Gibbs: KSM Will "Meet His Maker"

Why bother with a trial? Just call out the firing squad. Here's Obama Press secretary Robert Gibbs today:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he’s going to meet his maker," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told John King on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning. "He's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed," he added.

Former SDNY AUSA Cynthia Kouril at Firedoglake weighs in on this one. (Extra props for mentioning defense counsel.) [More...]

The New York Times in an editorial today on why the trials should be held in a federal criminal court:

This trial would draw attention if it were held atop Pikes Peak. And isn’t the idea of a public trial a bedrock principle of American justice?

Holding the trial in New York would be inconvenient. Democracy makes demands on its citizens. It is inconvenient to serve on a jury, too. This was just not-in-my-backyard-ism. Nearly 10 years after 9/11, it is sad if this country cannot freely conduct its business in Lower Manhattan.

< Axelrod: No Decision Yet on Site of 9/11 Trials | People Disagree >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Cynthia Kouril (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:21:39 PM EST
    Makes excellent points, but just reinforces my belief that despite what she says, this really is to be a show trial for mollify the left wing.  There is absolutely.no.way. that the administration would go through with KSM's trial (or any other terror trial) of this magnitude in less they were absolutely sure of conviction.  The political fallout (and possibly national security fallout) is just too great a risk for them if there is a chance KSM could walk.

    Bipartisanship at its' best. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:01:46 PM EST
    So - holding the trial is to mollify the left wing...
    and assuring everybody that he will be strung up is to mollify the right wing.

    Something for everybody.


    Hey! (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:07:40 PM EST
    It's just my theory....

    Sounds (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    entirely plausible to me.

    Ugh! (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    "unless" not "in less" (besides the other typing errors)

    What an administration.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    Gibbs is only saying what Obama has already said.
    KSM is going to be executed. Then everybody will feel better -
    especially those on the right who think that the accused being afforded the right to a fair trial and legal counsel is a big waste of time.

    Gibbs: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker,"..."He's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes he committed,"

    Obama: "Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to [K.S.] Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

    Our president is not too interested in civil liberties. And he is expressing it directly and indirectly through his spokesman.
    They both sound like the worst of Bush.

    Is there even one person (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:16:29 PM EST
    out there who believes there are less Kahlid Sheikh Mohammeds today than there was in 2000?

    And if these fanatics "just hate us" no matter what we do, when were all the terrorist attacks against the U.S before the last 20-30 years? Militant Islamic fundamentalism didnt just pop up overnight and it's not like the technological means to inflict a lot of casualties didnt exist before.

    No, terrorist attacks are the trade off, the inevitable "blow back" that our "securing the realm" imperialists factored in from the beginning.

    Speaking for me only. And good night and good luck.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:29:22 PM EST
    I guess when Axelrod spoke of "we," in terms of suspected terrorist trials, he was talking about himself and Gibbs?

    Both of these two individuals' statements today are a travesty.  Bloggers would be thru the roof if Bush's people were acting like this.

    Of course, it's okay if it's Obama.

    The point which the NYT seems to miss (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    is that if the trial is held in NY it WILL be extremely difficult to freely conduct business in lower Manhattan.

    Years of disruption and lost revenue for a show trial is dumb.

    Espcially (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    starting in an election year. Don't want to upset the voters.

    "Meet his maker"? (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?

    Aside from the fact that I seriously doubt if many of the Machiavellian, grandstanding weasels in D.C believe in anything like a "maker", isnt this the guy that they ALREADY practically tortured to death?

    What kind of punishments, collective and otherwise, do we need to dole out to make the unruly mob/electorate feel safer and better about itself? What sort of public cleansing ritual?

    Why dont we go all the way and go back to drawing-quartering-burning and blowing the ashes out of a canon? I feel safer already just talking about it.

    Indeed, whats the point of a trial?


    I'm not arguing theory (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:42:48 PM EST
    I'm stating the reality of the situation.

    I wish people in this country (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    would drop the bullsh*t once and for all about this being a "christian nation".

