# Live from New York, it's Khalid Sheikh Mohammed **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510 "2009-11-14T01:28:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/61 "2009-11-15T07:20:41Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > What if he’s nuts? Truly nuts, certifiable. Whatever villain he was, what he is now is a mass of hairy batshit. I won’t speak for you, but I got a hunch that if I was held captive for years by people who hated my guts enough to waterboard me a hundred times, that might send me round the bend. Just given what we already know, what they’ve told us, there’s a pretty decent chance he’s totally mental. > > What then? Then they may not be able to execute him but they can certainly incarcerate him for the rest of his natural life to be fair and humane we might have to provide a counselor on occasion. People who are found guilty by reason of insanity aren’t just released back onto the streets like TV shows like to make us believe. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/62 "2009-11-15T07:44:33Z")
I’d expect that one of the early defense motions will be asking for an independent psychological evaluation. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/63 "2009-11-15T14:26:39Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I’d expect that one of the early defense motions will be asking for an independent psychological evaluation. IIRC, some of his cohorts are asking for a psycological evaluation before the trial, but Khalid is not, so presumably he isn’t using an insanity defense. In anycase, it’s hard to believe he was insane while at the same time planning complex, multinational terrorist attacks and managing to dodge the US gov’t. And if he’s been driven insane by his captivity, as **elucidator** suggests, then he was still sane at the time of the crime he’s being tried for, and so can’t use the insanity defense. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/64 "2009-11-15T14:28:31Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > IIRC, some of his cohorts are asking for a psycological evaluation before the trial, but Khalid is not, so presumably he isn’t using an insanity defense. Psychological evaluation is used to prove both insanity and competency for trial. With regard to the latter, I’m somewhat certain that the accused’s opinion of whether or not he is competent for trial is irrelevant to whether the Judge will grant a request to ascertain that fact. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/65 "2009-11-15T14:37:52Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > IIRC, some of his cohorts are asking for a psycological evaluation before the trial, but Khalid is not, so presumably he isn’t using an insanity defense. > > In anycase, it’s hard to believe he was insane while at the same time planning complex, multinational terrorist attacks and managing to dodge the US gov’t. And if he’s been driven insane by his captivity, as **elucidator** suggests, then he was still sane at the time of the crime he’s being tried for, and so can’t use the insanity defense. Not as a defense to the crime, but if he is found “presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.”, they can’t try him, they’ll instead lock him up in a mental institution until he does regain competency. ---
**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 15, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/66 "2009-11-15T19:43:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I’m not sure “battlefield conditions” is accurate, at least for KSM. He was picked up by Pakistan’s ISI in Karachi. We have tried terrorists in civilian courts who were captured under those circumstances. See, e.g., [Mahmud Abouhalima - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmud_Abouhalima) (“[C]aptured by Egyptian police and handed back to the United States, mummified in duct tape.”) OK. Is that true for all these guys? Interesting twist to all this: In an interview I saw this AM on Chris Wallace’s show, Sen Jack Reed (D-RI) was asked what would happen if they were found not guilty. His answer was that we could still detain them indefinitely since they pose a threat to the US. That kinda makes the whole thin moot, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/67 "2009-11-15T19:58:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Is that true for all these guys? > > Interesting twist to all this: In an interview I saw this AM on Chris Wallace’s show, Sen Jack Reed (D-RI) was asked what would happen if they were found not guilty. His answer was that we could still detain them indefinitely since they pose a threat to the US. That kinda makes the whole thin moot, if you ask me. Well, they’re facing the death penalty if convicted, so its probably not moot to them. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/68 "2009-11-15T20:29:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Is that true for all these guys? I’m not sure. > [@John Mace](#): > > Interesting twist to all this: In an interview I saw this AM on Chris Wallace’s show, Sen Jack Reed (D-RI) was asked what would happen if they were found not guilty. His answer was that we could still detain them indefinitely since they pose a threat to the US. That kinda makes the whole thin moot, if you ask me. It’s a fair point, if indeed that is the actual US position. I’m not sure I would go so far as to say such a position would make the whole thing moot (a criminal trial for past acts would still have some due process benefits and PR benefits even if detention based on anticipated act was waiting in the wings), but we definitely cannot say we’re subjecting them to ordinary criminal justice if we plan to continue detaining them without charges upon a finding that they are not guilty. I’m not one of the people who thinks we can just use ordinary law enforcement as-is to deal with terrorism. We obviously need some kind of hybrid approach between the constitutional protections applied to ordinary criminal and the no-holds-barred military approach. I could have gotten behind an approach to military commissions that was better-constructed than the Bush version. But I think this is at least a better alternative to straight-up indefinite detention or Bush-style commissions. ---
**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 15, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/69 "2009-11-15T20:32:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Interesting twist to all this: In an interview I saw this AM on Chris Wallace’s show, Sen Jack Reed (D-RI) was asked what would happen if they were found not guilty. His answer was that we could still detain them indefinitely since they pose a threat to the US. That kinda makes the whole thin moot, if you ask me. You can be an enemy combatant and a criminal. One does not control the other. The reason the