ACQUITTAL FOR TERRORISTS?

ISN'T ONE BROUGHT INTO CIVIL CRIMINAL COURT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS? NO JURY OF THEIR PEERS WILL CONVICT THE TERRORISTS. IN CIVIL COURT THE PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO ALL EVIDENCE - IN THIS CASE TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS, ALSO. IN CIVIL COURT CRIMINALS MAY BE ACQUITTED ON ACCOUNT OF "TORTURE". WHY DIDN'T WE TRY THE CRIMINALS OF WWII IN CIVIL COURTS? HOW MANY MILLIONS DO YOU THINK WILL BE SPENT ON THIS CASE AND HOW MANY HOURS OF FREE ADVERTISING WILL THE HATERS GET?
///////////////////////////
Travesty in New York

Charles Krauthammer - Nov 20, 2009
Townhall

WASHINGTON -- For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic.

And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM.

September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America.

So why is Attorney General Eric Holder doing this? Ostensibly, to demonstrate to the world the superiority of our system where the rule of law and the fair trial reign.

Really? What happens if KSM (and his co-defendants) "do not get convicted," asked Senate Judiciary Committee member Herb Kohl. "Failure is not an option," replied Holder. Not an option? Doesn't the presumption of innocence, er, presume that prosecutorial failure -- acquittal, hung jury -- is an option? By undermining that presumption, Holder is undermining the fairness of the trial, the demonstration of which is the alleged rationale for putting on this show in the first place.

Moreover, everyone knows that whatever the outcome of the trial, KSM will never walk free. He will spend the rest of his natural life in U.S. custody. Which makes the proceedings a farcical show trial from the very beginning.

Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security. Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods.

That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. "Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum," wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, "letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered."

Finally, there's the moral logic. It's not as if Holder opposes military commissions on principle. On the same day he sent KSM to a civilian trial in New York, Holder announced he was sending Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole, to a military tribunal.

By what logic? In his congressional testimony Wednesday, Holder was utterly incoherent in trying to explain. In his Nov. 13 news conference, he seemed to be saying that if you attack a civilian target, as in 9/11, you get a civilian trial; a military target like the Cole, and you get a military tribunal.

What a perverse moral calculus. Which is the war crime -- an attack on defenseless civilians or an attack on a military target such as a warship, an accepted act of war which the U.S. itself has engaged in countless times?

By what possible moral reasoning, then, does KSM, who perpetrates the obvious and egregious war crime, receive the special protections and constitutional niceties of a civilian courtroom, while he who attacked a warship is relegated to a military tribunal?

Moreover, the incentive offered any jihadi is as irresistible as it is perverse: Kill as many civilians as possible on American soil and Holder will give you Miranda rights, a lawyer, a propaganda platform -- everything but your own blog.

Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice.

Indeed, the perfect justice. Whenever a jihadist volunteers for martyrdom, we should grant his wish. Instead, this one, the most murderous and unrepentant of all, gets to dance and declaim at the scene of his crime.

Holder himself told The Washington Post that the coming New York trial will be "the trial of the century." The last such was the trial of O.J. Simpson.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

9/11 Terror Detainees Face Trial in N.Y.

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the nation's deadliest terrorist attack will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed .

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Fenstermaker was first quoted in The New York Times in Sunday's editions.

Critics of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthourse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said Sunday that while the men may attempt to use the trial to express their views, "we have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disrupton, as federal courts have done in the past."

/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Criticism and outrage continues to grow over Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) in a criminal court in New York. Joining the chorus of criticism is the former Chairman of the 9/11 Commission (see story below).

Last week, a “teachable moment” (to quote President Obama) occurred when Mr. Holder appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Lindsey Graham asked Mr. Holder if he could cite one prior case where an enemy combatant the likes of KSM had been tried in a criminal court.

I watched Mr. Holder’s response. (You can too by clicking here.) You would think he would have researched this prior to making his decision. You would think there was some precedent to justify this outrageous decision. You would think he would have been prepared to answer such an obvious question.

Instead, Holder stammered, hemmed and hawed. This was the proverbial “deer caught in the headlights” moment. Holder could only muster a tepid response that he would “have to look at that.” (In other words, he hadn’t!)

Senator Graham stepped in and informed Mr. Holder that there is not a single case precedent for the decision to try Mohammed in a criminal court.

Not one.

What’s more, Sen. Graham proceeded to ask Holder if he would try Osama bin Laden in a criminal court. Holder’s response was to evade and dodge giving a definitive answer.

There is no legal or logical justification for Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in criminal court. So what is driving it?

The only answer I can conclude is the Obama administration’s political agenda. They want to “show the world” that we can conduct this case in a criminal court (a sentiment echoed by many Democrats on the Judiciary Committee during Holder’s appearance).

This begs the question: Why are we putting what the world thinks ahead of what’s in our national interest?

They are also playing to the politically correct, blame-America-first crowd that is quick to find fault with anything America does while excusing and rationalizing the cruelty and brutality of our enemies.

In other words, Holder’s decision was not based on legal precedent, sound legal reasoning, good policy, or what’s good for the country.

It was based on politics.
///////////////////////////////
Former 9/11 Commission Chairman
Criticizes Plan for New York Trial

by FOXNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/commission-chairman-criticizes-plan-new-york-trial/

In this 2004 file photo, Thomas Kean is seen testifying on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo)

Thomas Kean, in his first public comments on the matter, criticizes Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring Sept. 11 defendants into civilian federal court, saying the trial would help Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fulfill his dreams of martyrdom in the eyes of the Muslim world.

The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 conspirators to New York City for trial will only give the self-professed mastermind of the attacks the platform for "propaganda" that he wants, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission said Tuesday.

Thomas Kean, in his first public comments on the matter, criticized Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to bring the defendants into civilian federal court, saying the trial would help Mohammed fulfill his dreams of martyrdom in the eyes of the Muslim world.

"I worry a little bit about the decision, because it's what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed wants. I mean, he wants a forum," Kean told WNYC radio. "I think he wants to be a martyr, so I think he's going to use the trial as propaganda ... and I think he wants to be Che Guevara or something like that. He's going to try to be a hero to the Muslim world."

Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, joins a slew of other officials expressing concern about the decision.

New York Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat, said he would not have moved the suspects to New York for trial, while former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, told "Fox News Sunday" that the move would only grant Mohammed's "wish."

Meanwhile, Holder defended his decision Tuesday, saying his team reviewed the potential downsides for such a trial but determined federal court was the best place to prosecute the suspects. Holder said he's confident the cases will be "successful."

On the same radio show with Kean, fellow 9/11 Commission member Richard Ben-Veniste backed up Holder's choice.

"This is a crime that warrants prosecution, and the American justice system is up to the task," he said.