Now that this is a civilian trial, I believe the "suspect" is innocent until proven guilty.

Declaring he will be executed before the trial even starts, the terrorists will be emboldened as they will surely say the trial was rigged.

I'm not sure who is more sophomoric, Holder or Obama.....

You forgot to add that " the sky is falling" Chicken little..all above hogwash. We have a constitution to live by...Bush is gone.

Mikeinpa

and no where in the constitution does it say American Rights apply to combatants captured during war

They didnt in ww2 when military tribunals were used to TRY illegal combatants by FDR

obama and his staff have already said too much and here are already grounds for a mis-tial. Kind of like "the police were stupid."

Starks - Chill. You're acting all crazy.

Why is MSNBC so worried about what Obama thinks about everything? It seems like all they run is stories about Obama.

There is plenty of news out there that has nothing to do with their hero Obama.

I am not sure that is possible. THE ONLY REASON O' bammy is doing this is to further his distructive agenda. Bring down Bush, bring down Chaney, bring down the CIA, bring down the FBI and bring down millatary personel. He knows one of his ACORN lawyers will find a technicality and that will allow for a total circus, which he and his minions will blame Bush. When all you have is incresed unemployment, overseas goof ups, helping unions, banks, and Chicago you better have an exit statagy, his is blame someone. OH YEA, I want to give a little shout out to my round ball buddies, see ya in the morning, after I drop off the kids, do a little work out and blow through a half pack of smokes. To those at the White House, see ya a little after lunch, that is when I start the day.

I think taking the high road is always better. Nothing to lose try him if he found not guilty and executed some one in New York will kill him. Its a win either way.

WE tried the WTC bombers the first time in '94.....The were terrorists? Tried in a NYC court? History and precedent... How about Mcveigh..the terroist from Okie..?

That will take the next 25 years to do, if his found guilty and is given the death penalty in the US, he'll get all the appeals he wants to grand stand and spill his puke. Who do you have to thank Obama, he has all ready tainted the jury pool with his statement. If I was a lawyer that would be the first thing I would point to, I would say cannot get a fair trial. I can't see any good coming out of this given Obama track record to date just another mess someone else will have to clean up and us the taxpayer will have to pay for.

This article is kinda misleading. Think the terrorist should rot in prison for the rest of his life eating bacon and being pelted with paper airplanes while watching continuous jerry springer episodes as women without burka's discuss women's rights in his presence (with the soles of thier feet are exposed and pointed at him). That is cruel and unusual though isn't it?

FBI Agents Allege Abuse of Detainees at Guantanamo Bay

By Dan Eggen and R. Jeffrey Smith

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, December 21, 2004; Page A01

I move that all charges against my client Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be dropped based on overwhelming evidence he was abused /"torture" He made his plea of guilt only after the abuse and "torture" he has suffered terribly at the hands of the US military! If Denied He has suffered mentally from this abuse to the point of not realizing or understanding what is happening to him We plead insanity at this time.

ETC. ETC. ETC.

Mike Mcveigh was an american committing a crime on american soil. first WTC bombers were caught by FBI on american soil

These guys caught by military and cia on foreign soil.

They have the RIGHT to see any and all evidence against them and know who gathered it and how it was gathered.

Does search warrant laws apply? If there huts or caves were searched with out WARRANTS....it should not be admissible in court

were the given miranda? did they given an attorney in a timel manner etc etc etc

so many things that are WRONG about this....

OBAMA and HOLDER have admitted this is al About PR and IMAGE and not any real need to try them in civilian court

after ALL OBAMA ADMIN already trying suspects in military tribunals...why not these guys?

BTW

OBAMA already declared them guilty and says they will be executed....so much for a fair trial

oh oh oh WROTE: "Nothing to lose try him if he found not guilty and executed some one in New York will kill him. Its a win either way"

Yes, let's display to all the radicals on the planet how weak & stupid Americans are. How smart.

No one should have to go to prison for killing KSM simply because we have a Radical Administration & a nation full of Liberal whack-jobs

Bush and Obama aside, These individuals were already pratical convicted of the crimes commited, they had confessed, "under torture some believe" and would already be executed if not for THIS administration.

They are not American citizens and therefor are not "entitled" to the same rights that americans have. This is purely grandstanding so that other objectives are reached. To have these people tried in america only opens the possibility that america's enemies will gain knowledge that up until now have been kept confidential.

Maybe people should read the laws of our country. You will find that this is simply wrong. Its a military thing and these people should be tried by military courts.

As for Obama.... I guess you could say that by his making comments before the trail even has started, that he may have been "acting stupidly".

If he merely stated that "he expects KSM to be convicted and executed" I don't really see anything wrong with that, since as our president he knows (i assume) quite a bit about the subject. I just feel its wrong to give the guy (KSM) a trail on american soil. If we do it for him, why shouldn't every terrorist get one here?.

Are New Yorkers allowed to have guns?

What people don't seem to realize is that our court system has certain rules which could allow these people to walk free

1. None of them were ever read their Miranda Rights

2. The Jury has to be 12 people made up of their peers.......muslims? could well have to include some!

3. Obama & Pelousi have already screamed loud and clear that they were tortured and they can deny that any information they gave was given willingly and freely because our President said they were tortured and it was all over the newspapers and media!

4. The judges are already discount reams of classified information as inappropriate for use in trials.

5. If they refuse a court appointed lawyer to defend themselves they has access to all that classified information and can walk away claim they were treated improperly by any of 1-4 with that information.

And in the meantime there are American hikers in Iran and a couple documentary film makers in NK. So now what do we do with our terrorists?

another well contrived situation from obamanation.create controversy to direct attention from the devestation the current administration wreaks in areas that undermine the rights of all amreicans.watch the fallout from the recommendation regarding mammograms and their ineffectiveness.it's the opening salvo of a multi-pronged assualt on the health care industry.

attempting to villify a procedure that has saved countless lives and is widely accepted by the medical community in order to promote a misguided agenda is unamerican at best and an act of treason against americans if viewed harshly.

these are the types of actions the gutless administration employs to further their narrow minded intolerant agendas.the general direction the current administration has chosen is one that refuses to acknowledge the validity of the majority of americans who don't ascribe to the theory of government solving the day to day challenges americans are faced with.

the same government that has wrought many of the obstacles americans must now bear the brunt of.every time the government has involved itself into a situation the results are as consistent as death and taxes-predictably worse.

watch what these crooks do-don't just listen to the words that are crafted to portray their motives as being aboveboard.their primary goals are to retain and expand their power,almost always at the expense of the american citizenry.

You forgot something else, Last. Who wants to be on the jury? Anyone who does better be prepared for a fatwa with their name on it. Better not travel internationally after the trial... for the rest of your life or be prepared for some fanatic to try and track you down because you sat in judgement over Muslim martyrs.

Why have an expensive trial at all? After all, the President of the US has already tried the scumbag and pronounced BOTH the verdict and the sentence. How will the defense lawyers take advantage of Obama's statement? And we all thought that it was the VP who was a blabbermouth.

I do believe we declared war on these jokers. Called it something like "The War on Terror" of something like that. Committed a few hundred thousand soldiers to the theatre of battle in Afganistan and Iraq where we captured these prisoners of war.

Wow, you NeoSocialist left wingers are amazing. I guess you would have had the Nuremburg trial take place in civil court. Or the military tribunal for Japan's war criminals who ATE our prisoners. Yes, cannibalism! The military tribunal censored these trials so that the horrific events could remain secret otherwise the American public would have never allowed the Japanese to surrender. Read Flyboys by James Bradley to learn of the horrors of Chichi Jima and the censored trials.

They were given Miranda rights once they got to Gitmo. Picked up in Pakistan in a safe house with evidence ALL AROUND HIM----Military trial all the way. WHAT is soooo hard about that??? If you do put their peers on the jury panel, you just need ONE to have a hung jury. We have the Sheik admitting BEFORE waterboarding that he was guilty. David Pearl anyone???? This was already a done deal until the ACLU got involved. What a wonderful organization and the United States can claim them as OURS!!! They would rather protect this vermin instead of AMERICANS. They also have a knack for protecting child molesters and other creeps of our society.

Sparcboy, you are right on the money. Why would the supposedly brilliant barrister president engage in preducial pretrial publicity? Numb.

I remember the legal outrage over the "Nixon Declares Manson Guilty" newspaper headlines before the murder trial of Charles Manson.

Members of the nation's legal system are much snootier today...the terrorist's attorney will probably complain about Mr. Obama's statement creating damaging pre-trial publicity for his client.

