Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, U.S. Citizen
WASHINGTON — Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.
The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.
The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.
Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama’s plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.
The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.
In an op-ed that ran in the Wall Street Journal (which I highly recommend reading), former AG Michael Mukasey explains the problems and dangers of trying terrorists in our civilian courts.
It makes the location of the trial a target. The defendants might not be charged with the death penalty. Soldiers might be forced to leave the battlefield and come to court to testify. Sensitive information used by intelligence agencies will be disclosed – including names of suspected terrorists as well as our methods of acquiring intelligence – compromising our ability to prevent terrorist acts in the future.
The bottom line is this administration is putting ideology ahead of common sense and the security of the American people. It is an absolute outrage.
By the way, 54 Democrats in the Senate also condoned this. You can see their votes on the relevant amendment here.
And here’s what Obama himself said back in March.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Now, Do These Folks Deserve Miranda Rights? Do They Deserve To Be Treated Like A Shoplifter Down The Block? Of Course Not.” (CBS’ “60 Minutes,” 3/22/09)
[UPDATE] You can also find a petition to the President here. You will also see a letter to the President from the 9/11 Families for America. (h/t Michelle Malkin)
With almost every new decision made by Obama and his administration, impeachment should be seriously considered.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pmAs I think about this more, it angers me even more. What a slap in the face to those who lost loved ones on 9/11.
And if KSM somehow walks…this administration is done.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:13 pmMike, I can’t believe this, but I totally agree with you. This is the absolute wrong thing to do. He should be tried by a Military Court. Then he should be hanged. No joke.
November 13th, 2009 at 6:59 pmHey Ambro,
How about coming to the Conservative Leadership Breakfast on December 12? I’ll pay.
Consider it an early Christmas present.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pm“The bottom line is this administration is putting ideology ahead of common sense and the security of the American people. It is an absolute outrage.”
Actually, the problem is that the Administration embraces an ideology that is contrary to common sense.
Also, I think the real reason for this decision is not stated above. It gives a third party the platform to put the Bush Administration on trial, without Obama taking the heat for playing politics. Instead of an Obama Administration official criticizing the Bush EIT, a wannabe Obama Administration official representing the terrorists will make those arguments. Consider it an extended job interview for them.
While I think the decision is a horrendous one, Obama’s undiluted evil is a good thing. His presidency is clarifying the choices before us. And like it or not, Bush was leading us down the same path, only it would have taken longer to get there. If Bush were really going to have taken us in a different direction as opposed to the same direction but slower, KSM would have been dead long ago, as would the other Gitmo terrorists.
Bush may have wanted to stand up to the Left, but the reality is that he cowered before their bellyaching. Obama is showing us where both parties are leading us. This gives us the opportunity to change course before we get there. Bush just lulled us to sleep with lofty rhetoric on which he did not follow through.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:28 pm“And if KSM somehow walks…this administration is done.”
If that happens, Obama will get the opportunity to bash Bush and cater to his base about the evils of EIT.
If the Obama Administration goes down in flames, this will be a symotomn of it – not the cause.
And frankly, given that these “defendants”
November 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pmdid not receive Miranda warnings and were subjected to EIT, I would think almost any judge would have no choice but to toss out the evidence obtained against them. Unless these Defendants want to be martyred by the American judicial system, I would think that is a reasonably likely scenario. What direct proof is there that they were involved in 9/11, other than the “extorted” confessions?
@Ambro – Ambro, I am glad you agree. Politics should end at the water’s edge. This is about our security as a nation.
@Ed – “If that happens, Obama will get the opportunity to bash Bush and cater to his base about the evils of EIT.”
That would be quite a way of spinning it. I think the American people would see through that. If KSM walks, BHO takes the fall. As Harry Truman would say: ‘The buck stops here!’
November 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pmThank you for the invite and kind offer DiMarco, but I will have to decline. And its not that I haven’t thought about it, but I have a previous commitment on that day.
And Mike, its more than our security…its about justice. He is not a citizen and doesn’t deserve to have the blanket of our constitution. He is a foreign combatant and needs to be tried by the military…and like I said, he then needs to be hanged by the neck until dead.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:26 pm“its about justice. He is not a citizen and doesn’t deserve to have the blanket of our constitution. He is a foreign combatant and needs to be tried by the military…and like I said, he then needs to be hanged by the neck until dead.”
Mr. Ambrosia,
Do you support the use of Enhanced Interrogation Tactics (EIT) on such people?
November 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pmAgreed.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:33 pmMike:
I hope you are right. But I see no other reason for the process they have chosen, other than to put the Bush Administration on trial all over again.