    Going to church on Sunday and then focusing the full force of your incandescent hatred on one person or one people has less than zero to do with the golden rule. All we ever prove is that we're the stronger apes. And that evolution isnt always evolution.

    rant over.


    I'm not defending Gibbs (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:06:28 PM EST
    But "Meet his Maker" is part of the vernacular, that while originally may have been Christian in nature, is now just a saying (Do you say "Oh My god" or type "OMG"?)  Do you "Cross your fingers" for luck?  Do you "bless people" when they sneeze? Do you ever use the phrase "by the skin of your teeth"? (based on Job 19:20)? Do you ever say someone was "made a scapegoat"? (based on Leviticus 16:7-10)? Do you exist in the year 2010 AD?

    I think of all the things to rant about, this is least of what's wrong with Gibbs's words.



    And while we're at it (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 04:09:50 PM EST
    Since I do believe in God, and believe there is evil in this world,I think Gibbs' words were wrong -  I don't believe KSM will "meet his Maker" but will instead be taking the "down" elevator and will be burning for all eternity for all the truly horrific things he's done.

    Again, JMO.


    It wasnt the words I object to (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    so much as the public appeal to the blood-vengeance instinct that these grandstanding clowns of the left and right feel the need to lower themselves to.

    And then theres the herd out there that laps it up and can never get enough.

    When are we going to start setting an example of civilized behavior ourselves?


    I believe (none / 0) (#9)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    that after umpteen waterboardings, this guy has confessed everything from breaking in to the Watergate to having thrown his shoe at Bush.

    The Kennedy assassination (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    and the Lindbergh kidnapping.

    The point is to make sure he is silenced about (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yes2Truth on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 09:25:36 PM EST

    what he knows about U.S. involvement in covert operations that if they became known to the average
    TV viewer, would cause them to wonder just who exactly WAS behind September eleven.

    al Qaeda Patsy #1 probably expired years ago, so
    he is unable to spill any beans, and though KSM has probably been so lobotomized that he doesn't even recognize his own name any longer, there's always the chance that he might recover enough of his memory to cause at least some temporary anxiety in the Washington/Pentagon/Langley axis, so best to give him a prompt trial and speedy sendoff to Jesus.


    Troofer (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 02:57:36 PM EST

    I love a good DS9 quote. (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 05:04:34 PM EST

    March the Guilty SOB In (none / 0) (#22)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:20:25 PM EST
    Jeralyn may be surprised to learn that her post here is one of the main reasons I respect her and this site so much.

    I'm in favor of a military trial for KSM because I believe him to be an out of uniform enemy combatant. The actual details of his activities as enemy combatant are secondary to me.

    A civil show trial is far, far worse, IMHO, than simply putting him in front of a military tribunal, determining the salient facts that determine his guilt or innocence (is he or his is not an Islamic jihadi involved in bombings, kidnappings, assassinations) and then the military judge/tribunal comes to a judgment.

    That's it. The civilian process, with all its necessary protections for the accused, should be treated with respect, rather than abused in this manner by Dems.

    So, again. If I have to choose between military commissions from Republicans or staged civilian show trials from Dems, I'll take the Republican approach 9 times out of 10. I'll concede that every case requires a determination of whether or not the actor does or does not belong in front of a military court. The bar I'd set would be for actions, rather than words. By trying to blow-up that plane, the underwear bomber, for example, sacrifices his rights to a civilian trial, which you wouldn't think would mean that much to a guy racing to meet his maker.

    The Gibbs/Dem approach makes pure mockery of the justice system and is every bit as deserving of prosecution as any memo written by Yoo.

    First though (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    before we march him in, we should make sure we waterboard him one more time -- for luck if nothing else -- we want all this guys faculties intact so he can give a good accounting of himself and his activities.

    I enjoy your flip disregard for rule of law (none / 0) (#24)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 07:19:47 PM EST
    manifest in the 'guilt is a foregone conclusion' approach to the US justice system.

    You trivialize torture and the corruption of the justice system in order to rebuff an argument I'm not making.