By the way...are these terrorists paying their own legal fees or will US taxpayers be forking over millions of dollars paying for full-blown legal teams for each of these scumbags ???

bush kept them for years without trial?? are frickin kidding me? don't you remember how "America" made it certain to elect a democratic congress!! and it is this congress who has stalled the process. this democratic leadership will go down in history as being the most weak minded, inefficient, power hungry, gutless bunch ever. (afar cry from what democrats use to stand for btw) for them to make this a civilian trial only adds insult to injury.

STARKYDOO

I agree with you all the way. When these B*%#@ get the death penalty then I'll believe it, otherwise its all words coming from Obama and his cronies. All this president does is talk,talk, but still no action. This president of ours is so full of himself its unbelievable. I also feel its a bad move to have the trial at N.Y., I can see a circus coming on and muslim supporters. This whole trial should be done at a military court not a civilian court. Thes cold blooded killers should even get rights, they sure didn't careless for those victims rights. I hope someone out there has the guts to just shoot these animals down before the trial begins.

And what was it that Obama said about the police officer in Cambridge, MA. who was doing exactly what he was hired to do? "Acting stupid"? This guy in the WH has turned everything upside down to the extent that no one even knows what rightside up is anymore. Do the idiots who elected him have any buyer's remorse yet?

HereAndGone...

Great point !!! Who on God's Green Earth is going to end up serving on the jury ???

The trial will run on and on...who can give up that kind of time ??? Toss in the point you made...I don't know if the court system can find enough postal service employees and retired school teachers to staff that jury, with the underlying threat of exposure of any of their identities. Can't you just see some of the country's "wonderful" news reporters trying to break the story of revealing the jurors' identities ???

Maybe the jurors could all wear burkas...their faces would be covered and the terrorists would feel right at home.

what would WE say if PUTIN was puttin an American on "trial" and said he would be tried, convicted and then executed?

Although I AGREE with the that hopeful END, the fact that the POTUS is stating it publicly is sooooooooooooooooooooo wrong.

And that makes 3? times he prejudged openly. Not very "politically" correct.

That is something a ROOKIE would do - once. Even a CHILD learns from mistakes. To do it over and over says something else...

Hell Bush Obama and McCain could have all run on the same ticket. The slogan could have been, "Bush Obama McCain for more of the same"

Why don't you research before you speak of the cuff. Clearly this trial is multi-fold. Put the Bush administration on trial, put the CIA on trial, put the FBI on trial, put our intelligence gathering on trial. It's about Omama and Holdout. It's not a question if a civilian court can handle a trial such as this, it's about the correct process and correct court for processing such a trial as this. It has nothing to do with how many Americans lost their lives 9/11 versus Pentagon employees/service people who lost their lives. It's about a power play by Omama, the liberal neo-leftist good-for-nothing Congress/Senate and Eric Holdout. Why did Holdout waiting until now to move forward with prosecute the USS Cole attack where 17 men lost their lives.

How long will people continue to accept this current administrations lack of ethics, leadership, fiduciary responsibility and admit they elected the wrong guy for the right job who was not qualified to lead anyone, anywhere at anytime. He is however, very familiar and qualified at splitting his pants.

SAGGG hussein obama is just saying that, he knows they are going to get off free here in America, Why? Because he is a muslin, He will cry he wasn't read his rights first, so its a mistrial. Wake you you and face the truth Your a jerk, all you democRats still crying Presudent Bush, welll let me inform you, the democRATS was the ones who refused to do anything President Bush wanted to. They was at his throat every step of the way. So don't cry Republicans BS , bet your on welfare and thats why your kissing up to h. obama

Now all they have to do is to recruit Idiot Itoh to preside over the trial. That will be the icing on the Obama-Holder cake from hell. Is it 2012 yet??? Will we make it???

I would say not by the crap they spew on the message boards. Rarely to you see someone say, "I am embarrassed to say, but I voted for the ?"

President Obama tells NBC News that he expects professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be convicted and executed.

I would have thought Obama would have made KSM a member of his cabinet.

OH No !! I've been "Lou Dobbed" !!!

You people don't really believe this bull@!$%# do you! It's the Federal Reserve idiots who should be on trail for their lives for killing over three thousand Americans to create a lie to get us into war so they could sell more money to us at a higher intrest rate and rake in more profit. Wake up Americans, it may already be too late.

A lot of good points about how in a civilian trial, too much due process was not applied. It would seem easy to get him off on these points (Miranda, etc.) The flip side is if this becomes a dog and pony show kangaroo court and he is convicted, will higher courts uphold the violation of all these rights? What kind of precedent will this set for we the people? This is a lose lose for the US. He is an non-uniformed combatant. He doesnt even qualify for Geneva Convention treatment. Should be a military tribunal imho.

Is MSNBC your primary source of news? Apparently.

The Bush Admin did not intentionally hold them for years. Are you really that ignorant? Why don't you do yourself & your fellow Americans a favor and start paying attention.

TIMELINE

-For YEARS, the Looney-Tune Liberal Justice Groups stalled Military Tribunals

-FINALLY, in mid-2008, the Military Tribunals were going forward after getting thru all the Liberal nut-job red tape

-KSM plead "Guilty" and requested the Death Penalty

-Obama & his admin effectively retracted KSM's plea & canceled Military Tribunals

HOW CAN ANYONE WITH 1/2 A BRAIN NOT FIND THIS NON-SENSICAL. IT IS DISTURBING TO SAY THE LEAST

So now, we're going to move a trial to NY, which:

-Gives terrorists the platform & attention they seek
-A trial for 4+ yrs, w/motions filed, etc (at taxpayer expense)
-Will cost MILLIONS in Increased Security (at taxpayer expense)
-Security, Techniques, Intel at risk of being divulged
-Increased Terror Threats inevitable
-Victims of 9/11 Families don't want (100,000 signatures so far)
-Fate in the hands of jurors; One juror could change it all. The safety of 307 Million Americans in the hands of one potential nut.

ALL RISK - NO BENEFIT - MAKES NO SENSE

*Eric Holder testified he's "confident" KSM will be guilty & given the death penalty. Yet....... he already had a guilty plea

VERY DISTURBING RADICAL ADMINISTRATION. To the idiots who voted for Obama & wouldn't listen? Thanks. I hope you feel good when something horrific happens. Just remember: It's on YOUR hands. That's what happens when you ignore what people were saying. Covering your ears like little children -- all caught up in speeches. FKN IDIOTS

YOU ARE ON IT!!!!

How about witnesses? will they be flying in terrorist from all over the world to testify on his behalf? They are many who have never shown up on a list. I see nothing but bad with this. Wonder what the real agenda is? Think the wag the dog smoke screen conspiracy over health care makes the most since.

Try to imagine the present day wherein Breeder Sow Palin is Prez. due to Cranky McWheezy's demise credited to kids-walking-on-his-lawn induced stroke.

Obama is FAR from perfect, but I would rather have the two squirrels out on my lawn in The White House than those two douchenozzles.

This trial is going to cost close to 100 million bucks to have in a big city, as opposed to a military base just for the security alone. These figures come right from (i think it was, bear with me on this the sen from NY) Chuck Schumer earlier this afternoon speaking at the Holder Hearings. More disturbing than this is the fact that when asked if the avowed ultra liberals on Holders staff would recuse themselves from this case and be identified foe the Senator who requested the information, he waffled and gave an answer designed to be non binding as to his compliance. This is, I thought, a contempt of the congress. Who will get this political arm of the Chicago mob up on charges and out of our nations capitol?

Yes KSM will die (just like all of us). The trouble is putting on a Broadway show of a trial makes this less likely any time soon. Hell the pre-trial motions will barely be done before the President's first (and hopefully only) term is up.

Becasue the dems blocked all Bush's efforts. Read up on it and you'll see it wasn't the Bush administration who delayed bringing justice- it was the libs. Those are the facts, my friend.

Yes get this thing going, Quite Justice Clint Eastwood Is coming to the Honors Seat and Go's Blam with his 45 Mag. on the bench and at Sir Eastwood's side is Walker Texas Ranger, Call the first, That's enought Shouts Eastwood Hang them at first light at ground 0. Now get the Obama bunch in here and we will get started all the czar's and Bo's side kicks and Andy Stern and SEIU Members That beat the black pastor sinceless as he was handing Out flyers about the Bad,BAD ACORN and SEIU. This will Make a great movie And all the American's Can stand up and Clap and Cheer the way the Muslims did on the night of the 9/11 attacks at the meeting in okla. when the planes hit the twin towers on the NBC Nightly news on the TV at the front of the meeting room and all the Muslims at the meeting stood up and claped and cheered, NBC I would think still has the video.

In America, the trial courts state that you will be tried by a jury of your peers. If this is the case, where will we find 12 terrorists to sit as jurors for this trial?

This has unending appeals or mistrial written all over it.

The circus has only just begun.

