Obama Administration’s Mishandling of 9/11

[AROCES]

By: John Rossomando

The Obama administration’s mishandling of the upcoming trial of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is tainting any potential jury pool and crippling the ability of the civilian criminal justice system to guarantee a fair trial, according to experts.

Gibbs revived the issued on CNN’s “State of the Union With John King” on Jan. 31 when he said the terrorist mastermind would “meet his maker” and that he would “be likely to be executed” for his crimes.

His comments provoked outrage from both ends of the political spectrum, including fellow liberals, that his comments could taint the terrorists’ ability to get a fair trial.

“Am I the only person left who still remembers a legal concept called presumption of innocence? Am I the only one who remembers that the whole point of a trial is that the outcome is not certain?” wrote Cynthia Kouril of the liberal blog Firedoglake.

“In a real trial, the outcome is not known before the trial occurs. Further, much of the information in the hands of the government which will be used at trial against KSM should currently be Grand Jury Material, subject to secrecy under Rule 6e.

“Which means that you, Robert Gibbs, cannot legally know exactly what that evidence might be. So, how could you possibly know if KSM is going to be convicted? How do you know that?”

http://newsmax.com/Headline/obama-911-mohammed-trial/2010/02/04/id/348973

[isis-999]

How many mistakes does this man have to make before we say enough of him.....

[Caesar]

Its a big mess.

[AROCES]

Its a big mess.

What are the chances that we will end up apologizing to the terrorist, paying them millions for hurting their feelings and providing them a first class ticket to wherever they want?

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

How it is that anyone could support the left-wing positions on 'terrorist's rights' is absurd. (And this includes the right-wing Ron Paul types as well)

The left-wing claim tht they are supporting everyone's rights but they are not. The left supports terrorist's rights. Terrorists are engaged in illegal warfare to sneak attack civilian populations and violate the rights of everyone. Illegal enemy combatants can NOT be treated the same as civilians or as even POW's. They are by definition someone who does not respect human rights. They are terrorists. To support terrorist's rights is to be against human rights. The left-wing need to wake up and see this. Obama included.

[ninjadude]

How it is that anyone could support the left-wing positions on 'terrorist's rights' is absurd. (And this includes the right-wing Ron Paul types as well)

The left-wing claim tht they are supporting everyone's rights but they are not. The left supports terrorist's rights. Terrorists are engaged in illegal warfare to sneak attack civilian populations and violate the rights of everyone. Illegal enemy combatants can NOT be treated the same as civilians or as even POW's. They are by definition someone who does not respect human rights. They are terrorists. To support terrorist's rights is to be against human rights. The left-wing need to wake up and see this. Obama included.

Interesting. You claim terrorists violate rights. But rights are defined by governments. So you automatically want them tried according to the constitution of your country. You claim they are illegal. According to whom? Again, you then automatically want them illegal according to your government constitution. Defining someone as something is useless doublespeak. It seems you do want the trials done as planned.

[danielost]

Interesting. You claim terrorists violate rights. But rights are defined by governments. So you automatically want them tried according to the constitution of your country. You claim they are illegal. According to whom? Again, you then automatically want them illegal according to your government constitution. Defining someone as something is useless doublespeak. It seems you do want the trials done as planned.

these people are pows and should be held until the war is over. no trial.

Edited February 5, 2010 by danielost

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

I do not want foreign terrorists tried as civilians (under our Consititution) or as POWS being that they are NOT either. They are illegal enemy combatants. Period.

There is no legal precedent for giving foreign terrorists (illegal enemy combatants) the rights of POWs or civilians. They do not deserve these rights. They have been caught by our military waging illegal war against the U.S.

If someone is a U.S. citizen captured or arrested then I would give them a civilian trial (depending on all of the circumstances) but there is no way that I would give such to a foreign born illegal enemy combatant that is waging illegal war against the U.S.

Edited February 5, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

You claim they are illegal. According to whom?

Terrorism is and has been always considered illegal under all aspects of law. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes 'illegal enemy combatants' who wear no uniform and follow no respect for sneak attacking civilians as their means of waging war.

Is it your position that terrorism is a legal and good way of waging war?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

How many mistakes does this man have to make before we say enough of him.....

8 years worth?

[ninjadude]

I do not want foreign terrorists tried as civilians (under our Consititution) or as POWS being that they are NOT either. They are illegal enemy combatants. Period.

There is no legal precedent for giving foreign terrorists (illegal enemy combatants) the rights of POWs or civilians. They do not deserve these rights. They have been caught by our military waging illegal war against the U.S.

If someone is a U.S. citizen captured or arrested then I would give them a civilian trial (depending on all of the circumstances) but there is no way that I would give such to a foreign born illegal enemy combatant that is waging illegal war against the U.S.

You just keep on waving that "illegal" banner all over the place. But you have no justification whatsoever for the word. I agree they are not either. They should be tried by the UN.

