Patterico's Pontifications

11/15/2009

Obama in May 2009: Al Qaeda Terrorists Are “Prisoners of War”

Filed under: General,Obama,Terrorism — Patterico @ 2:14 pm

The sub-head to this post: “Glenn Greenwald is right on this one.” If that doesn’t keep you reading, what will?

I recently posed a question that has been on many Americans’ minds since Barack Obama announced that KSM would be tried in federal court: “If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Is Acquitted, President Obama, Will You Release Him?”

As I noted, Obama cannot and will not answer this question. Obama must either concede that he will release KSM if he is acquitted, which is political suicide — or concede that KSM’s trial will be a show trial, where the outcome is either predetermined, or does not matter.

Allahpundit has been arguing that the Grand Gesture of granting KSM a trial in federal court is undermined by the naked reality that Obama won’t release KSM regardless of the outcome. In support of his contention, Allahpundit unearthed this prepared statement Barack Obama made in May, which makes for interesting reading in light of the announcement that KSM will be tried in federal court:

Now, let me begin by disposing of one argument as plainly as I can: We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.

Perhaps even more interesting is his description of what he would do with people who can’t be tried, but are still dangerous:

[W]hen this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again.

If they’re “prisoners of war” then why would we try them in civilian courts, Mr. Obama?

To be sure, Obama goes on to mouth generalized platitudes about how this must be done legally, in conjunction with the other branches of government, etc. etc. But what he does not confront, because politically he cannot, is the question posed at the head of this post: what if you can’t continue to hold KSM legally? Will you still hold him?

Back in May, when Obama made these remarks, Karl discussed some contemporaneous articles that provided some insight into how the Obama administration was handling this issue. A New York Times article said that Obama was musing about “a ‘preventive detention’ system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried.” A New Yorker article said the Obama administration was “weighing” the idea of a national security court that could “order certain suspects to be held without a trial.”

The latter article quoted Neal Katyal, who is now Obama’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General, favoring the “national security court” as an option even for defendants acquitted in federal court. As Katyal explained the idea in this article (written before Obama’s election):

Now, what is needed is a serious plan to prosecute everyone we can in regular courts, and a separate system to deal with the very small handful of cases in which patently dangerous people cannot be tried.

That’s where a national security court could come in. A system staffed by federal judges, with experienced counsel on both sides, in which the government would have an ability to temporarily detain a dangerous individual. It might be limited to those situations when a criminal trial has failed.

Ah. So you try the terrorist, and if he’s acquitted, you go to a different court to keep him in custody. (“Temporarily,” of course. And what is meant by “temporarily”? Until the war on terror is over? Until the patently dangerous person no longer wishes to kill every American he sees? How long would Obama’s national security courts hold an acquitted person after the criminal trial has failed?) The rationale for the separate system of justice: we might not win in the existing system.

That’s a show trial. For all his faults (and they are many), Glenn Greenwald is exactly right about this. He notes that Obama and Holder are determining what sort of process detainees get, not based on what is legally required, but rather based on whether the government can win:

A system of justice which accords you varying levels of due process based on the certainty that you’ll get just enough to be convicted isn’t a justice system at all. It’s a rigged game of show trials.

Greenwald starts from this valid premise and reaches bad conclusions, in which he seems to want to grant a full criminal trial to every prisoner of war caught on the battlefield. But he and I agree that a fair proceeding requires basic rights, such as notice of the charges and evidence, a right to be present, a right to counsel, and a right to respond to evidence. I have many times expressed concerns about holding detainees based on secret evidence, or rigging the process to ensure convictions.

If the government is choosing the forum and mode of your trial based on where it thinks it can win, it is rigging the outcome. If the government is unwilling to accept a bad outcome to your trial, your trial is a show trial.

Under these criteria, Obama’s decision to try KSM in federal court is a clear example of a show trial.

In his press conference, Eric Holder went off script and inadvertently confirmed this, when asked how he could assure family members of 9/11 victims that the plotters would not be released on a technicality:

I am quite confident that we’re going to be successful in the prosecution efforts.

If I was concerned about the forum not leading to a positive result or if I had a concern — a different concern, you know, we would perhaps be in a different place.