Khalid is in civilian court. The president himself has suggested his guilt, and a death sentence. As his laywers, I would move for a dismissal. How can this guy get a fair trial?

Khalid should represent himself and ask about the rules of discovery. How can he represent himself without knowing the prosecution's evidence? I learned this from My Cousin Vinny.

Khalid was not read his Miranda rights. How can he be charged with something without first being made known of his rights under the "Constitution"? Move for dismissal.

I hope he doesn't go the "kill me now, I'm a martyr" route, and employs the methods above.

Un-F'ing real... every day its something new...I can't believe we have to suffer through another 3 years of this insanely stupid sh!t! Anyone who supports this administration, who helped to put it there, has gone irretreavably off the deep end

Every day Obama shows he is not suited to be President. The question is how did he get through law school? The defense will seize on this statement as poisoning the whole jury pool (or maybe that is what he wanted to do).

Then if the guy is guilty and will be executed, what is the purpose of the trial?

Randal...

That was an excellent point you made.

President Obama and Holder are telling everyone that they are doing this to show how strong we are as a nation of laws. What we are going to end up showing the world will put the circus that was the OJ Simpson trial to shame.

I remember when, not too long ago, we as a nation were lead by adults. Now, what we have running loose is a bunch of teenage amateurs with the same attitude of knowing what's best. God I miss GW.

Funny...

My comments are collapsed because I blame all the Libtardians who refused to pay attention last year prior to voting.

The collapse of those comments are indicative of 'shame', they don't want to be reminded of how STUPID they were; similar to the many Obama08 bumper stickers being peeled off... sure don't see as many as I used to in my city. OWN IT LIB-NUTS!

sparcboy

I concur. How DARE an attorney, let alone President of the United States, disregard due process of law.

I am literally speechless over our STUPID DUMB PRESIDENT.

Every day, it's something.

But why should I be surprised? He even thinks he is the legislature - demanding that they draft HIS LAWS.

I am wondering if this could be considered a high crime and misdemeanor.

I'm with Obama on this one, our Justice system is strong enough to handle this case. We don't owe a non-citizen rights in our legal system but doing so gets us out of this quazi-unconstitutional mess Bush put us in. We have a Constitution it's a terrific document, we ought to live by it's principles. Putting these heinous criminals through our Justice system - where I really have no doubt they will be found guilty, and executed... and I don't care about pre-judging, I think the facts speak enough for themselves already and I pity the defense attorney that has to argue on behalf of these dirt bag fanatics - will give us legitimacy in the eyes of the world when we put them to death for their crimes.

Bush did not hold these guys for years without authority. He held them prisioners while Democrats, ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, Association of Trial Lawyers and every other dam...n lawyer filed suits, amicus briefs etc to block tribunals of any kind, even the same type that FDR used. The possession of the Islamofascist Terrorists in Gitmo was turned into a political football by Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Biden, Pelosi, Reid and on and on. Every time Bush tried to move forward a left leaning judge blocked him. It is really great to see the great GHO bring these people to NYC for show trials demonstrating that if you blow up people in the US you get more rights and protections than if you blow up people somewhere else. Lets make the US a nice fat target. That is what the opposition means by BHO making the US a target. There is no legal precedent, domestic or in the Geneva Convention, for what Holder is doing. BHO saying this was Holder's decision is garbage. Isn't BHO the president?? or is he Activist and Chief wanting to try the CIA in abstentia?

My comments are collapsed because I blame all the Libtardians who refused to pay attention last year prior to voting.

No, I read all your comments and uncollapsed them to see what you had to say. You got collapsed not because you disagree with them and blame them for not thinking before voting but because you were insulting and offensive in how you did it. I regularly disagree with and speak against the liberals on this site, I've been railing against the health care fiasco, the auto-bailout, the massive amount of fiscal irresponsibility going on in Washington under the Democrats just about all year, and I never get collapsed. It's solely due to the utter lack of respect you project in your posts.

Dennis 1.6

that would be an oxymoron

Charles "The Hammer" Krauthammer said it best the other day:

Geneva convention rights for UNIFORMED LEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS.

No Geneva (or Constitutional) rights for NON-UNIFORMED ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS.

"Illegal" implicating that these guys were not acting on the leadership of a foreign country at war with the US. "Legal" implicating that they are acting on behalf of a country at (having declared) war with the US.

So there you have it, these guys should be tried in military tribunals to avoid the attention that these murderers desire. Not to mention all of the TAXPAYER money that will be spent on defending these guys.

OMG Obama took a position on something...amazing

JPM:

I, along with millions of Americans, have every right to be angry. The number of ignorant & brainwashed people in this country is MIND-BLOWING. Take your comment for example...

You bring up the "Constitution" in relation to terrorists? Not only is that a completely flawed argument, it's funny Obama supporters care not about the Constitution when it comes to confiscating more money from me.

What type of mental gymnastics do you have to do in order to support taking even .0001% Risk, when KSM had already plead guilty and Zero Risk?

You WANT to give terrorists a platform & attention they seek?
You WANT to risk sensitive information, intell, etc?
You WANT to spend millions in the cost of trial & security?
You WANT to increase the amount of terrorist threats?
You WANT to upset thousands of family members who oppose this?
You WANT to show the world what a circus act our courts can be?
You WANT to have this trial take years with motions & appeals?
You WANT to risk a verdict; in the hands of a potential whack?

A stronger statement to the world is moving faster thru the Military Tribunal & quickly frying their a$$e$

PLEASE EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS THAT ARE SO INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO YOU -- IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO TAKE THE COST/RISKS AS OUTLINED ABOVE

*Note: The reasons you gave in your previous comment do not count as those arguments are flawed. "Constitution": Read it again & tell me the Article that states Terrorists have the same rights as me. "Confidence in Court System": Even if we're taking .0001 risk, how is that better than .0000 ?

The way our court system works, he might die of old age first.

PS - It only takes one juror that "has a problem with the death penalty" to foil the best laid of plans.

We have not declared a war ... therefore these people cannot be tried legally by any Military Tribunal. We are not operating within our own laws people.

Once we began operating outside the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, well of course the sky is the limit, but then in time, we might be the ones on trial before a military firing squad without any legal protection.

Ralph Osbon:

Where is it on Planet Earth that you get this information?

"Who", "What", should war be declared against in order to combat terrorist organizations?

With your reasoning, I suppose anyone who was ever arrested with the "War on Drugs" effort should sue for being illegally arrested.

And while we're at it, let them sue every police department across the nation that arrested someone with the War on Drugs -- they "acted stupidly".

we might be the ones on trial before a military firing squad without any legal protection.

Ralph, Certianly with our current administration, if you say "something fishy" your bound to loose your rights to free speach (Lou Dobbs), and maybe face a firing squad too.

We have not declared a war

Yes we have. We declared a war on Terrorist Thugs wherever they are, that would include: The Wars in Iraq and Afganistan, don't you watch the biased network evening news?

Wrap Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ass in bacon and fry him in the electric chair.

What is little boy wonder up to now?

umm they actually did have tribunals Obama halted them as soon as he took office

Obama is a Fool and anyone who believes anything that this imbecile says or his policy is an even bigger Fool. Timmay!

considering the guy has been willing to plead guilty and accept the death penalty, one has to wonder what political game bama is playing. To put the CIA on trial as has been alleged in Newsweek???

I'm gonna wake up early and check the posts here on newsvine on the day ksl is executed to see what all you teabaggers are saying then. Or not saying, is more realistic. But being realistic is asking alot of you, I know.

You are all like a bunch of scared little girls.

Way to go Barak. Poison the jury pool and taint the procedings. Just more help from Obama for his radical Islamic brothers.

Saggg

The republicans have been saying it all along. They haven't had the tribunals due to your liberal budies in the ACLU clogging the damn courts trying to stop them. If they had been tried by tribunal and overturned by the Supreme court, then the cases would have been prejudiced and probably thrown out.

As to Obama, when will he learn to limit his jaw flapping. A simple "I feel the courts can handle these criminals and that justice will be served" is all he needed to say. This way he gives the terrorist community more ammunition if and when they are found guilty and executed.

ksm

After watching POTUS for the last 8 months, I am not sure that he has an "evil" agenda. I'm pretty sure he has no agenda at all. On Veterans Day he announced that none of the troop plans he had been studying for 3 months were acceptable, and now he is waiting for some other signal to guide him on this decision.

His comments regarding the trial of the 9/11 mastermind tell me that when he speaks off the cuff he isn't nearly as logical as when he speaks off the teleprompter. This must be all tricky stuff for a man whose first meal on Air Force One was a hamburger and fries.

