[Guest post by DRJ]
“A grand jury in New York is hearing evidence against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks in 2001, and four accused accomplices, NBC News reported Tuesday.”
— DRJ
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Powered by WordPress.
Olbermonkey & Chrissie are gonna make it their top story every night; right?
Hello?
Icy Texan (8b985a) — 12/8/2009 @ 9:36 pmAnd Madcow. She will be leading off each broadcast with the latest on the trial; won’t she?
You know, in-between pleas for taking into consideration “time served” & “mental duress from being opressed by The Great Satan” & “advancing age” & “cruelty suffered at Gitmo” & &&&&&&&&
Icy Texan (8b985a) — 12/8/2009 @ 9:45 pmfirst things first: when is the bail hearing?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/8/2009 @ 11:37 pmMy first question was, “What if they don’t return an indictment?”
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/8/2009 @ 11:40 pmthat would be rich….. and one way to ensure there isn’t a trial in NYC. Ear Leader would be so mad he might just take AF 1 back up there for another fly by. %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:33 am“My first question was, “What if they don’t return an indictment?””
I have been wondering something of these sorts. Lots of wingnuts are insisting that the killings of 9/11 aren’t crimes. Does that mean if they were on juries they wouldn’t convict? Wouldn’t indict?
imdw (c06324) — 12/9/2009 @ 5:52 amHow do they select a grand jury? Can it be manipulated (like what can’t)for obama’s advantage, i.e., this little problem of KSM be dismissed, he’ll be flown out of the country and on to the real enemy, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld?
J (2946f2) — 12/9/2009 @ 5:55 amI could just as easily posit that liberals on the Grand Jury might not indict because they refused to believe any of the evidence, even KSM’s public statements, because they hated President Bush. It wasn’t a partisan question however. My reason for asking was that, unless this is truly a show trial, you have to allow for the possibility that the GJ won’t indict (for whatever reason) or the trial jury won’t convict. Do they impanel a new Grand Jury until they find one that will return an indictment? Do they release everybody? Return them to Guantanamo? If the trial jury gives a not-guilty verdict, what then?
How can you have a Grand Jury that HAS to return an indictment? How can you have a trial jury that HAS to return a guilty verdict? You can’t unless it’s a kangaroo-court/show trial. Yet, this is what the administration has essentially guaranteed. This entire process does nothing to confirm the American Justice System. It makes a mockery of it.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/9/2009 @ 6:09 amI’m not understanding the problem. Your fear is that this won’t be Kangoroo enough? Or too much?
imdw (f8211e) — 12/9/2009 @ 6:15 amIgnoring trollish behavior.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/9/2009 @ 6:21 amI used to think it was feigned ignorance, Stashiu.
JD (682dfa) — 12/9/2009 @ 7:22 amJD, no, it is practiced ignorance by imdw.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/9/2009 @ 7:50 amIf he wants to play rhetorical word games, he can play with himself. I re-read my comment and my point was clearly stated. I’m not getting sucked into his “wingnut” or scaredy-cat crap. If the Grand Jury returns an indictment, there’s no way anyone can be confident the integrity of the process is intact because of the undue influence already perpetrated by the administration. If they don’t return an indictment, what happens? That was my original question. The administration has already promised a trial and a conviction. If it’s impossible for the Grand Jury to NOT return an indictment and then the trial jury a conviction, it’s a show trial. Lose-lose. I would say the same thing about military tribunals if all the rules were tossed and both trial and conviction were mandatory.
imdw can either comment honestly or be ignored. His choice.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/9/2009 @ 8:13 am#13 Stashiu3:
I don’t think so, I think it pathological.
Anyway, the O!ne and his cronies are part and parcel of the Marxist group that followed Harry Pollit’s injunction in the 60s to submerse themselves in the mainstream rather than fight it from the outside.
Even so, their courtroom training comes straight from the now defunct Politburo, so it just doesn’t occur to them that the GJ may not provide the “appropriate” result.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/9/2009 @ 8:24 amAnd then fail to indict? This is so stupid it defies any rational reply…
bill-tb (541ea9) — 12/9/2009 @ 8:56 amI expect them to indict Bush, instead.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 12/9/2009 @ 9:07 am#16 Kevin Murphy:
I wouldn’t be surprised at that result, either.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 12/9/2009 @ 9:49 am“If the Grand Jury returns an indictment, there’s no way anyone can be confident the integrity of the process is intact because of the undue influence already perpetrated by the administration”
What undue influence? Indictments aren’t very hard to get.