And just as I do not think their socialism will work, I don’t think this spin will work either. But I think that is what is driving them here.
Listen to the comments of Holder and Obama. Neither one speaks of convictions. The soudbytes I heard all said that justice will be done. That is a very Clintonesque parsing of words – but I think it was deliberate.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:37 pmNo Ed, I don’t. Any nice little acronym you want to use doesn’t make it anything other than torture. Cheney likes torture, I don’t. While I think they need to be tried under the military because of their enemy status, it doesn’t mean that we should torture them. We are better than that.
He should be tried, convicted and then hanged. Not tortured.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:51 pmMr. Ambrosia,
For the sake of argument only, let’s use your term: torture.
If the Constitution and its Eighth Amendment guarantee does not extend to these people (and I am not saying by any means that it does), by waht legal principle is torture prohibited?
Second, if you have already decided that they deserve to be convicted and then hanged (a conclusion with which I agree), why bother with the farce of a show trial? Why not just give them military justice? What does thw show trial demonstrate?
War is the suspension of civil society. While I do not think torture should be the stated objective of our government, even the Constitition envisions that habeus corpus can be suspended for citizens during times of domestic war. Why is it wrong to not apply the same standard abroad to something like torture? Just as nobody argues for a suspension of habeas corpus at home as a desirable “standard” policy of the American government but one that can be used as a last resort in a sufficient emergency, why can’t the same be said about torture abroad?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:57 pmAmbro,
For the record, the offer is good for one time and does not have an expiration date. My only stipulation is it has to be an occasion when I will be in attendence.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:57 pmI think Andy McCarthy has it right:
Holder’s Hidden Agenda, cont’d . . . [Andy McCarthy]
This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department’s obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the “reckoning” that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. It would be too politically explosive for Obama/Holder to do the dirty work of charging Bush administration officials; but as new revelations from investigations and declassifications are churned out, Leftist lawyers use them to urge European and international tribunals to bring “torture” and “war crimes” indictments. Thus, administration cooperation gives Obama’s base the reckoning it demands but Obama gets to deny responsibility for any actual prosecutions.
Today’s announcement that KSM and other top al-Qaeda terrorists will be transferred to Manhattan federal court for civilian trials neatly fits this hidden agenda.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:13 amWhat an abomination! KSM is to be tried in the very city he conspired to attack? Whan an insult to the victims of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks and their families.
By trying him in the US, Obama and his AG are spitting on the graves of all victims of 9/11/2001.
Terrorists sent into the US court system – this is the very danger that Republicans have been warning against for years.
November 14th, 2009 at 5:44 amThis policy by AG Holder and the Obama Justice Department is consistent with the position staked out by Steve Lonegan in the second primary debate with Chris Christie. Recall the fact that Mayor Lonegan said very clearly that he would have no problem with the Gitmo detainees being brought into the US proper and her states. Mike Proto, you are correct about that type of policy — it is indeed “most disgraceful and wrong-headed.”
November 14th, 2009 at 6:51 amLucye129:
I agree with #15 and made a similar point in #5. This decision is all about further attacking the Bush Administration and letting third parties do the dirty work.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:54 amRED ALERT!!! NANCY PELOSI IN PRINCETON TOMORROW.
Are there any plans to say welcome her?
November 14th, 2009 at 10:53 amEd, like I said, we are better than that. While there may not be a legal means by which we shouldn’t torture, we should not do so on moral grounds. Something that you have disdain for, but for me, its morally corrupt to torture anything. Unlike The Dick Cheney, who relishes in watching other human beings be tortured and in pain, I do not feel there is any place in our society for that type of behaviour. As to it being a show trial, since we are a land of laws, then its only right to have the trial. We are better than just dragging him out back and hanging him. Personally, I would like to see him taken out back and hanged, along with a few others…but hey, that’s just me.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:31 pmGitmoConservative —
Regarding Lonegan’s postiion on Gitmo terrorists, he actually did not say he didn’t have a problem with them being here. He said that as governor he wouldn’t be able to stop it. See my interview with Steve here, starting at the 5:20 mark or so: http://www.gopusanj.com/wordpress/?p=6597
Ambro –
The moral position is protecting our country. If that means we need to torture to extract the information we need then we should. As a matter of fact, about a month or so ago we busted up another terror plot (I think it was some guy in Colorado) and I believe there were some suspects being looked for at the time. Why wouldn’t torture be the right thing to do if we knew terrorists were on the loose in our own country and needed to find them before they acted out? How is not doing everything in our power justified there? Would you prefer that hundreds or even thousands of Americans die to prove some silly point about not torturing giving us the moral high ground? Heck, should we not have dropped the bomb on Japan and instead continued to fight a war that would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of more Americans dead?