Senator is correct (in theory) is you’re not being punished if you’re an enemy combatant. You’re being preventively detained until the end of hostilities. Whereas, a criminal, is being punished. So, if he’s not guilty of murder, his status as an enemy combatant is unchanged. Hostilities (I guess) have not ended. EC status is reviewed yearly, I’m guessing being found not guilty could be used to re-determine status. ---
**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, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/70 "2009-11-16T00:06:47Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK. Is that true for all these guys? > > Interesting twist to all this: In an interview I saw this AM on Chris Wallace’s show, Sen Jack Reed (D-RI) was asked what would happen if they were found not guilty. His answer was that we could still detain them indefinitely since they pose a threat to the US. That kinda makes the whole thin moot, if you ask me. I dunno about that. Sen Reed seems to be forgetting these guys are now under the jurisdiction of a federal court. If they’re found not guilty, I think the federal court can order them released from custody. Indefinite detention can’t be constitutional imho. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/71 "2009-11-16T00:12:37Z")
Not “officially”, perhaps. But if they want to do a bureaucratic slow-walk with appeals stacked upon appeals, and indefinite digressions mulling minor points, they can keep him behind bars for a _long_ time. After all, who’s going to demand his release? Outside of ACORN, I mean. ---
**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, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/72 "2009-11-16T00:24:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > After all, who’s going to demand his release? Outside of ACORN, I mean. I would, if I was defense counsel. And yes, I’d defend these guys to the best of my ability if appointed or hired to do so. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/73 "2009-11-16T00:50:08Z")
Aside: An interesting question in ethics: demand release for your client when there is every likelihood that his release would be, shall we say, not in his best interests? I mean, legally, winning his release is good, sure, but is he going to walk out and catch a cab to the airport? ---
**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, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/74 "2009-11-16T00:55:45Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I dunno about that. Sen Reed seems to be forgetting these guys are now under the jurisdiction of a federal court. If they’re found not guilty, I think the federal court can order them released from custody. Indefinite detention can’t be constitutional imho. I agree with the spirit of your post. Indefinite detention cannot be constitutional. I’m not sure if the Supreme Court has ruled that recently, or merely hinted, but it’s obvious nonetheless. I still think if found not guilty, KSM could be returned to Guantanamo as an Enemy Combatant. Let’s say there’s evidence that KSM did acts that would have been violations of crimes x, y, z. But, the prosecution determines they only have enough evidence to prove crime x beyond a reasonable doubt. KSM is only charged with crime x, even though there is some evidence of crimes y and z. KSM is found not guilty of crime x in a criminal court. There is still evidence of crimes y and z. y and z tend to prove KSM provided substantial support to Al Qaeda. The combatant status tribunal could use this evidence to find KSM as an enemy combatant (they already have). In this tribunal, _the burden is on KSM_ to prove he is not an EC. The tribunal could also use evidence of crime x because the standard is that the evidence is genuine (ie, it doesnt’ have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt). KSM has to prove it’s not credible. KSM can appeal his ruling to the federal courts, but he’s appealing the status determination of being an EC, not appealing any crimes he committed. That’s how I see it, anyways. Of course, this is means you could, policy considerations would probably keep this “unjustice” from happening with 99% of the detainees (KSM being in the 1%). On another note, if someone is found guilty and receives 8 years, do they get time served and released? Most of the detainees are not KSM and will receive 5-20year type sentences. I see arguments for and against a time served. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/75 "2009-11-16T01:26:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Not “officially”, perhaps. But if they want to do a bureaucratic slow-walk with appeals stacked upon appeals, and indefinite digressions mulling minor points, they can keep him behind bars for a _long_ time. After all, who’s going to demand his release? Outside of ACORN, I mean. Appealing a not guilty verdict? I was unaware that American jurisprudence worked that way. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/76 "2009-11-16T01:29:11Z")
TG, IANAL, but my dim recollection is that it is uncommon for the prosecution to appeal when they lose, but not unheard of. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/77 "2009-11-16T01:45:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > TG, IANAL, but my dim recollection is that it is uncommon for the prosecution to appeal when they lose, but not unheard of. This would violate the 5th Amendment ([double Jeopardy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#United_States)), no? They can still try him for crimes other then 9/11 though. And I assume he can still be extradited to another country to face 9/11 related charges. Though again, I highly doubt he’s going anywhere but death row after the trial. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/78 "2009-11-16T02:10:12Z")
Hopefully he will put to death. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/79 "2009-11-16T03:07:20Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > You can be sure that Obama’s legal people have carefully analyzed the evidence and feel they can get a conviction. You mean like the crack team he used for vetting his appointments? Obama owns this trial. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2009, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510/80 "2009-11-16T03:23:29Z")
Seems to me that Obama has gone to considerable length to emphasize the Justice Dept. independence from his direction. Given the repulsive performance of the previous administration in this regard, that’s a pretty good idea. GeeDub took the precaution of loading up the Justice Dept with some of the most brilliant graduates of C-list law schools. They’re his too, now, lucky lucky Barry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/live-from-new-york-its-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/517510.md?page=5)