# If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Is Acquitted Will He Be Released? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2009, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791 "2009-11-16T17:08:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/61 "2009-11-16T19:41:17Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 1. Why didn’t we just shoot his ass when we caught him? Various intelligence agencies wanted to find out what he knew. Asking people questions helps gather information, potentially avoiding major intelligence failures. I don’t have to list any enormous intelligence failures that have occurred lately, do I? > [@](#): > > 1. Why the hell is ObamaCo trying him in a civilian court instead of a military court? “Co?” And why shouldn’t he be tried in a civilian court? The decision appears to be that the guys involved in the September 11th attacks, which targeted mostly civilians, will be tried in a civilian court, and the guys who were involved in the attack on the Cole will be tried in a military court because it was a naval vessel. It makes sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/62 "2009-11-16T19:46:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Tapper speaks 12 times in that transcript. Garrett speaks twice, the first one after Tapper’s SEVENTH rejoinder. > > At yet somehow it’s Fox News’ fault? Why isn’t it ABC’s fault? > Answer: because you know that if you bleat out “Fox News!!” as the Universal Lefty Signal To Disregard, it’ll work. > > Sorry. This exchange was started and dominated by the ABC News Senior White House Correspondent. Tapper is a blogger, not a journalist. I didn’t say he was FROM Fox News, but Garrett jumped in there like the bully’s little friend, so Fox gets a mention too. When ABC, as a network, puts in the years of hard work to earn the same instant discreditability as Fox, I’ll name check that network too. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/63 "2009-11-16T19:48:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what, if anything, should we actually infer from the complete refusal of the president’s press secretary to agree that if KSM is acquitted, he’d be released? That it’d be a vast political liability to do so, and a lesser one but still considerable to admit to it. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/64 "2009-11-16T19:51:44Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > There simply is no point in saying that a terrorist might be freed. The brainwashed Fox News teabaggers will simply take that one line out of the transcript and repeat erroneously that Obama plans to free terrorists. Everyone and their grandmas know that’s what they want. Since when has a lack of evidence ever stopped Fox News from making a claim? If they want to say that Obama will release KSM, they’re going to say it regardless of whether they’ve got a quote to back it up. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/65 "2009-11-16T19:51:46Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Tapper is a blogger, not a journalist. Has _has_ a blog, but he’s ABC’s senior White House correspondent. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/66 "2009-11-16T19:56:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what, if anything, should we actually infer from the complete refusal of the president’s press secretary to agree that if KSM is acquitted, he’d be released? > > More to the point: what’s the right answer? Bush was vilified for saying, in effect, “I’m going to keep these guys locked up.” > > Now, clever Obama, who says a lot by saying nothing, is… saying nothing. Which means – what, exactly? Will he release KSM if the guy is acquitted? I don’t see it as him not wanting to say KSM would be released b/c “Fox” will report “Obama plans on freeing 9/11 Mastermind!” (not saying they won’t say that regardless how you answer). I don’t know why he didn’t answer. He might not have answered because, if found not guilty, they will hold KSM as an enemy combatant under the theory of military necessity (ie, switch him from being a criminal, back to a combatant). There’s no laws saying you can’t do it, it’s unprecedented, but it’s not what people think is “right.” If he planned on releasing KSM if not guilty, an answer would be “if found not guilty, we will obviously deny KSM entry onto US soil and deport him to a country we deem fit to keep him. If another country wants to try him for his actions, we would definitely be susceptible to deporting him to that country.” ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/67 "2009-11-16T19:58:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Two things, though: > > 1. If they were “set free” (which is about as likely as Charlie Manson getting paroled), it wouldn’t be in the US, they’d be shipped out somewhere else. Even if they were turned loose in the US, they’d last about as long as an ice cream cone in an Iraqi sumer. > > 2. If they’re acquitted, it will be because the government couldn’t prove they were guilty. If the government can’t prove they did anything, then why SHOULDN’T they be set free? This, particularly 2, would have been a perfectly fine answer. But that’s not what Gibbs said. He said he couldn’t speculate as to what would happen if someone were found not guilty in a criminal trial in the United States. Why the fuck not? If you can’t convict someone in court why shouldn’t they be set free? Tapper and Garret didn’t say anything about the horrors of a terrorist being freed, they