Gibbs: Accused 9/11 plotter likely to be executed

[IDemo]

Source: msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Accused Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is likely to be executed after being tried and convicted, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

Gibbs spoke on CNN's "State of the Union." The Obama administration has begun looking for places other than the heart of New York City to prosecute Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators in the face of fierce criticism tied to security and costs.

Presidential adviser David Axelrod says the Obama administration hasn't decided where it will try Mohammed.

The administration said late last year that Mohammed and other conspirators would go on trial in a federal civilian court in New York City. But that plan has run into resistance now from city officials.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35168785/ns/us_news-security/

[merh]

1. I wish they would just shut the fuck up.

The administration should not be commenting, the DOJ should be the only ones who comment on the case.

They should also never assume conviction, our nation was founded on the judicial principal that one is innocent until proven guilty.

The DOJ should simply state, if convicted we will seek the death penalty.



I oppose the death penalty in all instances.


,

[EFerrari]

9. Gibbs is making a joke of this joke of due process.

[Psephos]

56. agreed n/t

[conservdem]

16. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not in the constitution.

I am not completely opposed to the death penalty.

It's okay with me for our admin to say things like this.

I do not know why it has to be a civilian criminal trial.

[No Elephants]

38. So what?

The Constitution is a very short document. It contains very little express language. Everything else has been read into via the process of interpretation.

It's enough that the presumption of innocence is part of our law and the law of other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

When Gibbs says the man will be put to death, he is saying, "We are about to have a show trial. We insisted on a civilian trial for our own purposes, like maybe our image abroad, but not to worry, Obama's critics. The trial will mean nothing."

I don't think that kind of cynicism and hubristic dismissal of our justice system should be okay with any citizen of this country, so good thing it's still {mostly} a free country. (Though who knows how long that will last while citizens accept statements like that?}

And maybe it does not have to be a civilian trial, but that's what our government decided to have. So, the question is, why shouldn't it be a civilian trial?

[sabrina 1]

52. I oppose it also. It is a barbaric and primitive practice and we

are the only country in the civilized world to practice it. how nice to be viewed as a third world dictatorship.

Gibbs should be fired for deciding a case, not just giving the verdict but announcing the punishment before there is a trial. Not to mention that torture was used to get confessions from many of these suspects. Not all states have the death penalty. NY did not have it until a few years ago. Obama is for the death penalty then. Another thing I did not know about him.

He just made a mockery of the U.S judicial system. And why are they caving in once again to the right? What is it with Obama and his desperate need to please the right? I don't get it at all. They should be the last people he should care about at all.

[Webster Green]

2. If they execute this guy they should do the same with Cheney & the Chimp

Similar crimes aren't they? Using airplanes to murder thousands of innocent people?

In fact though, I'm against the death penalty. It just seems barbaric. Life in a cage is punishment enough, isn't it?

[saigon68]

47. Cheney and the Chimp

War Criminals both

Killers of thousands of innocents

[Lil Missy]

3. That's nice they'll give him a fair trial before they hang him.

[avaistheone1]

27. Obama admin

is mirroring the Bush admin on justice.

Pathetic.

[17breezes]

46. Just like the fair trial he and his buddies

gave 3000 innocent folk on 9/11. Cry for THEM why dontcha?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chrisa]

57. Nevermind.

[Solly Mack]

4. and the government that tortured him? They go free

[smiley]

6. or you could say...

the people in government who actually did the crime still remain free...

[Solly Mack]

8. I'll stick with what I said, thanks.

[smiley]

22. unfortunately...

most feel the way you do. it's really a shame some still aren't able to see threw the propaganda

[Solly Mack]

23. Alrighty then

[frylock]

25. why not enlighten us?

[smiley]

44. there is a whole forum on this site

and much more information out on the web that you can use to enlighten yourself.

[Myrina]

5. ... that'll go over well with the Muslim world ...

:wtf:

[liam_laddie]

10. Innocent until proven guilty...

Guess Gibbs doesn't ascribe to this...fuckin' dumb remark... :crazy:

[Democrat_in_Houston]

7. This should be handled by a military tribunal

Perhaps even a multi-national tribunal since many others besides U.S. citizens died on 9/ll. Frankly, I think this was a huge part of the turning of the tide against the president.

Live and learn, I suppose...