Honestly, if our idea of morality is to put our nation at unnecessary risk then that is a warped sense of morality IMHO.
By the way – and I’m sure this has been discussed here before – but illegal enemy combatants are not subject to Geneva Convention rights. That is an agreement among states and pertains only to legal combatants.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:52 pmI should add that I also do not believe that waterboarding is torture either.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:55 pmThat’s one of the differences between our ideologies. I think torture is wrong, you don’t.
It must be a conservative thing.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:19 pmDropping the bomb was not torture….
November 14th, 2009 at 1:20 pmMr. Ambrosia:
By what standard do you oppose torture of people you concede are murderers not otherwise entitled to rights, but you support throwing into jail people who peacefully object to purchasing health insurance but have not otherwise done anything to anyone?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:32 pm“Dropping the bomb was not torture…”
I am not saying it is. What I am saying is the principle is the same. In fact, what is worse: torture or the death of innocents?
We dropped the bomb because the morally correct thing to do was win the wwar and save American lives. How is torturing in the name of the same thing not also morally right?
November 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pmEd, I never said one way or the other about my feelings on the Health Care bill, so how do you dare to presume what I do or don’t support? And we’re talking about KSM now, not the health care bill, so if you can, try to stick to the topic at hand..I know its tough for someone with ADD like yourself, but just try.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:43 pmWe dropped the bomb for all sorts of reasons, of which, only one was stopping the war and the invasion. It not only saved American lives, but Japanese lives also. The projections of war dead with an invasion were much greater than those that occurred from the bomb. And, it was also a political drop.
Torture is wrong…and as I said before, I would hope we are better than that.
November 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pmMr. Ambroisia:
You stated that you oppose “torture.” It is my contention that pointing a gun at peaceful American citizens and threatening them with jail time constitutes a worse form of torture than waterboarding somone that even you acknowledge is a murderous brute not entitled to constitutional protections. I am trying to ascertain what falls into your defintion of “torture” and what falls outside the definition – which is certainly on topic.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:38 pmShame on me for even trying to engage you in a conversation Ed. You bring out those idiotic gun analogies every time. I’ve learned my lesson…once again. Every time I think I can have an on topic conversation with you, you always seem to disappoint. Shame on me and I won’t make that mistake again.
November 14th, 2009 at 2:59 pmWhat are you talking about?
Do you dispute that the House Bill does not contain criminal penalties for those who refuse to purchase health insurance?
Do you dispute that President Obama refused to disagree with the proporiety of criminal penalties being attached to the failure to purchase health insurance, instead comparing it to the requirement that owners of motor vehicles be mandated to own liability insurance?
Do you dispute that those criminal penalties are enforced by a police officer with a gun and handcuffs?
Shame on you is right – for blanking out facts that are no longer abstract theory, but real life realities that the Obama Administration is prepared to enact. Insted of facing up to the logical conclusion that your position implies – and that is being actively pursued by liberals in Congress and the White House – you instead blame the messenger who has been pointing that out to you for months.
Ignore me all you want. But you are refusing to condemn the building blocks of what logically is a future fascist dictatorship. And all of your evasions will not take the gun out of the hands of those future Brown Shirts if you do not oppose them now while we are still free enough to do so.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm“Do you dispute that the House Bill does not contain criminal penalties for those who refuse to purchase health insurance?”
You rightwingers have an unfortunate tendency to work yourselves into a hissy fit over the silliest nonsense. Are there criminal penalties for violating a law? Of course there are. Just like there are criminal penalties in almost every piece of legislation that’s ever been passed. I’ll bet they even have criminal penalties for Bank CEOs who pay themselves too much salary and bonuses. They even put people in jail who work hard and pay taxes but don’t have the appropriate documentation to prove their immigrant status. They also put cancer patients in jail because they smoke marijuana to help alleviate their pain and suffering.
We already have Medicare and other health taxes to pay for other people’s health care and if we don’t pay, like what happens when we don’t pay any other tax, we go to jail.
Besides, I’m glad they’re starting to go after these deadbeats who can afford insurance but would rather max out on their creditg cards to buy bigger cars, bigger boats, bihher houses, vacation homes, etc. and when they do get sick they either use fraud and deception to obtain insurance to pay for a pre-existing condition or they simply declare bankruptvy so they can stiff their creditors and health care providers. Obviously the cost of paying for all these uninsured deadbeats has to be passed along to the rest of us who do carry insurance in the form of higher premiums and fees.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:51 pm“We dropped the bomb for all sorts of reasons, of which, only one was stopping the war and the invasion. It not only saved American lives, but Japanese lives also. The projections of war dead with an invasion were much greater than those that occurred from the bomb. And, it was also a political drop.