were trying to ascertain how any judicial system could have any credibility if one cannot say unequivocally what will happen to a defendant who is found not guilty. Not guilty = you’re released. Anything less is no better than Bush. I understand why Gibbs refused to answer politically but, as someone who’s been an ACLU member his entire adult life, it’s disgusting and anyone who thinks only conservatives should care about this issue are sorely mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/68 "2009-11-16T19:58:50Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Tapper is a blogger, not a journalist. I didn’t say he was FROM Fox News, but Garrett jumped in there like the bully’s little friend, so Fox gets a mention too. When ABC, as a network, puts in the years of hard work to earn the same instant discreditability as Fox, I’ll name check that network too. Please. Think. Or in the alternative, check. Tapper is the ABC Senior White House Correspondent. He’s a blogger, perhaps, in the sense that he has a blog, but he is a full-time ABC employee, with dental, health insurance, and 401K contributions. And he is the ABC rep in the White House press corps. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/69 "2009-11-16T19:59:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That it’d be a vast political liability to do so, and a lesser one but still considerable to admit to it. And this makes Obama different from Bush on this issue… how? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/70 "2009-11-16T20:01:16Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > I understand why Gibbs refused to answer politically but, as someone who’s been an ACLU member his entire adult life, it’s disgusting and anyone who thinks only conservatives should care about this issue are sorely mistaken. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/71 "2009-11-16T20:02:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And this makes Obama different from Bush on this issue… how? In that Bush’s actions were real. Obama’s are in your imagination. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/72 "2009-11-16T20:03:50Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > I understand why Gibbs refused to answer politically but, as someone who’s been an ACLU member his entire adult life, it’s disgusting and anyone who thinks only conservatives should care about this issue are sorely mistaken. Thank you. Now, my own view is that the president has AUMF authority to hold KSM, and that’s what he should be doing. But it angers me that Obama campaigned against that view, promised to have trials and close Gauntanamo, and now that he’s not, people like **Diogenes** , outraged at Bush’s actions, treat the essentially identical actions by Obama as righteous. Hell, **Diogenes** is so desperate to ignore this that he’s trying to spin Jake Tapper as some Internet blogger so that the question can be relegated to partisan attack instead of serious policy. I guess we need George Soros to ask it before it’s taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/73 "2009-11-16T20:10:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And this makes Obama different from Bush on this issue… how? I don’t recall claiming that they were different on this issue. I suppose you could say that in Bush’s case, the motivation was to gain support, while in Obama’s case, it is to avoid losing it. Arguably you could make a case that in Bush’s case, it was a present term issue, while in Obama’s, it is a future one; the aquittal or otherwise hasn’t happened yet. That also means there’s a difference between agreeing to do something and not agreeing you won’t do something; if the thing being done is horrible, then agreeing to do it seems to me to still be better than not saying you _won’t_ do it. So you might make a case that Bush’s approach was to make political hay and do something unpleasant, while Obama’s was to avoid opponents making political hay by avoiding the question of what will happen. But really that depends on what actually \*will \*happen; it might end up not that different. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/74 "2009-11-16T20:11:39Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > I understand why Gibbs refused to answer politically but, as someone who’s been an ACLU member his entire adult life, it’s disgusting and anyone who thinks only conservatives should care about this issue are sorely mistaken. Show how it’s an issue _that actually exists_ and I’ll join you. Show how Gibbs should have said anything other than what he did, given the nature of his job and the nature of the questions, and I’ll agree that the qualifier “politically” is even required. There’s enough reality to be “disgusted” about already without imagining more. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/75 "2009-11-16T20:17:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And so the difference between Obama and Bush on this point is…? I guess you missed the part where I said there are legitimate legal tactics that can be used to keep KSM in jail. The thing about Bush was that he ignored laws and made stuff up when it suited him. We could have done this whole “War on Terror” thing by following the law, trying captured terrorists, and jailing them. Instead he put them in legal limbo, denied them access to lawyers, and tortured them for years. Obama is correcting that. He stopped the torture, is closing down Guantanamo, and will be using legal tactics that can keep terrorists behind bars. Plus, he’s actually trying them in open court. That’s the difference. > [@Grumman](#): > > Since when has a lack of evidence ever stopped Fox News from making a claim? If they want to say that Obama will release KSM, they’re going to say it regardless of whether they’ve got a quote to back it up. True but one should at least avoid giving them more ammo. I think KSM has little to no chance of ever getting out, but that is hardly a show trial. In this case, the outcome is pretty much predetermined because of the certainty of KSM’s guilt. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/76 "2009-11-16T20:18:17Z")
I was reading a story about KSM’s background this morning (Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or Los Angeles Times, I can’t remember which), and it said that when he was taken in Pakistan in 2003, he had been expecting to be brought to New York to stand trial for his role in [Operation Bojinka](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka), and that the side trip to Guantanamo was an unexpected development for him. So, even if he is acquitted, they still have that matter to clear up before release can be contemplated. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/77 "2009-11-16T20:19:29Z")
If Obama and his AG have not thought this through to the point that they know what they’ll do if KSM (or one of the other “High Value” detainees) is found not guilty, then they’re idiots. I don’t believe they are idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/78 "2009-11-16T20:30:26Z")
Just because they aren’t going to feed Jake Tapper doesn’t mean they haven’t thought it through. The truth is they’re probably _still_ thinking it through, but it’s a completely academic question anyway, since there’s no genuine possibility of acquittal. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/79 "2009-11-16T20:36:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, my own view is that the president has AUMF authority to hold KSM, and that’s what he should be doing. But it angers me that Obama campaigned against that view, promised to have trials and close Gauntanamo, and now that he’s not, people like **Diogenes** , outraged at Bush’s actions, treat the essentially identical actions by Obama as righteous. My personal hope is that KSM is tried, convicted and executed. I think that should be done for anyone involved in the high-level planning of 9-11. However, there is a chance, as I said before, that those who have been held in Guantanamo could seek to use some legal loophole (called the Constitution) to challenge the evidence that has been obtained from them due to the use of waterboarding and the like. I believe Bush’s policy not to ever try these individuals has created a legal situation in which anyone who wishes to try them in court the “right” way now must navigate the fact that some unknown amount of evidence against these people can not be used in court. Now, if Obama (or Clinton, Gore, or most Democrats I can think of) were in the Oval Office in 2001, my guess is that they would not have chosen Bush’s policy of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that has perhaps poisoned the well for good evidence to be used against these terrorists. Because Bush prioritized waterboarding, intelligence collection, and indefinite detention over trial and execution, Obama is not simply free to choose how to dispose of these pieces of trash. I believe it was Cheney who remarked around the time of the inauguration that Obama would find closing Guantanamo harder than he (Obama) thought it would be. How right he was. Fixing the legal clusterfuck that the Bush Administration created means that Obama now has before him a Chinese menu of bad choices on how to achieve the closure and what to do with the detainees. These bad choices would have been exactly the same for McCain, who also called for the closure of Guantanamo. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791/80 "2009-11-16T20:38:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Show how it’s an issue _that actually exists_ and I’ll join you. Show how Gibbs should have said anything other than what he did, given the nature of his job and the nature of the questions, and I’ll agree that the qualifier “politically” is even required. > > There’s enough reality to be “disgusted” about already without imagining more. I have to admit, I always thought that it would be under Bush where we reach a point where it was politically expedient for the White House press secretary to not answer what would happen if someone were found not guilty in an American court of law. I actually like **Diogenes the Cynic’s** answer. He should have said, look, we have an airtight case. There’s so much evidence that we’ll win at trial, but of course, this is America. If someone is found not guilty they’ll be freed and deported because we respect the rule of law here. You’re welcome to stick with your system where you don’t worry about anything that hasn’t happened but I find it very distressing that there’s even a question of what happens if the government loses at trial. I’d rather they hold terrorists indefinitely than hint at our trials being shams. Of course, there’s a better solution where we hold fair trials, find them guilty, and aren’t afraid to admit that were we unable to prove our case against them we would see justice done and set them free. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-is-acquitted-will-he-be-released/517791.md?page=5)