A questioner picked up on Holder’s suggestion, asking how it could be fair or legal “if you’re picking different forums for different defendants based on where you can be sure that the outcome will be a conviction.” And then Holder readjusted the mask he had just let slip, and said that of course he wasn’t doing that.

This statement of Holder’s is completely consistent with Obama’s May remarks in which he stated that dangerous people “who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes” will not be released.

The American people need to understand: Obama is not giving KSM a trial because he believes it’s the right thing to do. He is giving a trial to KSM only because he believes that a conviction seems certain — and if for some reason the government turns out to be wrong about that, KSM is going to be held anyway.

There’s really only one way to read this: the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be a show trial. For all his faults on other fronts, Glenn Greenwald is exactly right here.

60 Responses to “Obama in May 2009: Al Qaeda Terrorists Are “Prisoners of War””

  1. Once again, I see no reason why this does not give our soldiers carte blanche to kill all enemy combatants in the future, right on the battlefield. What other choice will they have, read them the Miranda rights in the middle of a firefight?

    Dmac (a964d5)

  2. Will this kind of thing be considered in US policy?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/falluja-cancer-children-birth-defects

    humanity's patriot (ae1d2a)

  3. It does scare me that we could end up with what you describe – a system where a defendant (me?) could be charged with a crime (sedition? treason? criticizing Obama?) and then denied the full protection of our constitutionally-prescribed justice system because the prosecutor thought he might not get a guilty verdict through it.

    Liberals constantly accused Bush of doing this, but he never did. Now Obama’s doing it.

    Frankly, I’d trust Bush more quickly with such a system, because he would understand that we don’t enforce constitutional protections for everyone “except those obviously evil rethuglicans over there.” Democrats seem to be willing to jettison the Constitution at the drop of a hat.

    bobby b (4baf73)

  4. I remain extremely pessimisstic on this matter:
    I believe that the choice of venue for KSM is because they want to lose, not that they think they can win,
    and that the probability of affecting the outcome (negatively) is greater in NYC than in a Military Tribunal.
    BHO might have said that no terrorist who is a continueing danger to Americans will be released,
    but, once faced with the order of the SCOTUS affirming the District/Circuit Courts’ orders of release, he will say:
    What can I do, they made me do it!

    If he truly wanted to extract justice from this situation, he would allow the MT’s to proceed against all of the detainees,
    and sign-off on KSM’s execution when the paper hits his desk.
    But, he doesn’t have the integrity to do so.

    AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e)

  5. Will this kind of thing be considered in US policy?

    The wages of Islamic use of human shields show up in many ways. This is one of the saddest. That some people feel comfortable continuing to victimize the same society by making the terrorists’ arguments for them is disgusting, but real. I think our policy already takes such slime into account.

    bobby b (4baf73)

  6. The troll might check Google before giving too much credence to radical physicians who are fighting the war on civilization with the best weapons they can lay their hands on; lies.

    One good thing; if the leftist trolls think we are this dumb, they should be pretty easy to confound.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  7. Mike K, you did notice that there was video documentation, didn’t you? Your denial cannot over ride the video documentation. I’m sorry, I know it is disturbing, but we all ought to know the realities, as we carry on with unjust wars.

    humanity's patriot (ae1d2a)

  8. the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be a show trial

    Ah, but a “show” for whom? And what will be shown?

    If the Administration is determined to hold on to KSM no matter what outcome, why have a trial?

    Andrew McCarthy argues (with others) that it’ll be a venue to be used to attack the Bush Administration. A platform for the leftwing lawyers to indict that Administration.

    That is, of course, if the defendants won’t try to act in their own defense.

    This was an absurd decision by this Administration. It was both unnecessary and patently fake.

    SteveMG (604d32)

  9. Idiot, I’m sure you know more about congenital anomalies than I do. After all leftists are smarter than the rest of us.

    Sheesh !

    Mike K (2cf494)

  10. Well, if there’s video evidence, then surely there’s no reason to even have a trial of KSM.

    I mean, game, set, match, right?

    steve miller (81db43)

  11. If you’re right that the government has no intention of abiding by an acquittal – if our choices are holding people without trial or having show trials – then we’ve achieved the tyranny which it was once believed was the inevitable end of all republics.