“The administration has already promised a trial and a conviction. If it’s impossible for the Grand Jury to NOT return an indictment and then the trial jury a conviction, it’s a show trial. Lose-lose.”
We have a prosecutor on this blog. Ask him whether he tells people that he will win cases he brings, and whether this makes it a ‘show trial’ when he says he’s not going to lose.
imdw (603c39) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:05 amno prosecutor worth his or her salt would ever say they were “not going to lose”, simply because one can never predict, with absolute certainty, how a jury or a judge will act, at least here.
obviously, things w*rk a bit differently in your world.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:13 am“no prosecutor worth his or her salt would ever say they were “not going to lose”, simply because one can never predict, with absolute certainty, how a jury or a judge will act, at least here. ”
Do prosecutors say there is no reasonable doubt they will lose?
imdw (6eb217) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:16 amI mean, no reasonable doubt they will NOT lose?
imdw (84accb) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:17 amFirst, it is damn near certain they will be indicted. that is easy enough. but conviction? maybe, maybe not. first, i will be surprised if there is no motion to change venue. of course virtually all americans have a serious danger of “bias” but NYC is unique in the level of fear they felt, or so the defense will almost certainly argue.
then they will claim that KSM et al were tortured and should be let go for that reason. let’s note that liberals are very vulnterable to that kind of argument. how many times in climategate have the liberals stressed that the emails were probably stolen, as though that means a damn. it originally did make you wonder if they were genuine, but there is no serious question on that point, but liberals keep hitting that theme, because to them if you get it in a bad way it somehow nixes all evidentiary value.
Which is illogical. take the example of scene in dirty harry where eastwood tortures the killer into telling us where the girl is buried. condemn the torture all you want, but let’s not pretend that there is no evidence there. they found the body where he said it would be; so at the very least he knew something about the killing.
Likewise, KSM’s confession might be suspect, but his inner knowledge of AQ is not. but liberals are prone to ignore that fact.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:29 amI mean, no reasonable doubt they will NOT lose?
Your feigned ignorance and inability to grasp simple statements and meanings got old a long time ago. That kind of “just asking questions” MO is the true mark of a Troll.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:51 amA.W. Liberals ignore facts?
Get outta town!
Icy Texan (648a94) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:54 amThis isn’t about a laywer boasting or claiming he/she can win at trial, this is about our President insisting there will be an indictment AND insisting a jury trial will result in a conviction.
THAT is what makes this a circus. How can the world believe our judicial system is without influence from the government when our President insists this is what is going to happen?
Corwin (ea9428) — 12/9/2009 @ 11:55 amPerhaps they’ll get a change-of-venue to Dearborn, or perhaps Minneapolis?
AD - RtR/OS! (160cdd) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:00 pmBetter yet, they could impanel the original OJ jury.
“This isn’t about a laywer boasting or claiming he/she can win at trial, this is about our President insisting there will be an indictment AND insisting a jury trial will result in a conviction.”
I would imagine it would look even worse for the president to say the United States has reasonable doubts…..
imdw (017d51) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:31 pm“Perhaps they’ll get a change-of-venue to Dearborn, or perhaps Minneapolis?
Better yet, they could impanel the original OJ jury.”
I think the constitution requires that this be in New York state, at least if he is charged with crimes that took place there.
imdw (017d51) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:33 pmRe: #27 – Bee Ho had no choice but to declare that there will be a conviction? Being a lawyer himself, isn’t he smart enough to show confidence without resorting to such a boast?
Icy Texan (648a94) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:46 pm“I would imagine it would look even worse for the president to say the United States has reasonable doubts…..
Comment by imdw”
FALSE dichotomy.
We expect our presidents to have the speaking skills to note that a fair trial is going to occur, and that the executive branch is not ensuring or guaranteeing a verdict. Of course, in this case, they are ensuring a result… this man will never go free no matter what the trial says, and therefor there is no fair trial.