[EFerrari]

12. I heard the right wing nutcases on Fox screaming these people

were not US citizens and should be tried by military tribunals.

The fact is, we've gotten many more convictions in our civil courts than the tribunals have yielded.

[Democrat_in_Houston]

15. Very true, but this is different, imo.

And the majority of the people of New York don't want this in their city. It's just bad for Obama. The entire trial is going to be bad press for him, imo, with people screaming that he is endangering American citizens, blah, blah, blah. We just don't need this, imo.

[EFerrari]

17. I don't think the trial should be in New York, either.

That was a bad idea, imho.

[twitomy]

29. No reason you cant have a civilian trial at Gitmo

Very secure there..

[EFerrari]

30. I was thinking more that trying to have a fair trial in New York

is a fool's errand.

[mbperrin]

26. Name one trial held in any city which endangered the citizens of that city.

I mean, which resulted in real harm to the citizens of that city as the proximate result of that trial. Because if we worry about trying bad people, why not just let them go? Then we won't anger anyone, right?

These are criminal acts. They should be and always have been tried in criminal courts in the past. Tim McVeigh, anyone?

This Red Queen nonsense of punishment first, trial after is just what it seems, Through the Looking Glass.

Of course, if we weren't standardized testing the shit out of kids for the last 26 years, some might actually read and understand ideas, instead of just marking choice a, b, c, or d.

[No Elephants]

40. New York City v. another city is a different issue from military tribunal v. civilian court.

The entire trial is going to be bad press for Obama?

Does that override both the rule of law and the greater likelihood of conviction in civilian court? Isn't that a skewed priority?

Anyway, should our values and the actions of our duly elected President be determined by the what the media might say?

[No Elephants]

39. Please! Do not try to confuse the issue by citing facts, when the Republican

professional loudmouths have successfully inflamed the populace while ignoring the facts.

[EFerrari]

45. LOL

:hi:

[DrDan]

11. didn't Obama say the same thing?

I can't believe they would say things like this before we even have a trial.

[EFerrari]

18. Yes, I believe he did. It was some time ago now -- maybe Sept or Oct?

[DeadEyeDyck]

55. those statements are more damaging than simply annoying

when the president and commander in chief make such a statement from the highest bully pulpit in the land, the first thing a defence attorney is going to demand is a change of venue where their client(s) can get a safe trial. If they can reasonably prove that that is not feasible, they will seek a demurrer in summary judgement.

These guys may end up getting off with deportation at worst!!

[DrDan]

59. that's the thought that went through my mind

every nickle-n-dime lawyer knows better than this.

[IDemo]

13. Possible grounds for a mistrial?

Legal experts, care to chime in?

[Jefferson23]

14. What a stupid thing to say, ALL to sway the Republicans, who won't

stop with their screaming meme about Obama being sympathetic to the "TERRORISTS" no matter what.

I can't stand this crap anymore.

[Enrique]

19. so when we lecture other countries about rule of law

they will be sure to laugh in our faces.

[pjt7]

20. "9.11 blotter to be executed"

Wow, Cheney/Rumsfeld/Silverstein etc is going to fry, about time.

[Igel]

28. Only if they don't understand the system.

Let's assume that the US system, with a judiciary, executive, and legislative, accounts accurately for the three roles that government really has to serve. I think it's a reasonable breakdown for minimal government; depending on the role of government, it may have more roles. For instance, "provisioning", where the regulatory agencies and such are separate from the equivalent of social security and medicare, so that the branch of government that doles out funds and goods isn't also in charge of making sure they're handed out legally. Perhaps you'd want a separate 'military' branch. Whatever. Let's stick with the three basic ones for now.

In some countries the judicial apparatus answers to the chief executive. So if the executive authority says "guilty" there's at least the appearance of the boss predetermining the outcome. And, in fact, if the president puts enough pressure on a judge down through the line of authority he can influence the trials rather directly. So in the Soviet show trials did the judges issue the verdicts they believed the defendants merited or were they simply bowing to pressure? I'm not sure we can know.

In some countries the prosecutors work for the judiciary--for example, Pakistan. The president doesn't control them; the courts do. Since a prosecutor has to assume that the defendant is guilty in order to prove it, it means that one branch of the courts assumes guilt while the other has to stay neutral. That's very tricky.