    I hope that you’re wrong.

    It does scare me that we could end up with what you describe – a system where a defendant (me?) could be charged with a crime (sedition? treason? criticizing Obama?) and then denied the full protection of our constitutionally-prescribed justice system

    All the more reason to get Congress to change the law to prohibit this practice. Liberals don’t like it when there are conservative presidents with the power to do it, conservatives don’t like it when there are liberal presidents with the power to do it. Surely we can come together in agreement to amend the law to deny the executive this power.

    aphrael (73ebe9)

  12. If you’re right that the government has no intention of abiding by an acquittal

    I’m just taking Barack Obama at his word.

    And looking at the logical result of doing so.

    Patterico (64318f)

  13. If the Legislature finds that the Executive has corrupted the process, and is not faithfully executing the laws of the land, it already has the power to discipline him:
    Impeachment!

    Congress passed, and the President signed, the Military Tribunals Act (or whatever they called it) in response to the Judiciary finding that the previous precedent was wanting.
    Now, it is time for the Legislature, to compel the Executive to follow the law, or face the consequences.

    I shall not hold my breath!

    AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e)

  14. Mike K,

    humanity’s patriot/blubonnet will soon get around to how 9/11 was an inside job, so there’s that to look forward to. She needs to pick a name and stick with it though, per Patterico’s policy.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  15. I honestly don’t care whether or how often Glenn Greenwald gets anything right. I DO care that those who confessed – on videotape before their capture – to 9/11 carnage face justice in New York. The “show trial” prospect notwithstanding. Will this likely be different than earlier high-profile, Southern District of New York terror trials, including Ramzi Yousef’s and Omar Abdel Rahman’s? Absolutely. Finding 12 “impartial” jurors seems contrary to reason.

    KSM must also answer for a 1996 New York indictment alleging a plot to blow up 12 U.S.-bound commercial airliners in 48 hours.

    steve (3e5dfa)

  16. Stashiu3, we could have a quiz on statistics and how they are abused for political purposes. John Edwards could be a guest lecturer. I don’t think it knows how to use Google so it would flunk the quiz. I especially like the two headed kid.

    MIke K (2cf494)

  17. For this alone Obama and Holder should be impeached and removed from office. Indeed it may ultimately result in their impeachment and removal from office.

    This ‘trial’ is such a travesty on so many levels it is scarcely conceivable that Obama and Holder can be this arrogant and stupid. A legitimate trial has to allow for the possibility of an acquittal. If not then it is nothing more than a communist show trial, except those two fools will the turn trial in to a trial on themselves and not on Bush and Cheney as it appears to be their intention. Unlike a mob trial the government won’t be able to get a retrial on a hung jury or re-charge the accused with separate charges in the event of an acquittal. Obama’s comments closed off that possibility. Does anyone seriously believe the government will be able to get a jury to convict once the first fatwah is issued against any juror who votes to convict?
    Is every juror and their family going to be in the Federal Witness Protection Program for life?

    What will happen is a circus and a tragedy; the families of the 9/11 victims demanding justice outside the courtroom, the defendants lawyers conducting agit-prop against the government and the US in the court room in full presence of the world press and the prosecutors will be made to look like fools in front of the world. What can the prosecutor reply to the jury when confronted with Obama’s words about not abiding with an acquittal?

    This is yet another example of why elections matter.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  18. Obama has sealed his fate as a one term president.

    Hondo (eb6164)

  19. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to try a POW in a civil procedure.

    drjohn (33975b)

  20. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to try a POW in a civil procedure.

    Comment by drjohn — 11/15/2009 @ 3:52 pm

    A good point however that would concede that this scum are legitimate POW’s which is something they are not. They were caught out of uniform and are not members of a recognized national states armed forces let alone signatory states. They should have been summarily executed when the interrogations were finished with.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  21. I believe the explanation lies in the Obama administration’s fondness for transnationalism, a doctrine of post-sovereign globalism in which America is seen as owing its principal allegiance to the international legal order rather than to our own Constitution and national interests.