Torture is wrong…and as I said before, I would hope we are better than that.
”
Mr. Ambrosia – you still have not answered the question. And I can only conclude from what you have told me that your position is simply inconsistent.
Why was it morally right for use to drop the bombs on Japan in order to win a war and save American lives, but it’s not morally right to torture to in order to win a war (and, yes, this is still a war we are in ) and save American lives?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pmMike,
The better question to ask him is why is it worse to *pretend* to kill these jihadists that even Mr. Ambrosia concedes are guilty of heinous crimes, than it was to *actually* kill Japanese citizens who were less culpable for the Emeror’s war machine than these enemy combatants are responsoible for the deaths of Americans?
Why is *pretending* to kill through techniques such as waterboarding torture?
November 14th, 2009 at 4:12 pmMr. Schwartz:
You are correct that all law is ultimately backed by the force of government guns. That is why we rightwingers insist that government action be LIMITED. Otherwise you have a proliferation of force, which ultimately has no other end than dictatorship.
The proper response to the problems you outline is challenging the riduclous notion that the doctrine of “you are your brothers’ keeper” should in any way be enforced by law, not that it appropriate to use force against people who demand to be taken care of.
If you advocated individual responsibility consistently instead of throwing your own hissy fits whenever you have the urge to stomp your feet, you might start working toward creating a better world, for yourself and for everyone else.
November 14th, 2009 at 4:17 pmMike, I don’t know how to make it any clearer…I think that torture, on anyone, is morally reprehensible and has no place in a civilized society.
Dropping the bomb was not torture. One human being was not ripping fingernails out of another. The bomb was needed, and frankly, they didn’t even know if it would work right. Yes, they did a test. But they were still unsure of what and how it would do. If you read any report, the crew of the Enola Gay were awed by the power. They had no idea what would happen. They were not trying to extract, or worse, coerce information out a single human being. Now whether you think this way of thinking is inconsistent with my stand on the death penalty, well, the only thing I can tell you is…so what. Was dropping the bomb moral? I don’t know. I know it was needed…for both sides. Like I said, it saved many more lives than it took…more so on the Japanese side. Maybe in that respect, it was the morally acceptable alternative to an invasion. Maybe that’s the diffence too…torturing one human being does nothing to help their side…only one side is helped. Dropping the bomb saved lives on both sides.
And then I would ask you…when we tortured…did that make us better as human beings? And does it make you feel good when you hear that another human being was tortured? If it does, then there’s no point in me going on about how I feel on this subject. Are they criminals..of course. Should they be put to death…absolutely. Should they be tortured beforehand…absolutely not.
November 14th, 2009 at 7:35 pmJunior wrote:
“That’s one of the differences between our ideologies. I think torture is wrong, you don’t.
It must be a conservative thing.”
I oppose such generalisations, which are offensive to me. A justification for torture is NOT a conservative ideology, it’s a communist ideology. As a conservative, I oppose torture. And the fact that Proto endorsed torture proves that not only is he a fake conservative, but also that – as I said previously – he’s a despicable person.
No one should EVER be tortured – not even savages like terrorists.
Proto rightly wrote that waterboarding is not torture and that the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to irregular combatants – but the GC is NOT the only anti-torture law that America has signed. The US government has also produced anti-torture federal statutes (which apply to everyone present on US soil) and the 1988 Convention Against Torture (ratified by the Senate in 1994 and implemented by a federal statute later that same year). In 2005, the Congress approved, and President Bush signed, a statute that specifically prohibited any agents of the US government to torture any detainees (even illegal combatants).
These laws make it illegal for any American to torture anyone inside the US or outside the US.
Proto also used a utterly discredited, but nevertheless popular (with neocons) tactic: claiming that torture is “necessary” to obtain crucial intel info to protect the US. Protecting the US against all enemies – foreign and domestic – is the #1 duty of the US government. By claiming that torture is necessary, Proto elevated torture to the rank of virtue and forced Americans to choose: either moral principles or a safe America.
That is a false choice, and must be rejected. Torture is NOT necessary to protect the US.
The US government has invented many non-torture interrogation techniques that are remarkably effective. The director of the US Army Baghdad prison said that the techniques described by the US Army Interrog. Manual work and that he doesn’t believe they need to use any interrogation techniques. (The US military had been forbidden to use torture long before the Convention was ratified; and this noble institution has always rigorously complied with that regulation and the Convention.) The US military doesn’t torture anyone, yet it’s able to obtain crucial intel info from the detainees it has. 43 retired generals have urged the Congress to require a SINGLE standard of interrog. for the entire US government.
