November 18, 2009

Obama: Yeah, It's a Show Trial

What did you expect, folks? Leftists love this stuff:


Americans who are troubled by the decision to send alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to New York for trial will feel better about it when he's put to death, President Barack Obama said Tuesday.

During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama's visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.

"I don't think it will be offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him," Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd.

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn't trying to dictate the result.

Bull. Crap.

The Administration is only holding these civil trials in New York because his Justice Department assures him that these show trials are merely a formality. Obama has every intention of using the body of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a podium from which he will no doubt trumpet his toughness in the war on terror, even as he finds a way to tuck his tail between his legs and scamper home from fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban without finishing the job.

Barack Obama doesn't care about justice. He cares about appearances. He'll have his show trials and the execution of these five, even as he leaves another 75 to rot in prison with no intention of bringing the to trial. KSM deserves no better and no different than his peers. There is no obligation to bring any of them to trial, and indefinite detention or even summary execution of terrorists is perfectly legal.

Unfortunately for Mohammed, his admitted show trial makes for better optics for our President's planned retreats.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:54 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Somebody else (I forget who--blog up-alphabet from here) suggest that the Obamaplan is to find him not guilty (my take "dismissed with prejudice) because the perp was not Mirandized) to be followed by war-crimes trials of Bush and others. Got to win this election some how!

Posted by: Larry Sheldon at November 18, 2009 01:16 PM (OmeRL)

2 Aside of the intention of making him look "tough" on terrorists (an impossible dream, to be sure) Obama & Co. will use this show trial to put Bush & Cheney on trial. Personally, I believe this to be the prime objective.

Posted by: Leo Pusateri at November 18, 2009 01:44 PM (Sh18W)

3 It is a win - win for Obama. He gets a show trial. He gets to release documents for trial that he got in trouble for when the White House did it. He gets people distracted about things that Bush did (of didn't do) so that some of the heat will be off of him regarding what he needs to do now (after all, BDS worked during the election).

Posted by: Gunstar1 at November 18, 2009 03:07 PM (zh8i1)

4 I feel sorry for all of you. Paranoid, deluded and blind to the real world. If Bush and Cheney had had the balls to do the right thing and try terrorists in the greatest democracy in the world, you'd be cheering. But, since it's Obama, you're stripes change. It's pathetic to watch. When the Nuremberg trials were considered, many Americans didn't want those trials either. They felt that the only end result for Nazi scum should be the end of a rope. Cries of "what if they escape!?" and fear mongering was rife. Stalin in particular was adamant about the trials not going forward. And, FDR had to convince Churchill. In the end, a compromise was reached: a dual civilian and military court. (Since Germany was under military jurisdiction at the time.) The Nuremberg Trials were widely mocked at the time around the world as "Show trials". And, in many ways, they were. There was no way in hell that they were going to let any of those Nazi's out of jail. Goering was going to swing one way or the other. But, it wasn't about the Nazi's in the end. And, it's not about the terrorists in the end. It's about the rule of law. And, yes, it's imperfect. And, ugly. But, all of you here seem to have forgotten in your ideological zeal is that we are a nation of laws. And, not giving terrorists a trial - yes, even a show one - is worse. That's what they understood back in 1945. But, they were braver back then. Now, all anyone cares about is their little patch of reality.

Posted by: Cold Heart at November 18, 2009 03:39 PM (qYBm3)

5 The Neuremberg trials were military courts, trying Nazis accused of heinous crimes. They set the standards for military trials. We welcome those types of trials, with all their safeguards for national security. Military trials need not be secret star chambers.

Posted by: garrettc at November 18, 2009 03:45 PM (DQjJA)

6 I just googled Nuermberg Trials and guess what? Of the first 18 defendents, 3 were found not guilty, 5 found guilty and sentenced to 10 -15 years, and 10 were found guilty and subsequently hanged.

Posted by: garrettc at November 18, 2009 03:52 PM (DQjJA)

7 >>"If Bush and Cheney had had the balls to do the right thing and try terrorists" They did try terrorists. KSM was tried under the military court system which Obama begged for. He pled guilty and could have been executed already, if not for Obama and Holder. >>"The Nuremberg Trials were widely mocked at the time around the world as "Show trials"." The Nuremberg Trials were military trials, you ass. The sort of trials we are NOT giving KSM. Could you possibly be any more confused and obtuse?

Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:05 PM (rSUtb)

8 >>"all of you here seem to have forgotten in your ideological zeal is that we are a nation of laws. And, not giving terrorists a trial - yes, even a show one - is worse." They were given a trial, you witless buffoon. In spite of the best efforts of people like Holder to obstruct that.

Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:08 PM (rSUtb)

9 Actually, you're both wrong. The Nuremberg IMT was conducted as a military tribunal, but certain assumptions were altered in order to give it a public element. The trials were not closed to the public as military courts usually are. Also, the judges from the USA and France were civilians, not military, as were the prosecutors. Only the USSR submitted both judge and prosecutor from the military. garrettc, I guess by your standard, since Nazi's were declared not guilty that a show trial is fine in order to convict even if the evidence is not there? (Read the Nuremberg transcripts. It's fascinating insight into the time and place.) Behind the scenes at Nuremberg, the fight between the principle nations was right along those lines: the USSR wanted guilty decisions across the board. No exceptions. The USA and France wanted to rule by the law. Which is what happened. In the case of the upcoming trials for WTC terrorist Mohammed, the Obama Administration is simply following previous structure. The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward. Therein lay the crux of this case. And, simply keeping Mohammed locked up had huge issues too. The Pentagon is not interested in being a prison full time. It's not. The Bush WH dittered on this issue. They wanted to bend the law to their liking, but it would not. So, nothing happened. It sat and festered. Obama is cleaning up Bush's mistake.

Posted by: DJBuzz at November 18, 2009 04:13 PM (adGIV)

10 You need to look at this from a different perspective. Just maybe Holder mede his decision based upon the results obtained in the few military commission trials already held. He may well get a better decision in the Feeral Courts. I still think New Yorkers should be exised of the four to five years of part of New York being turned into a police state with closed roads and constant searches.

Posted by: davod at November 18, 2009 04:18 PM (GUZAT)

11 Sorry, that should be "why haven't they executed KSM already" above. Writing on a new netbook. Tiny keyboard.

Posted by: DJBuzz at November 18, 2009 04:18 PM (adGIV)

12 "The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward." As I recall the delay was caused by continuous litigation through the US court system. Resulting in the SCOTUS reversing 200 years of Habeus precedent.

Posted by: davod at November 18, 2009 04:23 PM (GUZAT)

13 >>"You need to look at this from a different perspective. Just maybe Holder mede his decision based upon the results obtained in the few military commission trials already held." KSM wanted to plead guilty and be executed under the military commission trials. How much better a result do you think Holder can get? How much superior do you want the military trials to be?

Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:23 PM (rSUtb)

14 >>"Actually, you're both wrong. The Nuremberg IMT was conducted as a military tribunal, but certain assumptions were altered in order to give it a public element." So how was it not a military trial, doofus? Which rules of evidence appiled? >>"The trials were not closed to the public as military courts usually are" Yeah, now there's a meaningful distinction. >>"The reason that he has not already been hung by a military court is the reason we are now getting public in country trials. Why didn't they conduct a military trial years ago? Because the Pentagon refused to move forward." You ignorant jackass, the reason it took so long for the mlitary trials to occur is that leftist lawyers, including Holder, spent years fighting the military tribunals in court. Take your ignorance and dishonesty back to the Democratic Underground.

Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:30 PM (rSUtb)

15 "why haven't they executed KSM already" Why don't you answer your own question? Why didn't they execute KSM already? He wanted to be executed. The Pentagon and Bush administration wanted to execue him. Put your last remaining grey cell to work figuring out why he's still alive. Hint: the name "Holder" is part of the answer.

Posted by: Steve at November 18, 2009 04:33 PM (rSUtb)

16 Holder kept Bush from summarily executing KSM? How exactly?

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2009 04:36 PM (KD9e1)

17 Jim, are you the same Jim that was yucking it up about the Hood murders? Hey Cold Heart, you just accued everyone here of having Paranoia. You lied. I invite you to beg for forgiveness. I can't speak for everyone else here, but I may or may not grant you absolution. Maybe about a 20% chance. But you'll probably have to ask every other person individually. After that, you can start making claims. See how nice I am?

