In this country, we trust that the legal system will come up with the correct result. I personally find it loathsome that so many members of the media and the Republican party would repudiate the right of the people to have a trial of an alleged murderer. None of us, or any of the media members or judicial participants have any personal knowledge of the case. We have been told by our government that they have lots of evidence that a person it guilty of a crime. Now our usual Republican fascist hacks suggest and imply by innuendo that if a jury comes up with not guilty for a verdict, we should as a constitutional system incarcerate this person (and people in general) based on the word of members of the government who admit breaking the law and water boarding people. In short, we should take the word of people who have admitted committing loathsome felonies over that of a jury of 12 disinterested citizens.
I find that utterly despicable. I don’t give a damn for the well being of torturers whatever they claim about their motives. I know everything I need to know about them: they are the lowest kind of human beings possible. And the members of the media and the fellow-travelers of the fascist torturers are trying to frighten the public into sympathizing with the destruction of the rule of law on the basis of what might happen. What scum.
Al Queda was directly responsible for causing 9/11, but the right in this country has used the event no differently than the ruling elite in Germany used the Reichstag fire. This after several members of that ruling elite wished for “a new Pearl Harbor” in their signed letter for their Project for a New American Century. I’d be very disappointed to learn that the Bush/Cheney team deliberately provoked 9/11, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
When you imply that speculation has nothing to do with possibilities of acquittal, you are playing games with semantics. A person who is acquitted of all charges (and doesn’t face other legitimate charges) is released. Except those who are held as civil committments due to mental illness.
But that has nothing to do with the bullshit going on here in this thread. There is no verdict yet from a trial. Any outcome is at this point speculative. What is going on is that enemies of the American system of presumption of innocence, the media asking this question and jerks like Rudy Guiliani are holding forth on the subject as though they are presuming guilt. And they are trying to get political mileage out of it. And eroding our constitutional rights with their rhetoric that presumes guilt and that we should fear the proper working of the system. As though their presumed guilt and system of official fear would be better.
Bullshit. If an accused is acquitted of all charges, the judge says: “you are free to go.” The prosecution has no say in it. Now there is a very narrow exception for mental illness that I have seen prosecutors abuse, but we are not there yet.*
*I was on a jury selection panel for a “civil” case between the local DA and a sex offender represented by the PD. He was just getting out of serving a 10 year stretch for sex crimes involving minors, which didn’t get to a full jury trial (meaning it was a plea bargain that the DA had agreed to.) The DA wanted the man civilly committed because the man would be a danger to the community. In short, they had expected him to be murdered or otherwise die rather than let him out and stick to their agreement. The civil standard for this proof was a preponderance of the evidence that he would commit a future sex offense and he could be held until such a time as the prosecuting witnesses (the shrinks) deemed him no longer a danger. For some reason, they dismissed me from the pool.
I know they are. That’s why it’s so disturbing that Gibbs wouldn’t confirm that if KSM or another terrorist were acquitted he would be released. He refused to answer over and over whether we would follow the rule of law in these cases. It delegitimizes the entire justice system.
The judge may well say, “You are free to go,” on Law and Order, but in real life, an acquittal on one charge is just an acquittal on one charge. To take one example, another jurisdiction may file a detainer against an accused person, basically a statement that says, “When you’re through with him, we want him.” There’s a whole system involved with this process, called the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, and the judge may not even be aware of an accused’s existing detainers. Even if he says, “You’re free to go,” he means in the context of the present matter.
This question is NOT for the judge. It’s for the administration. They either won’t object to KSM walking out of the courtroom a free man in the unlikely event of an acquittal, or they will. Which is it?
SO why isn’t the answer to simply reiterate the correct answer obtained by proper working of the system: “It’s very unlikely that Mr. KSM would be acquitted, due to the mountains of evidence we have against him, but if he is, we will follow the proper workings of the system and he’ll be free to go.”
You are praising the proper working of the system while at the same time insisting that it’s wrong to ask if the system will be followed.
