RECENT POSTS
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
- White House: We’re Not in the “Immediate Gratification Business”
- President Obama Announces Date of Special Envoy Visit to North Korea
- President Obama on GM Using Bailout-Enhanced Coffers on Foreign Jobs "We're Not Going to Meddle"
- Cheneys Welcome Seventh Grandchild
- The Presidential Planner Abroad
- The First Lady Thanks Trailblazing Service Women
- Seoul Man
- Obama Administration Cracks Down on Government Waste
- Obama at Great Wall: It Gives You a Perspective
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
What Happens If a 9/11 Terrorist Defendant is Found Not Guilty?
November 15, 2009 4:08 AM
"I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice," President Obama said in Tokyo. "The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it."
But what happens if KSM or any of the other 9/11 defendants the Obama administration is bringing to New York for criminal prosecutions -- including Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi -- are somehow found not guilty?
Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, "I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome -- in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court."
Not everyone is so confident, of course. KSM, for instance, was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" that many consider torture. This includes being waterboarded 183 times in a one month. Could this undermine the case against him?
Fears of giving KSM the rights afforded defendants in a criminal case have led some to conclude that a military tribunal might be a better venue for him.
In September 2006, debating the Military Commissions Act, then-Sen. Obama said KSM and those like him would get "basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's going to have counsel, he's going to be able to present evidence, he's going to be able to rebut the government's case. Because the feeling is that he's guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions."
"I think that's good that we're going to provide him with some procedure and process," then-Sen. Obama said. "I think we will convict him and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case."
But when Holder announced on Friday that five defendants would face military tribunals, KSM was not among them.
In June, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian national, was brought to the Metropolitan Correctional Center to face 286 separate criminal charges stemming from his alleged role in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, including conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to kill Americans, and a separate charges of murder for each of the 224 people killed embassy bombings.
We asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs what would happen if Ghailani is found not guilty?
Gibbs wouldn't bite but the question is important. If he will be freed, that prompts questions of national security and whether civilian courts are as appropriate as other venues for such trials. If he won't be freed despite being found not guilty that undermines the credibility of the trial.
"We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes," Gibbs said.
The following day, the Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked “if we’re going to treat this terrorist detainee as a common civilian criminal, what will happen to Ghailani if he’s found not guilty? And what will happen to other detainees the administration wants to try in civilian courts if they are found not guilty? Will they be released? If so, where? In New York? In American communities? Or will they be released overseas, where they could return to terror and target American soldiers or innocent civilians?”
McConnell continued: “If Ghailani isn’t allowed to go free, will he be detained by the government? If so, where will he be detained? Would the administration detain him on U.S. soil, despite the objections of Congress and the American people?”
McConnell said the questions about Ghailani resemble the questions about Guantanamo in general.
“On the question of Guantanamo, it became increasingly clear over time that the administration announced its plan to close the facility before it actually had a plan,” he said. “If the administration has a plan for holding Ghailani if he’s found not guilty, then it needs to share that plan with the Congress. These kinds of questions are not insignificant. They involve the safety of the American people.”
-jpt
November 15, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (66)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
"The level of intelligence of the right wing in America - and why they will continue to bury themselves."
Why do you care?
Posted by: Mary | Nov 17, 2009 7:16:07 AM
I want to know when the government plans to bring to trial the 5 men arrested after being seen across the river dancing and filming the carnage in NY on 9/11?
These men were later interviewed on television and stated they were there to "document the event."
If you don't know about these suspicious men, any search engine will quickly clue you in.
Posted by: Mr. Phil | Nov 17, 2009 4:27:16 AM
Have the American people decided to defend their freedoms by dumping them?
One such freedom is fair trial by jury.
If a fair trial finds anyone NOT GUILTY then they should walk free.
Are we saying that we are happy to have a jury trial but there can only be one verdict?
Are we holding people for years with cases against them which cannot bear rigorous examination?
Shades of Show Trials in Stalin and Franco's regimes.