Posted by: brando at November 18, 2009 05:50 PM (IPGju)

18 This is a beautiful act of subversion executed by the Obama administration. Holder has set the stage for a condition where either we destroy the constitutionally-guided legal system or we let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed go free. Obama wins in either case. Americans will be forced to set aside a system of due process, Miranda rights and legal objection to torture in order to successfully prosecute. Plus, Obama's declaration that he's already guilty in front of a global audience sort of eliminates any possibility of a fair trial. In one move, Obama's extended the State of Exception to the fullest extent of the Federal justice system. And as a good Stalinist, he brags about how Americans will be proud, cheering the already determined conviction. Wins on multiple levels for Obama. The end of our justice system as it was known, and one step closer to his end game. Now if we can just torch the economy (perhaps health care and another stimulus will be enough to get the Chinese to cease lending) and a "national emergency" will be all but certain. Remember, Obama's in a hurry. He's not going to fail to pull this off in his first four years, given he won't have a supporting Congress in one year and won't have re-election as things are in three.

Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 18, 2009 06:50 PM (7r7wy)

19 Jim - You are not helping yourself out here with your ignorance of the subject matter. Obama himself has said there are probably 75 terrorists at Gitmo who he does not plan on trying or releasing because they are too dangerous. Why don't you actually read up on the relevant treaties yourself to understand what customs under the laws of land warfare say, Jim. You seem to be the only one unclear on the subject. In not interested in the dictionary definition of indefinite or its common usage either.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 18, 2009 11:51 PM (3O5/e)

20 Jim: Why does Obama perpetrate and extend Georgio Agamben's State of Exception? This was the "ultimate evil" of Bush, to which many on the left have declared justifies international court hearings, trials and verdicts. It is impossible for one to evaluate Obama's conduct without seeing it as not only an extension and advancement of the State of Exception, but an abject profanity on the cause of Homo Sacer. Obama is pissing on the Christ of the Left. How do you reconcile the violence of your modern Lenin?

Posted by: HatlessHessian at November 19, 2009 01:30 AM (7r7wy)

21 Hi Daleyrocks, I take it you can't link to the relevant info at this time, but thanks for adding zip to the mix. Hatless, It's a complete mess, I agree. Once you lock people up without evidence for 7 years or so it's hard to know what to do with them. Toss some abuse and torture into the mix and you have a cluster f. We're going to end up with a bunch of guys rotting in bases in Afghanistan for years to come. And I also agree Obama has done a poor job of backing away from the lawless war powers/states secrets crap the Bush Admin used to justify all sorts of garbage. Once you give an office a power it's a lot harder to get them to give it up. I have no doubt you were very vocal in speaking up about the abuses to our civil liberties like warrant-less wiretaps and the rest the past 8 years. We certainly need to be consistent about our principles. If you take a look at sites like Emptywheel and Daily Kos you'll see plenty of lefties upset with Obama for exactly what you are talking about. You see it now too from RedState and the Freepers, but strangely they were cheerleading the same abuses when Bush was in office.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 01:45 AM (KD9e1)

22 Jim - Do some work, learn something. I first studied this 30 years ago and am not in doubt. You are. Grow up sport.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 09:49 AM (3O5/e)

23 See the problem is daley, I'm also sure it's not clearly legal to shoot some one in Rawalpindi because you're fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan, and they planned a horrible murder. I'm sure during your vast legal studies you ran across the idea of the burden of proof, where one making a claim that something is "perfectly legal" has to bring more to the table than "trust me".

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 10:37 AM (KD9e1)

24 >>"I'm also sure it's not clearly legal to shoot some one in Rawalpindi because you're fighting allies" You are "sure it's not clearly legal"? The fact that your writing is gibberish reflects the confusion in your mind. Next you'll be telling us that you are "certain that certainty is a bad thng". Your muddled thinking and writing aside, it is in fact "clearly legal" to execute combatants who ignore the laws of war. For instance, enemy fighters who wear no uniform fall into this category. So are those who wear their enemies uniforms. For example, we captured SS soldiers in WWII wearing American uniform and shot them on the spot. As people here keep telling you, you really ought to find out something about this topic before coming here and basically telling us "I'm unclear about all of this". When a lefty has the facts on his side, he uses them. When the facts are not on his side he goes into this "the facts are unclear" dance. The Geneva Convention is actually very clear that unlawful combatants are not protected by it.

Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 01:08 PM (fqDKB)

25 >>"I'm also sure it's not clearly legal to shoot some one in Rawalpindi because you're fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan" We're not "shooting some one in Rawalpindi because {we're} fighting allies of theirs in Afghanistan". As usual, you display your near total ignorance of what's going on. If we shoot someone in Rawalpindi (which, in fact, we don't) then it is because we are fighting somebody in Rawalpindi. Not because they are allied to anybody anywhere.

Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 01:13 PM (fqDKB)

26 >>"If you take a look at sites like Emptywheel and Daily Kos you'll see plenty of lefties upset with Obama for exactly what you are talking about. You see it now too from RedState and the Freepers" More dishonesty. The people at Redstate and Free Republic are upset with Obama, but not for the same reasons as the Kossacks such as yourself. They're just pointing out that Obama lied, for the 17,723rd time. They're also pointing out that the left always used the war as a political ploy and never cared about it for itself. Considering your abject ignorance of the matters being discussed you plainly fall into this category yourself. You're here to defend Obama, not to hold him accountable for his lies.

Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 01:22 PM (fqDKB)

27 What would "you" do to finish the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda, if you were the chief potentate in charge calling the shots? Neither our government nor any other government in the world, with the one possible exception of Israel, has the political will to do what's necessary to "finish the fight". There's only one way to finish it and no one is willing to go there. So, we'll either get out or be stuck there forever. It's a bad situation anyway you look at it.

Posted by: Dude at November 19, 2009 02:13 PM (byA+E)

28 Steve try and keep up. The discussion is whether or not it would have been "perfectly legal to summarily execute" KSM upon capture, which not co-incidentally is a claim made by CY in the post that is the basis for these comments. Not a combatant on the battlefield lacking a uniform, or the SS in WII -- by the way, it's perfectly legal to wear the uniform of the other side as long as you're not fighting in said uniform, look it up. As for the rest of your ranting...

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 02:45 PM (3GzXA)

29 >"The discussion is whether or not it would have been "perfectly legal to summarily execute" KSM upon capture" It is "perfectly legal", as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. >>"Not a combatant on the battlefield lacking a uniform, or the SS in WII" The people in question are combatants on the battlefield not wearing uniforms. Try to keep up. As for the rest of your inane babble ...

Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 04:13 PM (fqDKB)

30 Steve, What battlefield was KSM on? Earth?

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 04:40 PM (3GzXA)

31 >>"What battlefield was KSM on?" You don't think that KSM is a terrorist? That's as intelligent as anything else you've said so far. A terrorists battlefield is wherever he happens to be. But it would be consistent with your other nonsense if you argued that KSM was wrongfully arrested and should be released. After all, he was picked up in Pakistan, in Rawalpindi, that place you say we have no business "shooting" people. Let's drop the fiction that you support either military or civilian trials. You want KSM released with US apologies.

Posted by: Steve at November 19, 2009 04:50 PM (fqDKB)

32 Nice smears Steve. Of course KSM was a terrorist, so was McVeigh. It's not perfectly legal for us to shoot either on sight. They are criminals, not unlawful combatants on a battlefield. Did you notice the Brits legally capping IRA members and supporters as they stood drinking their pints in Boston bars? Me neither. But of course that would have been perfectly legal, right???

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 05:18 PM (3GzXA)

33 Jim - You have not provided any support for your assertion that is is not legal to hold enemy combatants without trial, legal or otherwise, until the cessation of hostilities. Following the link in the post CY provided, Obama clearly thinks it is legal. Apart from something you pulled out your rear end, where is your evidence otherwise? BTW, what has emptywheel been proved right about on the subject of warrantless surveillance or prisoner abuse. Could you please lay out her track record for everyone? I believe it is pitiful.

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 06:31 PM (3O5/e)

34 Jim - Aren't those goalposts getting heavy? You have still not provided any positive evidence for any of your assertions, only argument by flawed analogy. FAIL!!!!!

Posted by: daleyrocks at November 19, 2009 06:35 PM (3O5/e)

35 Hi Daleyrocks, Where did I ever say it was illegal to hold enemy combatants without trial until the cessation of hostilities? Oh that's right, I didn't. If you know of a law that states KSM could have been legally shot upon his discovery in Pakistan, link to it. Your claim, your burden of proof. If you just want to ask me why I haven't proven a negative yet don't bother.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2009 06:50 PM (3GzXA)

36 http://mhking.new.mu.nu/wmal_washington_suspends_michael_graham_for_anti-islamic_comments#c10 e thanks to to Ralph Lauren Paris to the 1996 Summer Olympics and since then has been many retirees looking for an international city that's not overwhelming. overwhelming. polo ralph lauren overwhelming. The city is home to numerous colleges including Georgia and Emory, as well as multiple professional sports teams. Culturally, Culturally,

Posted by: da at July 28, 2011 02:16 AM (NbYxa)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
40kb generated in CPU 0.0136, elapsed 0.1336 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.1238 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.