Unlike George W Bush, Obama lacks basic speaking skills. Probably because he barely reads. Anyway, it really came across in this case when he clumsily made the same speech mistakes Nixon made. Those two were peas in a pod.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:47 pmimdw:
I expect a United States President, especially one who is also a lawyer, to acknowledge that criminal defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence. That’s one of the reasons I think it’s ridiculous to try war criminals in civilian courts, but now that Obama has done it, he should at least do it correctly.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/9/2009 @ 12:51 pmDon’t forget that the terrorists have lawyers from the firm Eric Holder worked for. Think there isn’t a conflict of interest for Eric?
Also, These are FEDERAL charges, imd-dummy. They could be tried anywhere in the US, even in the 9th Circus.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:04 pmCould they even be tried in Chicago? You know, for the tourists.
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:07 pm“Unlike George W Bush, Obama lacks basic speaking skills.”
So maybe Obama should have said to the defense team “Bring it on” ? I could go for that.
imdw (01dd72) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:18 pm“I expect a United States President, especially one who is also a lawyer, to acknowledge that criminal defendants are entitled to the presumption of innocence”
They’re entitled to that by the court, not by the executive. The case is “the United states vs. KSM.” Obviously “the united states” doesn’t presume that KSM is innocent.
imdw (01dd72) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:20 pmI have a question, please pardon my ignorance.
I thought a grand jury investigation was called when the prosecuting attorney essentially wants representatives of the public to agree that there is enough evidence to bring an indictment and trial; in other words, they don’t have to have a grand jury, but can just file charges and have a trial. Am I wrong? If I am right, what is the significance, if any, of putting this before a grand jury?
And from the discussions above, I assume the prosecutor and the DA would be expected to say, “We will bring a conviction”, because if they were not confident on some level, they wouldn’t bring the case to trial, but for the AG or President to say the same thing makes the process look rigged. That seems rational to me. (FWIW)
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:27 pm^un grande Troll.
Dmac (a964d5) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:27 pmAmendment V
nk (df76d4) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:32 pmNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Dustin, How about Utah? If convicted, Utah still uses firing squads made up of citizens that bring their own weapons and ammunition.
I’m just thinking of the nasty handloads those good Utah citizens could bring, like a Barnes Triple Shock X slug. Goes in the size of a baseball and comes out the size of a basketball.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:32 pmThank you, nk.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:37 pmimdw,
The presumption of innocence is part of the requirement that the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The President is the chief executive of the government so if he doesn’t respect that basic principle, who will?
Of course, because of GatesGate, we know this President will prejudge white police officers who arrest black professors. So perhaps you’re right that Obama has also prejudged foreign terrorists like KSM. (I certainly have.) If so, what is the purpose of trying them in civilian courts?
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:43 pmMD, I am late with the URL you asked for in the other thread, but here it is if you forgot about it.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=792702
Maybe a GJ ought to indict Al Gore?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:46 pm“They’re entitled to that by the court, not by the executive. The case is “the United states vs. KSM.” Obviously “the united states” doesn’t presume that KSM is innocent.
Comment by imdw”
No, they are entitled to this by the constitution, not the courts. Obama swore to uphold the constitution, and since these men are being tried in a civilian court, he must guarantee their presumption of innocence. As the executive, this means quite a bit.
Your partisanship is very unamerican. I would bet quite a bit that you would not feel the same way if Bush said “They’re entitled to a presumption of innocence by some court, not the executive branch!”
Dustin (44f8cb) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:54 pmMd
> Am I wrong?
In the case of the federal government, yes. You have to take it through a grand jury on the federal level.
On the other hand some states do what you are talking about, and some don’t.
DRJ
> The President is the chief executive of the government so if he doesn’t respect that basic principle, who will?
The courts. Seriously, do you think prosecutors go in and say, “gee, I am not sure if this guy did it.” No they say, “the defendant did the crime find him guilty” more or less. Prosecutors are supposed to have an opinion on the subject. Think of My Cousin Vinny. Needless to say most of its representation of courtroom behavior is bull, but here is one part that is accurate. The prosecutor would not have brought the case unless he thought the defendant was guilty. And when it became clear that there was reasonable doubt, he forthrightly admitted it to be the case and asked that it be dismissed. That is the ideal and yes, occasionally it does happen.
And besides we waged war on a country in part based on the belief that he and others he worked with were behind 9-11. The president better damn have an opinion on the subject.
> If so, what is the purpose of trying them in civilian courts?