    Recall that the president chose to install former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh as his State Department’s legal adviser. Koh is the country’s leading proponent of transnationalism. He is now a major player in the administration’s deliberations over international law and cooperation. Naturally, membership in the International Criminal Court, which the United States has resisted joining, is high on Koh’s agenda. The ICC claims worldwide jurisdiction, even over nations that do not ratify its enabling treaty, notwithstanding that sovereign consent to jurisdiction is a bedrock principle of international law.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGMyYTQ1ZTM5YTQ5NjJjNzJmNGUxZDIyOTFjYzIyM2Y=

    Sanmon (319c0c)

  22. Have you guys discussed this yet: if KSM is convicted, does he have right to appeal?

    gp (9ad781)

  23. Bass Ackwards. But then again, Obama is actually on the other side, as evidenced by everything he has done since becoming our president.

    dfbaskwill (2c7f7f)

  24. You all seem afraid of a fair trial. What ever happened to the benevolence of the US?

    humanity's patriot (ae1d2a)

  25. KSM should be tried in a military court, just like Obama said in 2006.

    And then, after a fair trial, he should be executed & his ashes scattered in the ocean.

    steve miller (81db43)

  26. “You all seem afraid of a fair trial.”

    Huh? The point of the post is that Barack Obama is afraid of a fair trial. Address that.

    Patterico (64318f)

  27. under the laws of land warfare, illegal combatants are entitled to summary execution on the battlefield, no trial, court martial or other accessories needed.

    i say we start living up to the law.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  28. This is all well and good but Obama changes his mind and outright lies so often that you cant take anything he says and extrapolate it to the future. He changes his mind on a whim or outright lies. Its impossible.

    Dopey (a812c5)

  29. “You all seem afraid of a fair trial.”

    humanity’s patriot – You still think 9/11 was an inside job. Why should anybody take anything you have to say seriously?

    Em Wolb (718861)

  30. When a liar lies which lie do you believe?
    What’s happening is you’ve entered a merry-go-round what you’ll never get off and eventually you get so dizzy it makes no difference where you got on or where you get off.

    cedarhill (46d8e5)

  31. While I completely agree with this post, I am wondering why KSM could not be immediately rearrested at the State’s pleasure, for other crimes for which there is substantive evidence against him?

    I do see the ridiculous situations that may develop, but at least in the case of KSM, there is no need to twist law into a pretzel, or am I missing something?

    Ed from SFV (1333b1)

  32. Patterico writes: “Obama is not giving KSM a trial because he believes it’s the right thing to do. He is giving a trial to KSM only because he believes that a conviction seems certain

    And because he thinks that a trial will embarrass the Bush administration and feed red meat to the leftwing supporters.

    Embarrassing a previous administration is not a policy, its petulance. Juvenile petulance that George Bush was careful not to engage in.

    We don’t have an adult administration in the White House.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. Another point regarding Holder’s decision to try these 5 terrorists in the Federal court in NYC. Has the Administration considered at all the possible consequences of their rationale for this process? As I understand Holder’s position, these 5 are being tried (1) in a civilain court because they killed civilians and (2) in NYC because that’s whewre the act was committed. Now, why wouldn’t Al Quida conclude that they should step up their efforts to attack American civilians, on US soil, in large population centers. If their agents are captured, they have not only the full panoply of rights accorded to US citizens, but are guaranteed a fabulous platform to spread their propaganda! In sum, why are we deliberately increasing the incentives for Al Quida to attack our citizens in our cities? Makes no sense whatsoever!

    RAZ (996c34)

  34. RAZ, you shouldn’t ask questions involving logic of emotionally-based life-forms,
    their barely-able-to-cope thought processes will lock-up.

    AD - RtR/OS! (603f4e)

  35. Take a look at the photos of US troops in Afghanistan from Michael Totten’s blog. Look at the wall thickness of the the local compounds. Obama does not respect their efforts.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  36. What if President G.W. Bush had put these guys on a “Show Trial”, and they were found guilty under proper leagal methods?

    What if President Bush hadn’t attacked Iraq and Afganistan over Al Qaeda?

    Would we really be “Safer” today?

    cisco (59de67)

  37. “Once again, I see no reason why this does not give our soldiers carte blanche to kill all enemy combatants in the future, right on the battlefield.”