I thought that Obama was a lawyer? What kind of law do they teach at Havard? Now Obama is pronouncing the terrorists as already guilty before the trial and has decided on their capital punishment. Not that I object to putting these Muslim scum terrorists to death, I do object to any action by the president that might result in their release due to pre-trial prejudice. What a unmitigated disaster this president is becoming, each day another gaff, mistake or error in judgement. Not ready for prime time aptly describes this man.

greek prince (ha!),

Were you so objectionable when Nixon stated that Charles Manson was guilty before his trail?

I did'nt think so. Typical teabagger logic.

Is there really anyone out there that isn't expecting this guy to be executed?

I thought not.

yuba2000....What an asinine comparison. The repercussions of Nixon's statement some drugged up Manson wanna be might protest. The repercussions of Obama's statement could result in another terrorist attack on US soil. It could result in a sill UN resolution that claims foreign nations cannot get a fair trial in America. It could even result in some overzealous us human rights faction questioning the integrity of our judicial system.

I just do not get this administration! Both Obama and Holder have condemned them publicly, but we are going to spend millions securing NYC during the trails, and not to mention the prosecutors' charges, court expenses etc...during a time when most of us financially hurting could use just 1% of that money!!!

Can we take our vote back? We need someone who will pay attention to us!!!

roberto suarez...you may have hit the nail on the head....more stimulus for Wall Street and NYC. The Fed will probably be kicking in a good share of $$$$ for individual office building security so the NYC real estate magnets aren't inconvenienced by the location of the trial. Good way for the Moguls to save/scam a few million over the length of the trial.

I don't think you are really going to persuade Obama to attempt a do over for the election. As a matter of fact I think the next elected administration in 2012 is going to have a hard enough time evicting him from the residence and the oval office.

Truly, I'm really sorry about that voters remorse I wish so many really didn't have to go there.

telmom,

Sorry, your teabagger logic is lost on me.

Not to mention the typo's.

in wwII, combatants caught on the battlefield not in uniform were summarily executed...

they were not afforded any rights whatsoever.

I fear this move to NYC and federal courts is going to create a huge circus... and do no good whatsoever.

i also hope if found guilty these cowardly mass murdering scumbags are sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, rather than execution and martyrdom status.

aholes should be thrown in a pigsty in chains for the rest of their miserable lives.

SAGGG--

Uh, why are the Repubs saying this now? Bush's administration held these guys for years, and didn't have military trials at all. heck, they didn't even begin the process. No, this is political grandstanding, pure and simple. What a joke. Let's get this going.

Yes he/they did. I posted about it. Obama holted proceedings in January, but prior to him the Bush admin did have some tribunals, but mainly they were blocked from proceeding by the courts in the US and congress.

The media just didn't bother reporting about any of it to keep the bias alive.

republicans talk tough as most can see.
criticizing obama fills them with glee
behind all their hype it appears to me
facing a terrorist in their pants they will pea.

100% in support of Pres. Obama's decisions. Bring them to trial here in the US. There is nothing to fear from these criminals or politicians trying to get their word in.

Peter Jacobs....I wouldn't expect the Pres to negate his own hype but, you realize it has nothing to do with fear. It has everything to do with making sure these terrorists receive the the justice they brought upon themselves by killing innocent civilians. They are not American citizens, they were not taken on American soil and they do not deserve the notoriety or the media circus that will come with Civilian courts. Their crimes were of a military operation and they should have remained in the hands of the military and their court system.

If this President and his appointees would do their job rather than play games with justice then we would all be better off claiming the high road.

What CIVIL RIGHTS do these FREAKS have. The Mad Men they are involved with CUT OFF the HEADS of inocent AMERICANS shown on tv. Republican or Democrat, do not waste one cent on giving these a trial. If an american had do this in their country do you think they would still be living?? I say off with the heads.

A military trial is quicker, condensed, decisive and more privatised..!

Awwww but come on don't steal their fun of most likely putting the US agencies on trial. Will they be used in testimony, for evidence no idea, if they are things will go from bad to worse.

This also just looks like a preening contest of Ooo look at Me (Obama) and Holder we are going to make this a big showcase, and do what the Bush admin did not do. Let's make this a HUGE spectacle and show TADA we are the good guys the heroes.

I, along with millions of Americans, have every right to be angry.

You do, I'm angry about a ton of it too. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not even a liberal. I may be socially liberal, but I'm very fiscally conservative. I don't support the Democrats and the far left agenda any more than I support the Republicans and the far right. I'm a moderate independent libertarian in political philsophy, so don't lump me in with the starry eyed Obama supporters, I'm not one of them when I think what he is doing is wrong. But you have been rude, insulting, and quite honestly making statements that look to be little more than emotional rants. It not only detracts from your argument, but it's not within the the bounds of the rules you agree to when you post here. Conservatives are usually big on consequences, it's one area I'm in agreement with them very generally, you've been acting in a manner inconsistent with the sites rules, lobbing personal insults and disrespectful rants. Your comments have been collapsed, and you've been given a temporary suspension as a result, these are the consequences of your actions, not your position. Deal with it and next time try to distance yourself from the emotion and make rational arguments that lack the insults, anger and frustration can be vented here with regard to the President, the Democrats, and liberals in general without resorting to that, and you won't be punished as a result.

A stronger statement to the world is moving faster thru the Military Tribunal & quickly frying their a$$e$

Look, I want these guys found guilty and executed as much as the rest of you. But we are a nation of laws. We respect the right of people to be innocent until found guilty. I realize that Constitutional protections do not specifically apply to non-citizens, or to terrorists. But we lose the moral high ground when we don't respect the ideals we claim to live by. When we've tried these pieces of dirt, and grant them a trial by the citizens of New York whom they attacked, we can conclusively say yes "they are terrorists", it will grant weight to the argument as it will have been proven in a court of law there will be no question of guilt. We will have respected the ideals we live by, the moral and legal groundwork of this country, and there will be no diplomatic question as to our justification when we execute this men for their heinous crimes. Our Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We may not give legal constitutional rights to non-citizens, but our country was founded on the idea of natural law, and that those laws apply to all mankind, citizens or not. It is part of our founding principle. We should grant that to these terrorists and give them their day in court to be tried in our very strong legal system precisely because we are in fact better than them. We respect the natural rights of people, even when they have not respected the natural rights of our own people. We will seek justice for their crimes, and we will find it.

We were able to have a civilian crimial trial for Timothy McVeigh, a traitor to his country and while a citizen a terrorist nonetheless. We tried and executed him as we should have. Nothing less will happen to these human scum, and when it does we will have fulfilled our obligation to our founding principles and found justice in the end.

Interrogation practices will probably not even come up dury the trial, if it occurs. All the evidence that was gleaned during this time will be dis-allowed in pre-trial motions because either it will be ruled that the evidence was obtained through illeagal techniques or because they were not read their Miranda rights.

Just an Observation-826313

EXACTLY!

So the guys confession becomes in-submittable as well.

And then when the Defense Attorney cries fowl because of a failure from the State to provide a "Timely & Speedy" trial, the judge could very well throw the case out. In which the dude walks free.

This is a set up people.

Did Congress decide on the venue of this trial? Because the way I read The US Constitution, Article III, section 2, paragraph three, it's up to Congress where to decide the trial is to be held. Not the President.

This is a civilian case. The Towers were civilian properties, the jets were civilian, the crime happened in New York, on US soil, they should be tried on US soil in a civilian setting. They will be treated as harshly as they treated their victims. No media circus in a closed court.

"If this President and his appointees would do their job rather than play games with justice then we would all be better off claiming the high road."

Obama is fixing the illegal game playing with justice that was done by bush. How many remember how bush went after US attorneys that didn't swing to his tune (didn't a handful get fired)?

Peter Jacobs...You strayed off topic. This is not a Bush error.

Those who flew the planes into various targets were not attacking civilians. They were attacking the United States of America. They represent no country but are Military in commitment and promise. They should have stayed off American soil and been hung by the court the have already confessed to. They have no right to our court system. They have no rights in America at all.

Oh but it IS a bush error and NO I am not straying off topic.

bush was wrong in having manipulated military justice in order to get these criminals tried in Cuba. There is no reason not to place them in a civilian court to answer for the civilian lives they took. This route will definitely be swifter then trying to redesign a military judicial system, an archaic one at that which would have much greater impact on World treaties such as the Geneva Convention, in order to try a handful of criminals.

You can not try them as military soldiers in a military court and then take away their convention rights by calling them enemy combatants.

"They have no rights in America at all."

I can understand your emotions but emotions don't stand in court, facts do. They do have rights as per the court system that will judge them, including military court. Once any court system tries to take away their lives they certainly have a right to defend themselves (agreed, something they did not afford 3000 plus people). What Obama is doing will certainly bring America back onto the moral ground on which she was built.