No, it is not a legitimate question to the WH press secretary. It should be directed to the justice department. They are handling the prosecution. It is grandstanding to ask Gibbs this when it is independently decided by Holder’s department. Just because the Bush justice department broke 230 years of precedent does not mean that another administration will do the same.
Well, I bow to your expertise on whatever you mean by “disingenuous”. I’ve noted your cynical corrosion of traditional meaning dating back at least to your “endorsement” of Obama.
I am not praising the workings of the system. If the Obama administration follows through it will be an end to an ugly raping of the constitution begun by the Bush administration. There will be nothing to praise. It will be a “thank God that is over”.
I am in fact condemning the cynicism of the media’s question and the snide repetition of it here in the OP. Normally when a prosecuting authority is asked this sort of stupid question they are entitled to answer “we are going to convict” and it is taken on good faith that they believe they have enough evidence to get a beyond a reasonable doubt conviction. There is no reason to suppose that the Justice Department does not have a good faith belief that the evidence points to that. Nobody asked Rudy Guiliani when he tried John Gotti if Gotti would go free if acquitted. Guiliani would have been entitled to the exact same “we are going to convict” not only as a matter of public relations, but as a matter of making sure that potential jurors did not get a Fox News style cut and paste from such a statement. Conservatism is as a whole so dishonest these days that Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck could be counted on to make a dishonest mountain out of a molehill, just as the critics of the WH response are doing in this thread. It is utterly dishonest. It is not the WH role to role to comment on Justice Department proceedings, a practice that the last administration only observed in the breach (Scooter Libby).
Would Gibbs have been within his rights to say that the Justice Department could better answer the questions? Sure. How about the ordinary course of law might allow other options? Yes. But for 200 plus years the President has avoided commenting on individual criminal prosecutions for the most part, and that is, in my estimation, a good thing. The WH has no expertise on the prosecution of criminal cases.
I’m not impressed by this non-controversy. I do notice that the wacko right (this thread included) seems to think that an acquittal is a practical possibility and suggests holding these accused forever without trial in order to avoid such a remote possibility. A crime was committed. The People are entitled to a trial, and a pox on those traitors and appeasers that say otherwise.
I disagree. Holder is the Attorney General. He can only prosecute under federal statutes. If, KSM is acquitted under these federal statutes, the prosecution’s job is effectively over. The question then, what is the executive going to do, if anything, regarding KSM if he’s found not guilty. (at best, he’d be free to go barring immigration requirements, which, I’m presuming, would be denied (if he applies, ha) and then he’d face deportation. That’s best case for KSM).
And speculating on whether it’s going to be guilty/not guilty is speculation, as you suggested. Asking the WH press secretary about the President’s plan if KSM is in fact found not guilty, is a legit concern. It better fucking be. There has to be a plan in place.
Again, politically, I understand why Gibb’s doesn’t answer. But the question is legit.
That’s a ridiculous excuse. If the WH press secretary is having a briefing, he’s the one who gets asked the questions. He can always refer the reporters to the justice department.
Returning to the OP, Bricker, I see that the exchange you are quoting is five months old. Has Gibbs or the White House (or Holder) addressed this more recently?
Is that your analysis of whether they can hold him civilly or as a prisoner of war? Is your casual opinion exhaustive and binding? If so, then we are done.
But I don’t know, but there may be legitimate legal options. Torturing him beyond the review of the international bodies is not a legitimate legal option.
I don’t see where I said they would hold him at all, in the quoted post (see the post I quoted of yours). Unless your being facetious, but I honestly can’t tell.
I don’t see how they would hold him civilly for anything (you mean like mental confinement?), and he’s not entitled to POW status.
I was referring to the fact that, it was in fact more proper to ask the President that OP question, than the Attorney General.