    That worked great against the Japanese.

    Their policy was: We don’t like to surrender.

    Our policy was: Good, because we don’t like to take Japanese prisoners.

    Just about all of them died every time we bumped heads…and everyone was happy.

    Dave Surls (13e382)

  38. Just as much of the dysfunction of this President, this will wind up biting this in the butt!

    If they are subject to the Civilian justice system, then the judges must be afforded the full rage of action available. If this is not done, then there is created a hole that threatens the fabric of our society. If the govt can designate a person as “a threat”, and cloister them away forever, and the linkage is made to the rights afforded under the Constitution, then no one is safe from prosecution under “Thought Crimes”.

    The previous determination, that these are enemy combatants, subject to military tribunal, is the only logical way to handle these dangerous enemies of our country.

    These people play fast and loose with logic and philosophy in every area that they touch! They claim that Conservatives are intellectually inferior, yet they fail to take into account basic pillars of law and logic. They have made the decision that everything must be re-thought and re-worked in the name of some nebulous term such as “Justice”. Justice is not a term for re-definition, but has a basis in law that has already been established. Oh. The idea that these things have been evaluated, and decisions made in the past? We can re-do that. We are much smarter than our fore-fathers.

    Yes, we can! (Ugh!)

    Medbob (c0d47b)

  39. above commenter#1 states this will encourage troops tpo kill captives.

    yes.

    and this will lead to less intel and more attacks/casualness/death – and a prolonged ar.

    obama’s actions make us less safe.

    he should be impeached.

    reliapundit (92b2a8)

  40. By the Geneva Conventions, POWs can only be tried for war crimes after hostilities are over.

    By the Leftists own logic, the Obama Administration are about to become war criminals themselves.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  41. I think I agree that KSM and others are so dangerous that they cannot be released, no matter what. If that is the case, and you still feel the perverse need to stage some sort of trial, then for god’s sake use the military tribunals as your show trial – don’t corrupt the regular Federal court system!

    What Obama, Holder et al don’t get is that any sort of a trial is a victory for KSM – he already considers himself a martyr, so he’s already gone in his own and his fellow terrorists minds, but now he gets to make the US government dance to his tune – millions will be spent on security (proving how important he is), the government will be forced to declassify classified material and CAIR and the other terror symps will be all over the airwaves warning about the mythical “backlash” and enabling the next Maj. Hasan.

    Holdfast (42bed3)

  42. When caught in battle why would you take him alive for sure you would not be taken alive.
    Who in the hell started this mess any way. As for as Obama, he is just trying to protect his Muslim supports.

    Ackel Savoie (bb8469)

  43. If you can guarantee a conviction, why conduct a trial? If you describe the terrorists as “alleged,” how can you make a guarantee?

    Jim Treacher (796deb)

  44. They took him alive for intelligence value, and because that’s the way that we do things.

    If it would have been battle, then they should have shot him, given the opportunity.

    Military tribunals are the answer to these vermin. Tribunals, then dropped in a pit of bacon grease, then shot.

    Medbob (c0d47b)

  45. Another take on all of this: How to undermine National Security, right before our very eyes, show trial or not.

    Not to mention how Dick “YOU’RE A BUNCH OF NAZIS!” Drubin and the Chicago political machine amasses $1B to buy votes….

    I sense evil afoot.

    xformed (06bd84)

  46. All it takes is a Muslim juror or two to refuse to convict a fellow Muslim, jury nullification a la OJ. Or a technical problem with evidence may arise so that KSM is found not guilty, just like Bill Ayers, who laughed and said: Guilty as hell, free as a bird, what a country!

    Then KSM could walk free out of that court right to the hole where the World Trade Center once stood to get his trophy photo of himself holding a Koran over his head in victory.

    Tantor (9883cd)

  47. Let’s face it, for many years there has been a category of crimes, those that were inspired by racial animosity, for which the accused simply will not be found not guilty. After the murderers of black people in Southern (Democratic) areas were found not guilty, they were tried again and perhaps again until they were found guilty. One can understand the reason for this, the furious desire to bring justice when the murderers were obvious, but it made a mockery of the concept that the accused could not be tried again for the same charge after being found not guilty. In the King case in LA, a huge deadly riot insured that the accused police would be tried again and found guilty. Unfortunately we already have solid precedence for show trials. We also have a solid precedence for military trials and quick execution for spies and saboteurs, but that precedence is being abandoned.