Um, to score cheap political points.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/9/2009 @ 1:55 pm“Also, These are FEDERAL charges, imd-dummy. They could be tried anywhere in the US, even in the 9th Circus.”
This is what i’m referring to:
Article III, section 2:
“The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”
Like I said, it may require this be held in NY state, if he is charged with crimes that happened there.
“The presumption of innocence is part of the requirement that the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The President is the chief executive of the government so if he doesn’t respect that basic principle, who will?”
Of course the executive respects this presumption: they, and no-one else, are the ones that have to overcome it. That’s what they’re trying to do by having the trial. That’s why I said the president is unlikely to say the US has reasonable doubts — because it harms the argument that the US is trying to overcome this presumption.
“Your partisanship is very unamerican. I would bet quite a bit that you would not feel the same way if Bush said “They’re entitled to a presumption of innocence by some court, not the executive branch!””
What do you think it means for the executive to “presume” the innocence of someone?
imdw (6fff44) — 12/9/2009 @ 4:20 pmThis did not happen solely in New York since the planes took off from Boston, Newark, and Washington D.C., not to mention that of the four, one crashed in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia (the Pentagon). Where it was planned would be another factor since conspiracy is a likely charge. New York is not a required venue by any means.
Also, you’re saying that by declaring them guilty, the administration is respecting the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”? You really have no shame, do you?
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/9/2009 @ 4:42 pmThanks, PCD and AW.
MD in Philly (227f9c) — 12/9/2009 @ 4:54 pmA.W.,
I agree the prosecutor must believe the defendant is guilty. Does that mean everyone in government does, too? I don’t think so.
In general, a President doesn’t see the prosecutor’s file — let alone his complete file — nor has he talked to the investigators and witnesses or seen the evidence. Without that information, the President cannot assess guilt the way a prosecutor can.
This case may be slightly different. I assume the President has access to some information from the prosecutor’s files, although this is an assumption because I haven’t seen anything that indicates Obama did that (let alone reviewed everything). Nevertheless, I’m willing to assume Obama has seen some the evidence against the defendants so in that sense it’s understandable that Obama has prejudged their guilt. I’m also willing to assume that Obama simply assumes they are guilty based on everything we know about al Qaeda and the defendants’ statements of responsibility.
In any event, I think a President should only express confidence in government appointees such as prosecutors and that he should not express an opinion regarding a defendant’s guilt or innocence.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/9/2009 @ 5:13 pm“Also, you’re saying that by declaring them guilty, the administration is respecting the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”? You really have no shame, do you?”
I suppose it is a step towards respecting the presumption to have a trial, instead of indefinite detention.
“I agree the prosecutor must believe the defendant is guilty. Does that mean everyone in government does, too? I don’t think so.”
The prosecutor represents the United States.
“In any event, I think a President should only express confidence in government appointees such as prosecutors and that he should not express an opinion regarding a defendant’s guilt or innocence.”
Is it ok to for the president to call KSM a “9/11 mastermind” or a “terrorist”?
imdw (89ba95) — 12/9/2009 @ 6:31 pmimdw,
That problem in terminology isn’t my fault. It’s Obama’s for taking war criminals and trying to treat them as defendants entitled to American criminal law justice. In fact, I’d bet money that defense counsel will ask the Court to instruct the prosecutors that they can’t refer to the defendants as terrorists or other similar terms.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/9/2009 @ 6:33 pm“It’s Obama’s for taking war criminals and trying to treat them as defendants entitled to American criminal law justice”
Seems like “war criminal” would also be against the presumption. But I think it will still happen.
“In fact, I’d bet money that defense counsel will ask the Court to instruct the prosecutors that they can’t refer to the defendants as terrorists or other similar terms.”
I have no problem imagining they’ll ask.
imdw (cd4b7a) — 12/9/2009 @ 7:42 pmYes, you have problems, imdw, with simple basic English.
Is Barcky going to release them if they are not indicted, or acquitted at trial?
JD (204bee) — 12/9/2009 @ 8:07 pm“Is Barcky going to release them if they are not indicted, or acquitted at trial?”
It seems like enemy combatants don’t get released.
imdw (c06324) — 12/9/2009 @ 8:16 pmimd-dummy, your act is wearing very thin. If you are a lawyer, I would think that a disgruntled client could take a number of your posts here to the state bar and formulate a few complaints about your incompetance.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 12/10/2009 @ 9:51 am