In some countries, like the US, the prosecutors work for the executive while the judges work for a different branch--and at the top they're not connected. Even if Judge Roberts said he thought a guy 'guilty' it's unclear that would influence the local judge--while Roberts may be able to influence pay raises, it's the president and Congress that determines the big promotions--and most judges don't get them, anyway. So while the president exerts a little pressure on the judges, it's not much. It's unlikely that Obama's--much less Gibb's--utterances will have much, if any, influence on the judge. Possibly on the jurors, but the case is already so notorious that many will have predecied the case, and that's what jury screening is all about.

In the US, the administration is already officially behind the "he's guilty" POV because it's the administration bringing the case: US v Sheikh Muhammed. Now, that's Holder's opinion, either personally issued or merely because he's responsible for his reports. But Holder reports to Obama, ultimately. Political pressure is frowned upon, but we all know it goes on--either explicitly, with Obama making a call or having Emanuel make a call, or by having Holder think, "Gee, if I don't prosecute him then it'll make my boss look bad, and if my boss looks bad than what does that do for my position?"

As in many other instances, you read an article in the foreign press that ridicules some decision as blatantly mixing things considered fairly separate in the US but not elsewhere, and you think, "They think our government is like their government." For example, when the Egyptian press presumes to think that the NYT or WaPo editorial pages are presidential mouthpieces.

[No Elephants]

41. Maybe we should not be lecturing other countries about the rule of law to begin with?

[SteveM]

21. Dumb ass. Has he forgotten Nixon's remarks following the Tate-LaBianca murders? nt

[timeforpeace]

24. Wrong. There will be endless appeals, at taxpayers expense, until he dies of old age.

[No Elephants]

42. He will be tried in federal district court. That gives him two appeals.

[SlingBlade]

31. Yea, And That Mother$#%##$$ Deserves it too, Huh Gibbs.

Fucking DemoThugs, Their all alike.

[Stinky The Clown]

32. Well there ya go. Let's just forgo the expense of a sham trial and fricassee him now.

This is more that right wing "we're tough" bullshit.

Hey, Bobby .... shut the fuck up.

[Froward69]

33. I like the Idea of a cute little one room courthouse

out in the middle of nowhere USA. Yet in a state that has a colorful execution style. Utah for instance has a firing squad. Gas chambers are good too.

Lethal Injection seems too mamby pamby, nicey nice...

Granted keeping away from cruel and unusual punishment should be kept in mind...

[polmaven]

37. I'm not at all sure he should be executed.

I think that is exactly what he wants. To die as a martyr would serve his purposes well.

I would rather see him have to live out the rest of his natural life in solitary confinement, with only himself to keep him company.

[earthlite]

34. Illegal prisoner in an illegal war.

They should all be compensated and released.

[Codeine]

36. you're not fooling anyone.

troll elsewhere

[earthlite]

54. If I am a troll then what is your suggestion?

Hold them forever, try to reform them, life imprisonment, capital punishment? Please, thrill me with your brilliance.

[SlingBlade]

35. We Don't Need No Stinking Trials, We'er DemoPubs !

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

43. Sheer Genius! Martyred by the US government after an international media spectacle

Genius, fucking genius!

[saigon68]

48. This will create a couple million New Acolytes

[PacerLJ35]

50. Wow, what interesting responses here...

I'm against the death penalty...and I believe we have bungled this case beyond belief...but make no mistake, KSM is not a nice person and is quite likely responsible for many acts of terror and outright murder of innocent people.

Just making sure we don't confuse those points while critiquing our government...

[Art_from_Ark]

58. Do you personally know KSM?

Why are you so sure that this Ron Jeremy lookalike has committed so many heinous acts, including "masterminding" 911?

Speaking of "masterminding" 911, he's like the 4th person to be given that dubious distinction.
First it was bin Laden. Then it was Atta. Then it was Massaoui, the so-called "20th hijacker". And now it's this guy.
Really, it's getting hard to keep all these "masterminds" straight.

[ipaint]

51. As long as they are denying trials to those

they don't have the evidence to try in court, these high profile attempts at faux justice are just show trials. Nothing more. Pure 100% PR value mixed with revenge- a little red meat for the public to gnaw on after all these years. The only reason these trials are occurring is because they have the evidence to convict.

The Obama administration threw justice in the gutter with the continued policy of indefinite detention for those they don't have the evidence to convict. Nothing like being able to make up the rules as you go along.