomorrow to speak to this more (might be after Thanksgiving); but for the moment let me just say this.
Rule of law? Whims? That's what my article is about. This will be a mock trial; even in your own comments you allow it might be that - "Clever maniipulation of the possible charges against him could also result in his immediate rearrest ..."
There is absolutely no reason for them to be tried in New York. It will show nothing to our enemies except a rigged outcome - because he is most certainly not going to be let free even if the court so orders. It's a mock trial from the get go, bordering on if not totally a kangaroo court.
“Under the regime we are contemplating… the ability to detain under laws of war, we would retain that ability,” Mr. Holder added, meaning anyone freed by the courts could simply be returned as an enemy combatant to indefinite military detention.
If Mr. Holder is correct, and if he is serious --- what's the point of "trial?" What I mean is, say Mohammed is tried and a thousand other worse things do not happen, and KSMohammed is freed either on a technicality or being found "innocent" because evidence is thrown out or whatever. From the comments I've heard from the Prez and AG, Mo is not walking free but will probably be scooped up again under what will be seen and interpreted as suspicious circumstances; comparisons will be made to countries in which people are kidnapped off the street and we will be portrayed as a country that doesn't follow even it's own laws . . .
Aside from that, what if this Khalid Mohammed decides to act as his own lawyer? I've heard he wants to do that ... What if that happens? He gets access to allllll evidence no matter how sensitve to national security and if we refuse ... the case gets dismissed (or so I've heard). And then he gets scooped up on another charge (which will be reported and perceived as "trumped up") ...
Neither of those scenarios results in our legal system having been a service to us, or in our legal system being seen as a strength, or THE rule of law ... there are no actual plusses to having them tried in a court of law in New York.
I do think that Cheney is going for a showpiece of another sort in his outrage over Holder's decision. There will be a conviction either way... The argument for a civilian trial if we agree that either way will lead a conviction is that a conviction via civilian trial 1) may do an even better job of upholding due process/the legal system in the U.S.; 2) emphasizes the rights of the individual in the U.S. and the justice of the system; 3) for these reasons, the conviction would be even harder to criticize and might have more weight/moral authority/respect worldwide.
I do agree with John Tantillo (conservative marketing blogger; also blogs on Fox Forum) that because of the strength of Khalid's "brand," he would be able to benefit from the platform that nyc affords (even though the trial wouldn't be televised).
I want to copy and paste (with maybe a few edits after I review them) some comments I made in another thread:
I'm not sure I understand your meaning, Sloane. Either type of trial is justifiable? Either a real trial OR a show trial? That can't be what you mean. Let me know.
Huh? 'If we agree that either way will lead to a conviction'? . . . Your full comment was: "If we agree that either way will lead a conviction is that a conviction via civilian trial 1) may do an even better job of upholding due process/the legal system in the U.S.; 2) emphasizes the rights of the individual in the U.S. and the justice of the system; 3) for these reasons, the conviction would be even harder to criticize and might have more weight/moral authority/respect worldwide. "
But Sloane, "if we agree" ahead of time, there is no due process. And "if we agree" ahead of time, no one's individual rights have been upheld; not mine, not yours, not the defendent's. And the justice of the system? Depends; which one are we talking about?
Your third point was: 3) for these reasons, the conviction would be even harder to criticize and might have more weight/moral authority/respect worldwide.
A conviction under those circumstances ... harder to criticize? I'm sorry, I can't see it. Are you sure you do?
A truth from this one:
"They say luck favors the prepared. In branding, luck (read: external events) favors the well-prepared brand.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is the quintessential well-prepared brand. He is always ready for his moment in the spotlight, and Eric Holder has just switched that spotlight on.
The Great Satan has decided to take him seriously, and his brand is ready."
"Mrs. Palin also espoused the value of alliances with like-minded democratic countries in the region such as Japan, Australia and India. The U.S. "can, must and should" work with China to address issues of "mutual concern," she said. "But we also need to work with our allies in addressing the uncertainties created by China's rise."
The Obama Administration could take a page from this book. So far, the White House has gone out of its way to downplay human rights in China and tiptoe around recent crackdowns in Tibet and Xinjiang, preferring to focus on hipper issues like climate change. This "don't ask, don't tell" approach to Beijing does no favors to the Chinese people, much less to the West's core interests in Asia. At the same time, America's other alliances in the region have been largely ignored."
Terry M. Nov 29, 2009, 11:28pm EST
I really think Holder want to lose this case.
Christopher K. Leavitt Nov 30, 2009, 3:05am EST
Liberals have plotted so many means around the "second bite" concept, it's second nature to them.
Our current Administration has just thrown away the concept of justice being blind.
Embarrassing indeed to those of us who expected better of this Administration.
If it appears to be a "show trial" it will defeat the purpose of showing that we value justice and the rule of law over revenge.
If we do it right, with it being obvious that we are providing every opportunity for the defense to make its case and relying only on evidence that was properly collected, it is invaluable propaganda for our system. It is well worth the expense and the time to show the American people that we are safe from abuses by our government. Of course, it looks like the Administration is saying that we will ignore the rule of law and take revenge no matter the evidence.