This is a civilian case. The Towers were civilian properties, the jets were civilian, the crime happened in New York,

You seem to have forgotten about 8 sided building in Washington DC. The one with a hole in it and an airplane sticking out.

You are refering to the Pentagon. I failed to see the airplane's tail sticking out. Still, my point is that a military court is not the proper venue for persons that you label enemy combatants while saying they have no rights as soldiers all the while breaking with Geneva Conventions. In short, you can not have your cake and eat it as well. It is either one or the other. Rewriting laws to suit a one sided argument is also not a solution.

Peter Jacobs...Your use of "Moral High Ground" is laughable. Morality and any meaning attached is a unique design and implementation based on individual community and their common value structure. It is a joke to think that offering American Civil Courts and Justice to those who hold our morality and values in contempt is an absolute joke of absurd proportion.

Why? It is not like he is a lawyer...wait.

If KSM is found guilty, this declaration will make KSM a martyr.

If KSM is found innocent, the O-ministration will blame it on Bush and KSM will be freed to plan his future.

Obama making that comment will probable lead the defense to say" jurors were influenced by the Presidents remark"" and this terrosist will be set free.

He wasn't paying attention to the teleprompter, that's why he said it.

grandma, I agree with ya..however what this terrorist has done, is despicable..way beyond norms or practical thought..I too, am very angry with him..for anyone to harm or kill anyone, whether it's in the military or on the street for psychotic reasons..is a very ugly creature that deserves the worst that can be Justified against them..it's nasty, sometimes it is; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..life does not belong to the Crazies...

sort of like "mission accomplished?"

Christ, you guys. Are you really that desperate for things to malign the President for? He's not thwarting justice anymore than everyone else in the entire world making public statements that these guys are guilty. Why? He's not the judge. He's not the jury.

What would they say if he said i believe he is not guilty. Any one who says that is a lier. If they bring them to trial people assume they are guilty of something. Just go set through jury duty.

Yea I really liked Hillary' responce right after Bush made that mistake. Remember her reply, let me help, and I quote " We all thought they had weapons of mass destruction". Now we are leaving the past, to the present we go. When some fool of a professor was arrested, Obammy said " The Cambridge police acted stupidly" or after multiple reports at Fort Hood saying the terrorist was spaeking in Aribic " Let's don't jump to any conclusions". I can find all kind of stupid remarks from past history, what scare me the most are the current ones.

Mike...or "I will not use presidential signing statments" or "unemployment will not go over 8%"

Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction and had used them. If you guys don't remember he killed thousands of people of his own people with just a few mustard gas bombs. If that is not a weapon of mass destruction what is. Just because they didn't find nuclear weapons does that mean he didn't have WMD's. Its all in how you define something. Like Bill didn't have sex with that girl. I guess oral sex isn't sex. To some of us it is.

Its all in the definition. Once again its a mountain from a mole hill. He said -she said. The press sure does like to stir the pot

Yeah, Mike, blame it on Bush. You people never cease to amaze me.

Why doesn't your guy admit Ft Hood was a terrorist? Will it make him look bad?

This is going to cost taxpayers millions, he should be taken out and shot. The Chinese have the right idea. They know how to handle his kind. They also seem to have a good handle on how to handle liberals, too.

jeeesus...............I agree with you. I wasn't saying that I think he deserves to be free.................FAR from it ..he is a terrorist and what he did is despicable I couldn't even phantom the idea of him being set free to do this to our country again.

But that is what will probable happen since the courts now won't be able to find a partial jury (like they could in the first place) but with his comment our almighty put foot in thy mouth that's what the defense will say. Maybe that is what he wanted and why he said it. Who knows. Just my opinion.

if bullsh!t were fertilizer obama could put dow chemical out of the fertilizer buisness.

Bingo!  That's exactly why Obama said what he did!  Most of the detainees will go free ( the Muslim world will agree to a few lost lives ), and Obama gets to be the best friend.

By the way, the body count agreement between the Muslim world and Obama will become another "leaning" technique against Isreal.  "If the US helps us crush Isreal, we'll only bomb 1/2 of your major metropolitan areas."

These enemies should be killed, because in a war, that's what the chr--- you f'n do. You kill the enemy, and you break his stuff, unless he has any good stuff you want to keep. Then if you can get it home, it's yours.

We won WWII. Because the above applied, rule # 1 and rule #2 was: See Rule#1.

Now in this politically correct pu$$y BS version of Wii warfare, the object is: get several thousand of your dedicated, young patriotic fighting men and women killed, ten times more injured for life, and then shower the enemy with gifts, hotels, schools shopping malls, etc.

I really miss the good old days.

Why are you surprised? He blamed the Cambridge police before knowing the facts. Now he states that this terrorist will be executed, and is now back peddaling. What do you expect from a man with no balls.

As a lawyer, the Defendant is presumed innocent. As a common sense human being, the Defendant will be found "incredibly guilty", to quote "The Producers", and he will be executed. There is literally zero chance of this not happening, though feel free to waste time worrying about a speculative future that hasn't happened. You think ANY judge or jury would dismiss this case or come back with a not guilty verdict?

The main reason for this trial, is that it shows the terrorists that America's back, baby! They had thought they defeated us after 9/11, with illegal wire taps, suspension of Habeus Corpus, ruling by fear, etc.

Now, when these evil people are convicted in court by our legal system, we are showing the world that the terrorists have lost, with their efforts to destroy our country.

A few legal issues to respond to: First, failure to read Miranda is not the basis for a dismissal. It just means that any statements made are not admissible, unless they fall under one of several hearsay exceptions. A lot of people think they should go free because the police never read them their rights. Wrong-o.

Also, a jury of ones' peers does not mean they all need to be Muslim, just as a Jewish Defendant doesn't need all Jews, or a black Defendant all blacks. Through the Voir Dire process, both sides talk to potential jurors, in order to find the most impartial jurors they can.

A lawyer at that... making statements that presume guilt before trial. What an idiot. You'd think they teach lawyers stuff like that in law school, right Clotho?

so skiddy you are telling me that this guy is a terrorist just because he is muslim and he said something in arabic. That sounds pretty biased to me. How is he any different then say the columbine school shooter. He was never labled a terrorist.

"Shows that America is back, Baby!"

I think I just threw up in the back of my throat.

Weak kneed or on bended knee, demonstrating appeasement at every turn. A dream come true for Neo Socialists, like above Clotho comment.

The 9/11 Commission stated the cause of the 9/11 was our enemies were at war with us and we did not recognize their attacks as anything but criminal activity. Send in Barney Fife to arrest them!

Malan - Obama IS an attorney.

Clotho,

"The main reason for this trial, is that it shows the terrorists that America's back, baby! They had thought they defeated us after 9/11, with illegal wire taps, suspension of Habeus Corpus, ruling by fear, etc."

LOL!! hahahahahahaha. Yeah, that's what terrorists do while sitting in their caves.

"Hey Mohamad. Did you hear that the US is using wiretaps to listen in to our calls to our sleeper cells in America?"

"Yes, Abdul. We've won the war. Don't forget the suspension of Habeus Corpus. That surely sealed our victory."

No Clotho, I think what the terrorists think about is how to efficiently cut the heads off of infidels. But thank you for demonstrating how you think and how really stupid and out of touch you and your ilk are.

"A lawyer at that... making statements that presume guilt before trial. What an idiot. You'd think they teach lawyers stuff like that in law school, right Clotho?"

You are the idiot, he clearly stated that speaking as a lawyer the defendant is innocent till found guilty, but as a common sense person that he believes the opposite. The defendant will be a martyr and will be executed if give a civil trial or a military tribunal. A military tribunal would potentially be faster, but a civil trial will let us all see what a nut job he is, then we can all clap harder when he dies (after months of imprisonment and public humiliation of course.) Either way we win.

Either way Jace, it's pointless and makes no sense. I don't think that making the trial more publicly grueling so we'll clap harder when he dies is a very good reason to have this trial in civilian court. I could just watch a movie if I wanted to cheer when the bad guy dies.

Clotho's idea of "show America's back baby"...........yeah, showing America's ass more like it. Why don't we just have KSM on Jerry Springer while we're at it? Give him a paternity test! Who are we showing off to, and how on earth would having a side show civilian trial show that "we're back" more than a quick military tribunal? This is retarded.

When I first heard about this decision, I didn't know what to think or which side I was on. If anything, you two have pointed out to me how there isn't really a good reason to have the NY trial.