Moreover, the US government has a huge DHS apparatus to protect the US from terrorists.
“Would you prefer that hundreds or even thousands of Americans die to prove some silly point about not torturing giving us the moral high ground?”
This is a false choice, and this discussion is about any silly point about moral high ground; it’s about whether or not the Executive Branch should comply with a treaty (the Convention Against Torture) and the statutes, nor not. And don’t try to claim that they infringe on the President’s prerogative as CINC; they don’t. The Legislative Branch, NOT the Executive Branch, makes the law.
November 15th, 2009 at 3:13 amZbigniew:
This is a thoughtful and well reasoned argument.
I agree that it is a false choice to say that torture is necessary to protect American interests. I have always been uncomfortable with that position and have hedged my comments on the issue.
However, I agree with Mike P. (and you) that waterboarding was not torture. There is no evidence that Americans engaged in “torture” on the terrorist savages in American custody.
I also agree that torture is not part of the conservative ideology but rather of the communist/socialist/fascist ideology. Good catch on that one.
I disagree with your attacks on Mike P. though. He is a conservative (even if woefully misguided sometimes – j/t MP!) – and he is certainly not a despicable person. You may rightly disagree with him at times – but that does not make him a despicable person. Both of you are solid conservatives who have your disagreements – but I am confident that there is room enough for both of you in the Conservative tent even with your disagreements.
November 15th, 2009 at 10:22 amI have not read through all of the remarks yet so I apologize if this is redundant. But discussing what we did or did not do with this unperson is meaningless.
I call him an unperson because LEGALLY, that is exactly what he used to be. Until GWB decided to leave him alive while unelected lawyers in funny clothes ordered and trasnferred my rights onto this unperson and the executive branch instead of telling them NO and moving on listened.
This previosly defined legally unperson is NOT an American citizen, naturalized or otherwise. Constitutional rights as what they used to be defined as are NOT for non Americans. At least that used to be the case.
This unperson was also until recently not entitled to the rights of the Geneva convetnion. He did not serve under the color of authority for any nations military, and therefore is and was NOT a POW of any kind.
He has also been disavowed by whatever country of origin he came from (I believe he is Saudi)which means any treaty we have with that country is null and void. As an example, if he is Iranian for example, then we have no treaty to determine how their foreign nationals would be treated if captured committing a crime against the United States.
The reality is, KSM after capture should have been kept where he was. Treated as the US military saw fit, and after all intel had been gathered from him, executed accordingly.
Instead, he was permitted to live. And he was allowed lawyers (by the way those lawyers are guilty of treason by the definition of the statute because they are providing aid and comfort to the enemy), and his position was then illegally brought to civilian courts who had no jurisdiction.
GWB and his foolish policies have of course led to BHO and his policies. Granting rights on this person with the chance of his being set free by these same courts is only the next logical step to the enemy within that wants our destruction.
And I will make a small not so difficult prediction. KSM will draw a liberal judge, who in the interests of fairness and the rule of laws that do not apply will decide that the confession is out as well as any evidence gathered from it (good old exclusionary rule) and with any evidence excluded and witnesses being unavailable because they are currently in combat, all charges will be dismissed.
November 15th, 2009 at 5:27 pmZbig, I have to say, at the least, you do make me chuckle sometimes.
I don’t think there’s anything despicable about putting the lives of Americans ahead of the life of a terrorist.
I was simply trying to make a point with Mr. Ambrosia. I am well aware that there are interrogation tactics that can be used to extract the info we want. But if the choice were torture versus dead Americans, then I would say do whatever it takes to save those lives.
Also, taking you at your word, if we have laws on the books they certainly should be followed.
November 15th, 2009 at 8:40 pmJust to show that conservatives can give credit when credit is due.
KUDOS to Governor Patterson of New York for more or less calling Obama and Holder an A$$ for allowing these dangerous people to brought into his state for a trial they are not entitled to and endangering all New Yorkers. Despite what Mayor Mikey (I want to buy the city) Bloombust has said.
He knows he is in trouble for re election. Standing up to the administration (not Obama because he is not really who is in charge, but I digress) that threw him overboard because they thought he would hurt them in Congress is a good way to show people that he is not their guy. Even if this is totally poltical it is still fantastic.
Guess what Bamster and friends. National Security is a BIG DEAL! Gov. Patterson is finally standing up for New Yorkers at least in some capacity.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:54 am