Posted by: John Patton | Nov 16, 2009 10:44:18 PM
"If he will be freed, that prompts questions of national security and whether civilian courts are as appropriate as other venues for such trials."
Trust the media to highlight the least important question that a not-guilty verdict would raise.
Unless of course, by "raise questions of national security" you mean just what kind of idiocy has the US government been feeding us about the supposed fight against "terror", and why we have let our government get away with this garbage for so long...
But I suppose the petty little minds "reporting" to us are too filled with cocktail party gossip to let that thought ever enter their heads.
Posted by: Flash Override | Nov 16, 2009 10:02:16 PM
This is the biggest risk ever for the Obama administration.
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 9:26:48 PM
Who is this administration trying to please?
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 8:05:56 PM
Democrats, the Party of Idiots! What a shame! Too Bad So Sad!
__________________________________
The level of intelligence of the right wing in America - and why they will continue to bury themselves.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 16, 2009 7:49:04 PM
I haven't got time for your nonsense @Octavia. I stand by my statement. If you don't like it that's too bad!
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 7:24:54 PM
the Party of Idiots! What a shame!
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 3:01:57 AM
----
Before pointing fingers in such an inflammatory way, please do me a favor and google "Interloper tricks Tea Party audience into an anti-European immigrant chant of ‘Columbus go home!’ " Watch the clip.
Posted by: @Octavia | Nov 16, 2009 6:22:32 PM
This is going to end up exploding in this adminstration's face.
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 2:32:16 PM
The Justice Department has never been this stupid and wrong before
----
I don't think the Justice Department is wrong here, and if I did, I'd make an acutal argument like the one made by James Joyner at Outside the Beltway (see "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Trial") but I am weary of hearing variations of the "unprecedented" meme as if we've never ever tried terrorists in civilian courts or jailed them in the United States.
During the Bush administration, "several foreign terrorists were brought to justice through the federal justice system, including 9-11 conspirator Zacarious Moussaoui, "Shoe bomber" Richard Reid and East African embassy bombing perpetrators Wahid el-Hage, Mohammed Sadiq Odeh, Mohammed Rashed al-Owhali, and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed."
Then there's the matter of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef as well as "urban terrorism" plotter Sheik Oma Abdel Rahman.
Plus, as Fred Kaplan noted in Slate back in May, there are already 355 terrorists in American prisons.
Posted by: @Octavia | Nov 16, 2009 2:23:43 PM
Does anyone know where we are now sending Afgani and Iraqi soldiers we capture now? I have looked everywhere and can't find it.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Nov 16, 2009 1:19:42 PM
Bush is the past! Stop harping about him.
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 11:54:33 AM
This decision will come back to bite Nancy Pelosi in the rear end. Wonder why she knew about the interrogation techniques and didn't try to stop them? Now she's against them and wants Bush's head on a platter?
Posted by: Jenny | Nov 16, 2009 8:24:34 AM
Democrats, the Party of Idiots! What a shame! Too Bad So Sad!
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 3:01:57 AM
Look!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was a stupid decision! and it's gonna bite every single Democrat in the U.S. government in the ASS! New Jersey and Virginia were just the beginning! Don't say you weren't warned!
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 2:54:50 AM
It's just plain incompetent to elect a president because of the color of his skin! Palin was too stupid, but so is Joe Biden!
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 2:47:28 AM
Obama is Carter's Mini-Me. And let me remind you Carter was evicted in 80!
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 2:40:09 AM
Amazing. Obama and Holder are too stupid to get the picture! The Justice Department has never been this stupid and wrong before.
Posted by: JV | Nov 16, 2009 2:38:04 AM
I find this decision by Holder so terribly disappointing. He is putting ideology ahead of what is best for this country and it's citizens. I'm losing what little hope I had left.
_______________________________________
Hope and change is working out well isn't it? Foolhardy decision.
Posted by: Sandy | Nov 16, 2009 1:58:00 AM
Post a comment