Clotho

Because of Obama's comment this will be one of the most scrutinized trials in history. Every liberal hearted idiot with a law degree will be looking at proceedure to be sure it is exactly by the book. If they find one thing it becomes a kangaroo court verdict in the eyes of the world. He could just as easily kept his comments clear of a guilty verdict and the execution while expressing confidence in the legal system. This second mistep concerning a criminal case is proof that he doesn't learn his lesson and keeps sticking his foot in his mouth.

russellmuscle,

It's called taking the high road, or leading by example. But it's hard to do sometimes when there is so much sh!t being done and said these days. Just read most of the comments above as proof of how hard it is.

svenolafson,

Even the most "really stupid and out of touch" people reading these posts understood what Clotho was saying about how the response by the Bush/Cheney regime to the 911 attacks had a negative effect on the American way of life. That was their goal and they achieved that to a certain degree..

With that said, it's no wonder that all your other comments that I have read here have been "really stupid and out of touch".

archangel,

So when Nixon proclaimed that Charles Manson was guilty, that was different? Oh, of course it was, he was a white republican.

Hey Karen,

I'll work on my sarcasm... hence the "...wait". (i.e. ooooh yeah, he IS an attorney)

If KSM has a 1% chance of walking free, it is too great a risk.

They should let KSM rot quietly in Gitmo unil he dies. They bury his head in a sack made of pig skin then feed the rest of him to pigs. The KSM pigs should be fed to other pigs.

Wow, you guys are really scared. If you don't watch it the boogyman will get you.

Really, the courts aleady said what Bush was doing was illegal, and he did NOTHING to move this forward leagally. Its a little late for you to sit around hand wringing about how ill prepared our country is to handle this. For godssake, grow a pair.

Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. "I'm not going to be in that courtroom," he said. "That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury."

Asked what might happen if the suspects are acquitted, Holder replied: "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won. I don't expect that we will have a contrary result."

So Obama says he's not pre-judging the outcome and Holder says they will definitely win these cases.

Way to contradict yourself Obama administration.

Do you suppose this administration will negate that little detail of "double jeopardy" if they fail in their prosecution. After all what is a little thing like the rule of law.

Imagine yourself a soldier on a battlefield. You come across some potential criminals (or are they enemy combatants) shooting at you with a Kalashnikov rifle....

Choice 1 - Treat them like they are criminals and try to arrest them. Make certain we Mirandize them. Question them as allowed under the laws of Elkhart, Indiana (seems like the only place I ever hear about in the US anymore.) Place them in handcuffs and remove them to the local constable. Prepare for court as the arresting officer.

Choice 2 - Treat them like enemy combatants. Capture them alive (or not). Question them as prisoners of war within the rules of the Geneva Convention or Rules of Engagement (ROE) for the theatre of battle. Interrogate them to extract information necessary to protect soldiers or civilians. Send them to Gitmo.

You see the conundrum Mr. Obama and his merry band of NeoSoc's have placed upon our soldiers? They have to guess which way the administration will go - civilian court or military tribunal. And each case is completely different.

Our CIC (Apologist) should consult a JAG officer to inform him of the differences between the two legal systems.

grandma

Obama making that comment will probable lead the defense to say" jurors were influenced by the Presidents remark"" and this terrosist will be set free.

Now there is a smart Granny!

No Lawyer/ President would ever say such a thing unless it was a tactical move. Obama knows that to say such a thing compromises the Prosecution's case. But yet he said it anyway.. WHY?

That is about a good as question as mine which is how are you going to get an unbiased jury in NY? I watched the committee hearings this morning and with all the hula nobody asked the simple questions we asked.

We need to air drop them @ 10K feet back where we found them without parachutes. Their Country can claim their remains.....or NOT.

On one hand, I wouldn't particularly mind if these "people" were hung naked and screaming in front of all the families of those lost on 9/11.

On the other hand...

I'm an American. It pains me to say this where these animals are concerned, but everyone tried in our courts is innocent until proven guilty. It's this very principle--and cherished principles like it--which terrorists seek to destroy.

It doesn't make me feel particularly good when I hear the President convict a man before his trial even started. It makes me feel worse to hear the Attorney General make similar remarks.

Lest anyone mistake my remarks as sympathy for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his ilk, let me assure you that I'd like nothing more than seeing these animals die a horrible, painful and lengthy death.

But I'm not their judge, jury or executioner. I don't get to exercise my twisted version of justice based on vengeance. And that's by design.

If we're truly afraid of trying these men and having a verdict of not guilty, then let's give in to our emotions and kill them all now. It'll make us feel better...at least for a little while.

We need to have faith in our judicial system, not just to get a guilty verdict when our emotions tell us we "need" one, but to render the absolute correct and just verdict warranted by the evidence.

If we can't do that...well, then ladies and gentlemen, I suggest we throw in the towel on American jurisprudence. We don't deserve it.

I don't really give a damn about the terrorist...and the "presumption" is only for the jury (ok, and maybe the judge, in some respects)...we are quite free to presume all the guilt we wish. HOWEVER, when someone uses the office of the presidency to predict a death sentence (presumably preceded by a "guilty" verdict), it can easily open the possiblity of future appeals because of the difficulty associated with empanelling a jury not prejudiced by such statements. How could Nixon have received a fair trial...hence, the pardon. Seems like a fundamental mistake by the prez. Goes to show...those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. He is DEFINITELY a teacher....not a doer.

these are not civilians. therefore your entire post is invalid. no trial in court, should be military tribunal

Mark, just another dumb comment from the White House. This is the one for today.

the primary reason the head is equipped with 4 intake portals is the difficulty in entering intelligent data into the brain.nature understood the severity of improving the mind and came up with a 4 to 1 ratio.

unfortunately people who refuse to shut the outgoing portal long enough to digest and critique information evolve into what is commonly termed a "gasbag".......the current president clearly has mastered the gasbag syndrome and shows little if any sign or colliding with remission of any sort.time to "recalibrate" i suppose......

Many of you have pointed out the reason why the decision to take enemies and try them like citizens is destructive to the criminal justice system, and to national security. These enemies should never see American soil, they should have military justice meeted out, and that be the end of it. Liberals will spend enough money to bail out all 50 states by the time they finish with this hogwash, and we will pay for it. If those still blinded by Obama aren't pissed off yet, think about that in terms of how many lifetimes you would have to work, and pay 100% tax to pay for this question and answer session. If you aren't throwing up yet, think of what your kids lives have already been reduced to- slaving to pay for the crimes and insanity of the congress this year alone, and they aren't done yet.

Under normal circumstances you'd be right. But this is construed as an act of war and terrorism (by a radical Islam Fascist). Civilian court is no place for this to take place. Like war crimes, a military tribunal should have been held. But the Dems want to put this on stage for the world to see as a political decision, one they will regret they ever madeHolder and Obama just made the biggest bluder of their adminsitration to date, and there have been many. Now, O has played right into the hands of the enemy, putting our CIA, FBI, Military, Bush, Cheney on trial, instead of the perpetrator, while weakening the USA's defense in the process. They have turned this into a media circus. Shame on both of them. This is a president? He sucks big time.

This is the problem I had with what Obama said. He was asked do you understand why the people in NYC might have a problem with him being tried in NY. Instead of acknowledging or understanding why they have a problem with it he said well they will be happy when he is found guilty. What kind of answer is that?

Kelly-825641 Instead of acknowledging or understanding why they have a problem with it he said well they will be happy when he is found guilty. What kind of answer is that?

Kelly. It's what we've been getting from these people from the beginning: "You're just the ignorant American public. We know what's best for you (ObamaCare, Cap and Tax, N.Y. terrorists in N.Y. civilian court, etc.) so shut-up and accept it."

All Obama knows is what Obama wants and he doesn't give a damn about anything else.

He said that then they would be indefinitely detained as illegal combatants. And as Sen. Grassley pointed out that is where you are now. Duh!! The most interesting question came from Sen. Graham. He asked Holder what would he do now if Bin Landan was captured. Would he be given same rights as KSM? Holder could not answer. He said I guess it depends.

He'll invite him over for a beer at da House and apologize and may even curtsy.

What will they do? I hope quit because if this guy or ANY of them are acquitted, then their careers are over. In fact, if they are acquitted and something bad happens while O is still in office, I wonder if that would be an impeachable offense.....

I don't think anyone here thinks KSM is not-guilty. 99% of America, if not the world, has pre-judged the guy.

Johnnie Cochran would have been champing at the bit for this case... "if the turban doesn't fit, you must acquit".

Or, did what Omama say is by design? After all, he does have the power to effect change by simply SPEAKING! Wonder what he would say, or avoid saying if these terrorist are found not guilty???????????

They probably will give him Madoff's old penthouse, and the rest of Madoffs money that he made off with from the people he stole from. What do you think?

So Jave...your main concern now is tainting the jury? Really?!? While the premise of respect for an impartial jury and the legal process is admirable, I think some people just like to naysay anything the President says.

