Khalid Sheikh Mohammed To Be Tried In Federal Court In NY

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Terror Trials
Posted on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 10:52:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Explanations are in order:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday. But the administration will prosecute another set of high-profile detainees now being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen, and four other detainees — before a military commission.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured by the United States. And yet he can be tried in civilian court. Why then can we not try all of the Gitmo detainees in federal court? No logic is provided to explain the different treatment these detainees are receiving. See also Glenn Greenwald making a similar point.

Speaking for me only

< Why The Public Option Is The Critical Component Of HCR | Reconciliation Solves The Stupak Problem >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed To Be Tried In Federal Court In NY | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

logic (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by diogenes on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:21:14 PM EST

"Why then can we not try all of the Gitmo detainees in federal court?"

I suppose that GITMO detainees who allegedly commited crimes on US soil might be mere "criminals" who should be tried in a civilian court. GITMO detainees who were picked up on a battlefield and are unlawful enemy combatants have no such standing.

Picked up on what battlefield? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:23:38 PM EST

BTW, if that is the explanation, I wish someone would say so. then we could test if that were true.


Could it be that the criminal trials will be for (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by steviez314 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:13:13 PM EST

those accused of murdering civilians (9/11), while the military trials will be for those accused of killing uniformed soldiers (USS Cole, Afghanistan)?


That explanation would be quite helpful (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 01:18:16 PM EST

Will someone give it please?


: I just saw this in the WaPo article: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by steviez314 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 02:30:42 PM EST

Holder said one factor in deciding to keep Nashiri's case within the military justice system was that the attack targeted a U.S. warship docked in foreign territory, rather than a civilian target on American soil.
I don't know if it's the military/civilian or the US/foreign split that's the factor.

Afghanistan. (none / 0) (#25)
by jpe on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:16:17 PM EST

Jerry Nadler (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Steve M on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 03:32:51 PM EST

"I thank the Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder for their diligent efforts to bring to justice those who have committed acts of terrorism against the United States. In particular, I applaud the decision to bring those individuals responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center to New York to face trial in our federal courts. New York is not afraid of terrorists, we want to confront them, we want to bring them to justice, and we want to hold them accountable for their despicable actions.
It is fitting that they be tried in New York, where the attack took place. On that day almost 3,000 innocent men, women, and children were murdered, and New York has waited far too long for the opportunity to hold these terrorists responsible. We have handled terrorist trials before, and we welcome this opportunity to do so again. Any suggestion that our prosecutors and our law enforcement personnel are not up to the task of safely holding and successfully prosecuting terrorists on American soil is insulting and untrue. I invite any of my colleagues who say that they are afraid to bring detainees into the United States to face trial to come to New York and see how we handle them.

Damn right Jerry!!!

I can't wait to see (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:08:45 AM EST

what untainted evidence they have to use against him.

there is plenty (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:13:31 AM EST

In 2007, KSM made many statements in an open proceeding.

He want to be executed which to him means "martyred." Indeed, avoiding that would be a plausible explanation for not wanting civilian trials, as he will surely be sentenced to death by a federal judge in NY.


That could be the answer (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by MO Blue on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:26:32 AM EST

to the question.

Why then can we not try all of the Gitmo detainees in federal court? No logic is provided to explain the different treatment these detainees are receiving.

IOW if there is enough untainted evidence, the federal court system will be used. If not, alternative methods which will allow use of the tainted evidence will be employed.


: Most likely. (none / 0) (#11)
by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:47:43 AM EST

I'm sure Obama and Holder know they cannot politically afford to lose any of these cases.

I had forgotten about that (none / 0) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:20:24 AM EST

I think you're right about him wanting to be a martyr. I don't see any way of avoiding giving him exactly what he wants, in that case.


Assuming that his truthful confession (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:14:01 AM EST

can't be used... and assuming the other evidence is weak.

What would you do with him?


Why assume falsehoods? (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:16:37 AM EST

: So you say he was lying when he confessed? (none / 0) (#24)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:15:33 PM EST

OK, I hear you.

What would you do with him? (none / 0) (#10)
by rdandrea on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:43:14 AM EST

Try him in Texas.


Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#17)
by CPI1000 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 02:13:05 PM EST

You commented on a former LAPD officer this year are u his attorney??


Interesting (none / 0) (#6)
by Steve M on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:20:39 AM EST

I wonder who the lucky judge will be.

: KSM has stated he wants to plead guily (4.00 / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:23:41 AM EST

If he holds to that, then the only issue is what method of execution will be used.

Why not? (none / 0) (#14)
by Andreas on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:49:32 PM EST

Why then can we not try all of the Gitmo detainees in federal court?

Maybe the Obama-administration has even more to hide than the torture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?

: I see you put politics above (2.00 / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 08:17:25 PM EST

national security.

Dark Avenger (none / 0) (#18)
by CPI1000 on Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 02:14:17 PM EST

You posted a comment on a former LAPD officer are you his attorney??