[ninjadude]

Terrorism is and has been always considered illegal under all aspects of law. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes 'illegal enemy combatants' who wear no uniform and follow no respect for sneak attacking civilians as their means of waging war.

ok if you're going to use the Geneva convention as a justification for "illegal" then they have to tried by a WORLD body. Otherwise, if you mean illiegal from our constitution then they would be tried under it. I want you to describe under what jurisdiction of laws you are using the word "illegal".

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

You just keep on waving that "illegal" banner all over the place. But you have no justification whatsoever for the word. I agree they are not either. They should be tried by the UN.

Think what you want but there is plenty of justification for the word 'illegal' in regards to warfare. Even the left-wing American icon FDR tried 'illegal enemy combatants' in military tribunals (including Americans) and put them to death by these means.

The UN is a pathetic joke. It should be the UN that is on trial for how corrupt of an orginization it is. They were the real villian that engaged in "blood for oil" in regards to Iraq. The UN has no moral standing to try anyone and should be on trial themselves today.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

ok if you're going to use the Geneva convention as a justification for "illegal" then they have to tried by a WORLD body. Otherwise, if you mean illiegal from our constitution then they would be tried under it. I want you to describe under what jurisdiction of laws you are using the word "illegal".

There is no legal requirement for any nation to try 'illegal enemy combatants' under international law of any kind. You may want that to be the way but it is not.

[ninjadude]

Think what you want but there is plenty of justification for the word 'illegal' in regards to warfare. Even the left-wing American icon FDR tried 'illegal enemy combatants' in military tribunals (including Americans) and put them to death by these means.

The UN is a pathetic joke. It should be the UN that is on trial for how corrupt of an orginization it is. They were the real villian that engaged in "blood for oil" in regards to Iraq. The UN has no moral standing to try anyone and should be on trial themselves today.

So what then? Vigilantism?

[ninjadude]

There is no legal requirement for any nation to try 'illegal enemy combatants' under international law of any kind. You may want that to be the way but it is not.

then you advocate anarchy. without laws we are the same as apes. the law of the jungle. I reject that kind of attitude wholly.

[TRUEYOUTRUEME]

So what then? Vigilantism?

So you think that the UN is above any form of corruption including vigilantism? Without the UN you think we are lost?

The UN is a failure where it comes to standing for freedom and the rule of law.

then you advocate anarchy. without laws we are the same as apes. the law of the jungle. I reject that kind of attitude wholly.

Read my post above. You seem to think that we need international tribunals and the UN and that is your failure not mine.

Edited February 5, 2010 by TRUEYOUTRUEME

[Kimi81]

Well Bush mishandled 9-11 and took the heat off of Bin Laden to allow him to escape. He then used the tragedy to sucker the Country into an endless War so anything the Obama Administration does concerning 9-11 pales in comparison

[Cradle of Fish]

Terrorism is and has been always considered illegal under all aspects of law. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes 'illegal enemy combatants' who wear no uniform and follow no respect for sneak attacking civilians as their means of waging war.

Is it your position that terrorism is a legal and good way of waging war?

Worked for George Washington.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Well Bush mishandled 9-11 and took the heat off of Bin Laden to allow him to escape. He then used the tragedy to sucker the Country into an endless War so anything the Obama Administration does concerning 9-11 pales in comparison

Bush [allegedly] did something bad, so Obama can do whatever he wants as long as it's not as bad as what Bush did?

[Jack_of_Blades]

Bush [allegedly] did something bad, so Obama can do whatever he wants as long as it's not as bad as what Bush did?

For the one of the first times I find myself agreeing with one of your posts (except for the allegedly part).

[Space Commander Travis]

Just an observation: the German occupying forces in France and Russia in 1940/41-45 would almost certainly have thought of the Resistance and the partisans as "illegal enemy combatants". To our side, they were heroes.

So, for that matter, were the Mujahideen when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

Entirely depends which side you're on.

[Kimi81]

Bush [allegedly] did something bad, so Obama can do whatever he wants as long as it's not as bad as what Bush did?

Of course not, I'm just pointing out the Obama administrations mishap pales in comparison to the Bush Administrations .

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Just an observation: the German occupying forces in France and Russia in 1940/41-45 would almost certainly have thought of the Resistance and the partisans as "illegal enemy combatants". To our side, they were heroes.

So, for that matter, were the Mujahideen when they were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan.

Entirely depends which side you're on.

No, it's not subjective. There are specific requirements for being an enemy combatant, things like fighting under the flag of a recognized nation or wearing a uniform with identifying nation insignia. According to the Geneva Conventions, an illegal enemy combatant may be shot on sight.

[conspiracybeliever]

How many mistakes does this man have to make before we say enough of him.....

Bush got 8 years of "mistakes" so to be fair I think he should have the same.

This terrorist is not going to get away with anything. There will be a big show and then we'll execute him. And he's in prison. He won't be doing any terrorizing until then. This is tiny compared to what Bush did with 9/11.

Edited February 5, 2010 by conspiracybeliever