If President Obama had talked about the presumption of innocence, these same people would be screaming that the President thinks he'll go free *sigh*

He'll be found guilty, followed by an execution, regardless of what the President says. KSM is not, under any circumstances, going to walk out of the courthouse, into the streets of New York, a free man. I promise.

Lynn...

Maybe Mr. Obama wants KSM to escape justice so he can give the fat slob a job in the White House as the nation's new 'Diet & Grooming Czar' ?

TIDubai, so what? There are certain rules of law that if not followed, can result in acquittal. That is our legal system. And, you can bet the defense is going to try to ensure there are Muslims on that jury. Otherwise, the jury might be thrown out. You cannot keep Muslims off, any more than you can keep blacks off a jury in a trial involving a black defendant. And I bet during voir dire the defense will object to any questions they feel are "profiling" to root out those who sympathize with this terrorist jihad Osama declared in the 90's. Or some liberals who feel they are doing the better good or screwing the Bush administration by letting him go. Jury nullification exists. Look, we all know OJ was guilty but we all know he was acquitted due to jury nullification.

joe

The problem with that statement is that once the court rules them not guilty (perish the thought) it will open every legal channel to chalanging their being held indefinately as illegal combatants. If this were done in a tribunal setting, we wouldn't need to worry about it. I personally hate the thought of my taxes going to defend this scum now or later. This will probably be tied up in courts for years.

impeach oba_mao now

If Obama goes around publicly executing land owners and ineffictively centralizes food distribution causing millions to starve to death your comparisson to Mao might be more appropriate. For now, all you are doing is comparing one of history's worst monsters to a politician you disagree with. All you accomplish by comparing Obama to Mao is cheapening the attrocities committed under Mao's regime.

Yeah, and comparing him to Hitler is silly too. Yes, there are very interesting similarities between some of their ideas, speeches, even upbringing; even more neat-o are the similarities between the state of Germany at the time Hilter rose to power and his platform of change, compared to nearly the same circumstances for Obama.

However, it's a bit rediculous to make the comparision because I HOPE that nobody honestly believes Obama wants to commit mass executions. The executions of (4?) million jews is Hitler's legacy, and leaving out that little detail and making a comparison of everything else Hitler to Obama just doesn't make sense. As in "he's just like Hitler except he never killed anyone"........well doesn't that defeat the whole point of making a comparison to Hitler? Obama probably also wears socks, just like Moa did.

And like you were saying about Moa, making that comparison almost makes a joke out of what Hitler did.

Hitler Murdered six million Jews and eleven million other dissidents. But this places him third in line of modern evil dictators. First is our buddy Stalin who killed something like thirty million people in a few years.

Jesuschristalfrickenmmighty, I can not believe some of the asinine comments on the thread. Do you think you think you have a chance in hell of winning elections with the kind of bull@!$%# I just read from some of you wing nuts? I suggest you all get a little more education and maybe you won't be influenced so easily by the far right screwballs that seem to garner all of the attention these days.

For now, all you are doing is comparing one of history's worst monsters to a politician you disagree with.

Then tell me Bajee, why are "Oba Mao" t-shirts selling like crazy in China? Aren't they making the same comparison?

If Obama goes around publicly executing land owners and ineffictively centralizes food distribution causing millions to starve to death your comparisson to Mao might be more appropriate.

Bajee....with regard to your comment you actually have a point. In my state, through the last election, we strengthen the rights of land owners in the face of eminent domain.

Congress right now is holding onto the extension for hundreds of thousands of people to receive extensions on their unemployment benefits so they do not sink in January.

Seems in his exuberance to take control of our entire medical care, tour the world, trifle in the disposition of terrorists and neglect the needs of our forces in Afghanistan the Commander in chief has neglected to support a tiny, although critical, detail that could actually lead to hundreds of thousands of people starving or being driven to take what they need to survive.

The striking thing about this measure is it is expected to be passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and yet the powers that be at the top of the food chain have done nothing to throw these people a life line. Well beyond creating the circumstances that placed them in dire straights.

Sort of makes one wonder if anarchy is not the desired outcome from the top.

Bajee, just to clarify, And not as an affront to you but as a serious bash to whatever water-head you had as a history teacher, Hitler murdered 6 million Jews in Germany, 7 million poles, and was responsible for the deaths of over 50 million all told. But even he didn't destroy the fabric of America. You should check out the program, The Nostradamus effect on the History Channel, the episode about Hitler. I believe that they are running it this week. Pay careful attention, it might be a real eye-opener.

Robin, I don't really understand what you are saying, nothing you have pointed out contradicts a single thing I said. If you are honestly suggesting that my history teacher was an idiot because he didn't teach me about Nostradamus, perhaps I should point out to you that I went to a real school, not magic camp.

Bajee,

Robin is hoping you were taught about the atrocities if the Nazi movement. Having this knowledge may then allow you to compare it to today's events. She also thinks that using the history Channel's show "Nostradamus" may help enlighten you more so.

Robin actually lost credibility, (With Me), once she starting using Nostradamus as a learning tool.

P.S Robin, it was 6 million Jews total. Not just in the confines of Germany. Some say a million more. Some say a million less.

And if a nice less than busy aurport is needed, Murtha "PorkPort" Regional will work nicely! If they land the Guantanamo prisoners there, it'll provide lots of jobs for his constituents!

It will be the O.J. farce all over again. Remember, there are many, many radical, liberal, bleeding heart judges in N.Y.

YES, if the keffiyeh don't fit, you must aquit.

Let's not forget the possibility of civil lawsuits for uncomfortable accomodations, cold food, lack of a timely trial by an unbiased jury, and so on. He could make millions for his jihad without leaving his cell.

RR, you are correct, this criminal infringement on the military might indeed be part of His royal Highness's stimulus package, but you just can't turn the economy around by paying overtime to a few cops. In fact, what are these fine men in blue going to do with their spare salaries. Why buy guns of course. And we all know that the gun manufacturers are desperate to move product. Maybe these officers can become involved in the enriching but oh - so- expensive sport of practical shooting. The camaraderie, the competition, honing their skills. And it might help to finally move all of that pesky extra .45acp ammo that has languished on the shelves all year long.

But seriously folks, this president is doing the one thing that I thought he would never accomplish in 8 years - Making me wish that Sarah Palin was in the Whitehouse!

Aurora-297318--

Let's not forget the possibility of civil lawsuits for uncomfortable accomodations, cold food, lack of a timely trial by an unbiased jury, and so on. He could make millions for his jihad without leaving his cell.

The ACLU's wetdream

as he admitted/bragged on being the mastermind behind the whole thing, the person nearest him with a gun should have said, "Thanks, that's all I needed to know," and executed him on the spot.

Couldn't agree with you more. He isn't worth the bullet to kill him with!

That's how they do things in Iran and N. Korea.

Let's just join the axis of evil, whadda ya say?

War is against a nation or country... Not terrorists w/o a country...They were crimes..just like in Nuremburg..Crimes against humanity..but in this case no country is involved..if so 16 of them were from Saudi Arabia..Bush didn't invade that country..He held hands the the leader..

CAN'T have it both ways. If they do NOT fight on behalf of a country, THEN NO GENEVA Convention rules should apply!!!! The scum should have been shot right on the battle field. We need more of that. Just eliminate them because there is no hope for them, no rehabilitation. They hate us, always will.

rose....

Geneva Convention rules absolutely do not apply because there was declared war against these scumbags country of origin. Because they were caught on foreign soil, civilian laws do not apply ( until we provided such laws ).

Yes....we could have shot these creeps instantly. Better yet, try them via military tribunals...then shot them.

Instead, US taxpayers will fork over a treasure chest full of cash to hold trials in New York City. Wait 'til you see the bill for this mess.

Actually, it was W Bush who said 9/11 was not an act of war, and the people caught were not POWs, since they were not soldiers for a country. It was that rationale for not following the rules of the Geneva Convention, by calling them "enemy combatants".

It is what allowed the Bush administration to condone torture and hold people illegally for years, by insisting we were not at war, and they were not POWs.

Like it or not, we're getting the U.S. back, finally.

Clotho

Get off the Blame Bush campaign. The man was mandated by the people of this country to respond to a grusome attack against innocent civilians and did so. If you are truly that in love with these dirt bags then maybe they can split a cell with you while their in NY. The capture and subsequent interogation of these people, were an important part of intelegence gathering that probably allowed civilian authorities to develope information and foil other possible attacks before anyone else got killed.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens – and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

go usa,

What happens when?... what happens if?...

Waa waa waa. Cry baby.

What an easy, privileged life you must have had to be able to cry and whine about things that you are so afraid of that might happen in your little cry baby world. Grow up. Put on your grown up pants and write something relevant.

Wow....who thought that on the job training would actually have no learning curve what so ever. This man has actually gotten dumber while in office.