    Edward (5bcd1c)

  48. #34, RAZ asked, “…why are we deliberately increasing the incentives for Al Quida to attack our citizens in our cities? Makes no sense whatsoever!

    Sure it does, think about it with an open mind, abandon preconceived notions and look directly at the facts.

    Given that you already know what he’s doing will encourage terrorist attacks on US cities.

    All you have to do now is figure out why Obama would want to do that.

    Courage.

    ropelight (797778)

  49. Conviction or no conviction…KSM isn’t going anywhere and isn’t going to be released. His conviction is not the purpose of this trial…it is to put the US Intelligence Agencies, especially the CIA on trial and to further their attacks on the Bush Administration. The problem, like most of their idea’s is they dont understand the unintended consequences of their moronic policies and social engineering. This trial will expose the information we have gotten, our means of getting the info and the countries who helped us. This is not only dangerous for our selfless agents and our allies, but it will potentially destroy our inteligence capabilities and expose any vulnerabilities that our enemies can then exploit to attack us again!

    Curt (418cd7)

  50. Curt, not to mention, if you’re right about the non-release, which a lot of democrats are claiming you are, then the president is claiming the right to cancel court decisions. Whether KSM is acquitted or not (I think he will confess again), it’s clear to me that Obama has no respect for the Constitutional implications.

    If this is a criminal court case, then the president simply doesn’t have the right to hold someone who has been acquitted. That Gibbs is permitting this option to exist, even just to save a couple cynical points in the polls, is absolutely the opposite of what America is about. If it’s really such a case that we can’t let a guilty party go free yet, then it’s not a case for this kind of court.

    Dustin (bb61e3)

  51. [...] to stand trial in a military court for the attack on the Pentagon? As Patterico reminds us, Obama’s own words earlier this year were practically an admission that this will be a show trial. As long as KSM [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Huckabee: If KSM gets off, the Democratic Party is finished (e2f069)

  52. Isn’t it interesting how The WON proclaims we need to do this to show how just we are as a nation, that our own Constitution demands it, that we must be “better” than all others….

    Yet, he transits the world, telling all how horrible we are, then holds this up, for a terrorist.

    And…he’s already pre-staging a violation of The Constitution?

    Do the people in this administration realize how hypocritical they act on a moment to moment basis.

    And I agree: This is to destroy the National Security, nothing more.

    How much more evidence does the voting population need that someone does not have the interest of keeping this nation safe and strong, particularly economically?

    xformed (89f68c)

  53. “Show Trial”. This administration just gets better and better.

    GarandFan (d065c6)

  54. [...] told you about this category in earlier posts. The concept of holding people without trials was discussed by Obama in a May [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » From the Buried Lede Department: 75 to Be Held Without Trial (e4ab32)

  55. [...] the sock puppet whined about Holder having the U.S.S. Cole terrorists tried by military tribunal (Patterico agreed with Greenwald’s basic premise in that post, about there not being a legal standard [...]

    Cowardly Holder Channels His Inner Cowardly Greenwald - scipio62’s blog - RedState (2dbb8b)

  56. [...] odds at conviction while minimizing the political risk of acquittal — then, like Patterico says, KSM’s trial is even more of a show trial than we thought. Presumably, if Holder thought [...]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Graham grills Holder: Does Bin Laden need to be given his Miranda rights? (e2f069)

  57. [...] government’s odds at conviction while minimizing the political risk of acquittal — then, like Patterico says, KSM’s trial is even more of a show trial than we thought. Presumably, if Holder thought we [...]

    You Have The Right To Remain Silent, Anything You Say Can Be Covered By C-SPAN « Around The Sphere (44368e)

  58. [...] that with Holder’s frank admission (which he quickly backed off of) that he might not choose this forum if he were not confident of [...]

    Patterico's Pontifications » KSM Show Trial Watch: The Evidence Mounts (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3715 secs.