    Dems get off on shows like the Wire where the plot often depends on those 'unlucky' black folks who for reasons we don't need to go into now find themselves faced with the choice of confessing or being sent to 'baby-booking'. Cute name, huh?

    The sanctity of the civilian justice system is one of the few places where the physical terror, torture, and intimidation play less of a role.

    In a nation of laws, which is what I assume you wish the United States to be, you have the highest justice official in America (Holder) and the President and now his press secretary glibly informing the public that actual outcome has already been determined.

    Your hypocrisy and sanctimonious, self-serving preening isn't winning many converts, last time I checked.

    Citizens deserve a fair trial, if you extend the right to trial to foreign nationals, they have every reason and right to a fair trial, if you're committed to the principle of justice and to protecting the process.

    You aren't. Neither is Obama. Neither is Holder. Neither is Gibbs. I much prefer the candor of the right, who simply think KSM gave up all his rights the moment he got involved with UBL.

    You can kiss my apples. Chew on them, too.


    What, in any way, is "sanctified" (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 08:01:25 PM EST
    about a justice system -- that you btw, can kiss, suck, preen, and fondle (not that you need encouragement) that through it's vaunted representatives like you, claims to be giving anyone anything remotely resembling a fair trial while also claiming the right to subject the defendant to hours and days of torture beforehand?

    Im not looking for coverts; that's the territory of the realpolitik weasels and end-timers that you seem to be lined up with -- for all their candor and good old fashioned law-of-the-jungle, eat-or-be-eaten honesty, no doubt. Way to go, you do us proud.


    Well, I suppose I've spent more time in (none / 0) (#26)
    by kidneystones on Sun Jan 31, 2010 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    places where a fair trial is a treasure to be sanctified, and more time studying institutional railroading than you. Your la-la land belief in a magical fairy-land where the good and pure once treated each other with respect until the evil Bush-Hitlers and other spawn of Satan corrupted is historically inaccurate and off-putting to say the least.

    We're working from savagery up, not the other way round. Given your willingness to trashcan the entire civil rights, suffrage enterprise, I'm not surprised you've got things utterly bass-ackwards.

    Nobody is advocating water-boarding, here. I'm saying water-boarding can at least be understood within the context of suspended civil rights.

    I suppose you figure the 'water-boarders' are coming to get you. No need to worry. Dems in charge of protecting the integrity of the justice system, flawed as that system is, are marrying military and civilian justice.

    The spawn of that union is Presidents proclaiming the outcome of trials before the judge enters the court.

    Take a bow.


    Where did I indicate that I wanted (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 02:37:36 PM EST
    to trashcan anyone's civil rights?

    You're flailing away at some figment of your imagination -- while lying unashamedly (and stupidly) about violations to our justice system that you want people to believe just started some time in 2008.



    What about the heinous crimes committed by ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Andreas on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 12:16:36 AM EST
    ... George Walker Bush, Richard Cheney, John Yoo, Jay Bybee and other and other members of that terrorist organisation?

    the topic is the 9/11 trials (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 12:59:48 AM EST
    and this Administration.

    Yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by Andreas on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 01:27:09 AM EST
    My comment was about the decision by this Administration to protect other terrorists. In other words the comment was about unequal treatment.

    What a stupid, stupid, thing to say (none / 0) (#31)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 02:32:52 AM EST
    Gibbs comment.  

    he'll get a fair trial, (none / 0) (#32)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 03:20:06 AM EST
    then be executed.

    freudian slip showing.

    Alice in Wonderland (none / 0) (#33)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 02:08:06 PM EST
    Sentence first -- verdict afterwards.-- so said the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland." The sentence was death ("off with his head!") there, too.

    Obama's (none / 0) (#34)
    by Watermark on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 02:32:19 PM EST
    support of the death penalty honestly makes me not want to vote for him in 2012.  Before his position irritated me, but it was mostly shrouded in the high-sounding jibber jabber that marked his campaign.  Now that he's just spouting off the bloodthirsty rhetoric of the far right, I can't think that a person who thinks like that is capable of making good decisions.