Thing is Bricker, even if KSM is acquitted of his part in 9/11, he’s still committed all sorts of other acts for which he could be brought to trial under dozens of possible jurisdictions. So if he’s found not guilty of planning 9/11, he’s NOT “free to go”, he’s just free of one charge. The day after his 9/11 trial is over, he’d face other trials on other charges. So your argument that Obama is a fascist unless KSM walks out the door if acquitted is nonsensical.
I’m interested in this, but frankly I’m also interested in examining things the other direction - Senator Obama in debate in 2006 opined that the best venue for dealing with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be a “military trial.”
I certainly don’t expect consistency across the board on every matter, but for something of this import it seems to me an explanation of the necessity of a civilian trial is warranted, since President Obama is on record supporting a different process entirely for this case. I especially would appreciate that since I disagree with that decision.
Um… I know you must have missed the first post in this thread. Because, you see, it was criticizing the Obama administration for NOT following the rule of law. You inveigh above against the “…usual Republican fascist hacks…” who would ask that we discard a jury verdict, but the whole point of this thread was to highlight the Democratic President’s Press Secretary for refusing to say that the Democrats currently in charge would respect a jury verdict.
So on that basis, why aren’t you directing your “What scum!” ejaculations at President Obama?
I wish people would stop conflating policy with politics.
Such confusion seems to underlie a lot of the misplaced criticism of the Administration. Often the muddle is about not seeing the actual choices on the table given the political landscape (see, e.g., health care). Or, in this case, about moving from statement to assumed policy without appreciating the political context.
Politics demands that Gibbs not answer this question directly. Lots of Americans are apparently afraid of even bringing KSM into the country, much less giving him a trial. The question of what to do if he is acquitted (gasp) has Gibbs entertaining that politically untenable possibility, even if as a hypothetical. While a legitimate question, inasmuch as what Dukakis would if his daughter was raped is legitimate, it just can’t get answered straightforwardly. So cast scorn on Gibbs and the Democrats for not having the power to stand up and speak the truth in a world of fucked up politics. They deserve it on this and a lot of other issues. But don’t conclude from a press conference kabuki dance what their policy is. Press conferences stopped being about actual government policy about three hours after they began.
The right answer to the question, and probably the real one as well, is that if KSM is acquitted we will try him for other crimes. Or in other jurisdictions. And in the unlikely event that no jury anywhere will convict him of a crime in any jurisdiction, we will let him go. Because to do otherwise is to make trials nearly irrelevant (though not entirely).
I would also be prepared to accept an answer in which the administration defines an “end to hostilities” that is objectively ascertainable and includes an alternative definite end date as a safeguard and agree that any AUMF-based detainee can be held until then assuming a military tribunal finds that there is probable cause to do so.
But either the person has committed a crime or violation of the law of war, or we’re holding them because we consider them an enemy combatant in a war. Holding them because we think they’re “dangerous” just won’t cut it.
[Finally, as this seems to raise the issue of how Obama is different from Bush when it comes to the War on Terrorism, let’s take a moment to recall the major differences. No more torture. (That’s important enough that it really should be mentioned twice, so…no more torture.) Tightening of the definition of enemy combatant. No more claims of inherent authority under Article II to detain enemy combatants. Closing Gitmo (though slowly, because both Republicans and Democrats are pansies and won’t allow terrorists to be held in supermax in their states). No more secret prisons. No more rendition to torture. Need I go on? Of course not, no one read past the first forty words anyway.]
Of course. No one doubts that they have both sufficient evidence and a good-faith belief that they can secure a conviction. But they would be blind fools to believe that a conviction is 100% certain. Even the most dedicated (but honest) team of prosecutors would acknowledge that here’s some possibility, some slim epsilon of a fudge figure separating his likelihood of conviction from a true 100%.
That’s true. But Gotti was never held under the authority of the AUMF. And, frankly, if one of his prosecutors HAD been asked that question, I’m sure he would have had no trouble in answering: “Of course we are confident of a conviction, but if Mr. Gotti were to be acquirtted, naturally he’d be released.”