What an irony...on the day that it comes out that Moussaoui, convicted al Queda operative, touts that he received a fair trial in American courts this President in an interview is going to presume, even before a jury seated, that the trial is complete? Anyone who took his law class should go request a refund for the wasted hours from Harvard today.

Spare us the braindead comments and go back to reading your Palin book!

I think Sarah Palin has a far better handle on how to deal with terrorists than the current administration. Gotta admire a woman who can handle a gun.

coloradovet...now that stung. You are too quippie for me.

Haven't you any reasonable line of defense for the President and his off the cuff remark?

Karen you totally suck as a person and an American!!!

Karen----------------DITTO!!! He is showing his inexperience on a daily basis.

SORRY JEANNE................. At least SARAH would have told HER attorney general to have a military trial. DO any of you really think that HOLDER made this decision?? If you think so, your soooooo wrong. THIS was through Obama, purely political. NOTHING MORE.............They will bring in the prior administration secrets and allot of info NONE of us should really be privileged to, but it will all come out and the division in this country will be magnified. Dems against Reps. CANNOT escape it. It will divide us incredibly. And the NYT on a daily basis once again will be spewing their BS about the BUSH administration. IS this what we really want??? After they kept us safe and went to great lengths to protect this country because NO MATTER what you have heard in our liberal rags, that's exactly what our President is supposed to. PROTECT THE CITIZENS of the US at any lengths. AND for that, I am grateful to them. I don't care what it takes to protect us, just get it done!!

Palin might be able to handle a gun. She proved it by shooting all those wolves from a helicopter didn't she? It's just all that other pesky stuff, like interviews, media, theory of evolution, or even her own family she can't handle.

I had to figure this topic would devolve to the point that Mrs. Palin would start getting criticized.

why wouldn't it start to point towards Palin? When there is a discussion on Palin it always ends up about Obama

pppfffttt whenever there's a discussion about the weather it always ends up about Obama... and conveniently its his fault every time. Glad I dont like koolaid!

GovHater....but this discussion is about our President predicting guilt and punishment before that small detail of a trial in an American Federal Court. I think it is really sad that he can so glib about the laws of the land he was supposed to have studied and sworn to uphold in his oath of office.

For a Constitutional scholar and well go figure the purported leader of the FREE world that is just sad and disturbing.

Could have had a slam dunk off that confession in the Military tribunal but no gotta make sure the bad guy that planned the taking of thee air craft and massive loss of life got every chance possible to get our of jail free.

Honestly, he is already working toward the goal lets just water board SMK once for each innocent causality of 9/11 who were guilty of nothing more than going about their work day. I think maybe 2x for each child murdered.

Hey Out, how you doing today?

I am only afraid of giving this person the same rights as all suspects (Need to Call Him this, because he has not been found guilty yet) in the United States. This means we are giving him the same chance as OJ Simpson!

Beyond-

Good, you?

I am not sure that he will really be getting "civilian privledges", at least not like the ones you and I think of. The Feds are very good at pursuing people and I am sure they have plenty of things to prosecute beyond what we are aware of.

btw- there have been military tribunals in which people were acquitted.

I am not worried about him being acquitted......

All he has to say is that all of his confessions were made under duress, because we terrible Americans waterboarded him.

I am very worried about him being set free and so should all of you. Our liberal administration is giving this slimeball all the rights that we have. How is that right? Will he get government healthcare too? How about social security benefits?

If that happens that is Bush's fault. He was waterboarded after he confessed anyway....

Any first-year law student could go in and argue anything he said was not admissible because he was not properly Mirandized. And for those who want to argue he didn't have to be because he was grabbed overseas and this is a war, then I say to you - then he should not be tried in a non-military criminal court but in a military court. You can't have it both ways - try him in a non-military court but not apply the rules. And any so-called evidence they have that came from him and the others based on what they said, well, that's what is called "fruit of the poisonous tree" and not admissible, either.

So, "out," I would not be so assured they have enough evidence. All it takes is one liberal on the jury and it is hung and that's it. Or a liberal judge who throws out evidence. How are they going to feel when after that verdict of not guilty or a ruling dismissing the case is handed down and KSM then proceeds to walk out a free man and go to the Trade Center site and takes a picture with him smiling and a big ole' thumbs up?!

It also doesn't matter whether they are executed or sit and rot in jail. Either way they are martyrs and revered for what they did. Think about Nelson Mandela. How many years was he in jail and he became a martyr. So execution means nothing. That is one thing I am angry about Bush for. The minute those tribunals were approved and in place before the election, he should have held those elections immediately to ensure they were tried in a military tribunal and executed, removing any risk that O and his liberal minions would do something like this.

Wake up, people, especially those who were around during the Clinton years. We are heading right back to that mindset, especially since these jerkoffs won't even use the words "terror" or "terrorist." Now we hear they weren't sharing information about that nut-job at Ft. Hood (remember the wall that Jamie Gorelick put up during Clinton) and political correctness made them turn a blind eye to his activities. I hate to say it, but it seems only inevitable that something big is going to happen again because these pussies in the govt. can't be strong. Political correctness and all is going to doom this country. I only hope this time it happens in Hollywood so half of those idiots are wiped out, since it's their bleeding-heart liberalism that causes all the problems. I can only imagine when it does, Obama and Holder will go into hiding and not say a word because there is nothing they can say. Their careers will be over. And I really hope Holder is the one who runs the trial if they are acquitted, so his reputation is ruined and we will never have to look at his ugly face again in govt.

AND PAY for them the whole time they are incarcerated??? Do any of you realize, THE UNITED STATES IS BROKE. Are we going to get CHINA to help us keep them?????? WE HAVE NO MONEY PPL. Bad enough criminals in this country who are sentenced to the death penalty sit there for like 20 yrs. AT tax payers expense. ENOUGH ALREADY!!

You are kidding, right?

Mike, 10.4 - Is everything going to be Bush's fault forever? No, it will be Obama's fault because with a military trial there would have been no problem as you could have in a non-military trial. And who decided to make it a non-military trial? Obama and Holder, the idiot twins who probably barely passed law school. Let me see their grades. (And before anyone brins up the Law Review issue, note that the position of head of law review is gained through an election and he was probably the result of a bunch of liberal law students who liked him and thought they needed to have the first black law review head - kind of like how he got voted in a s president of our country.)

I have an issue with this trial, actually several. Start with the supreme court making any ruling on their status at all. They are not US citizens, they were not captured or held on US soil. The court has no jurisdiction in Cuba, Africa, Europe, or Asia. Because they were enemy combatants the jurisdiction falls squarely on the military as was intended. Next, by giving these animals protections under the constitution, we now have to provide them "Adequate Counsel" and absorb the legal fees involved for the trial and whatever appeals become necessary. Third, by trying them in criminal court it opens Pandora's box of legal loopholes and technicalities. There are probably more than a few lawyers out there just drooling at the chance to rip the evidence right apart and gain fame to the likes of Johnny Cochran. Finally the only purpose removing this from a military tribunal does, is create another political media circus against the Bush administration. I guarantee that if any of these idiots walks it will be blamed on Bush and his methods regardless of the reason for acquittal might be. Gee, just when a pivotal election is coming up to next year. If they're found guilty the democrats grab the credit if they're acquitted then they blame Bush.... See the pattern? Either way they slam the republicans in 2010 elections with the decision.

Because this is a way for Obama to somehow get at the Bush administration so he can pay back his liberal friends who feel the way Bush had conducted the war on terror was wrong. You see, he has spent his first year enacting policies and laws to pay back the groups and friends who got him elected. He has spent this year, along with the Democratic Congress, pursuing the liberal agenda they have been wanting for years but never were able to enact due to being in the minority.

It's like a kid in a candy store. If you listen to his interview years ago as a state senator where he said he didn't feel the Warren Court went far enough to correct social and economic wrongs and disparities, you could see his liberal leanings and agenda. And he and his liberal friends have been salivating for years to be in a position where they could do what they feel the Warren Court didn't do. So obviously now that certain groups put him in this position (e.g., ACORN, unions, George Soros and his MoveOn friends), he has to pay them back. And one thing the Soros gang has wanted was to see Bush's head on a stick.

The only question I have for them is this - if we are going to make this whole fiasco about Bush and his policies on torture, etc., are we also going to discuss the Clinton (and Gore) position on rendition in the 1990's and what happened with those people? I even think Holder himself had written an opinion memo about the issue, so it amazes me even more the hypocrisy from the left and why they scream bloody murder about what Bush did. Yet, the villagers have their pitchforks and want to storm the castle, so Holder and O are going to lead the charge.

Frankly, I am getting a little sick of the President caring what the world thinks of us when it comes to protecting us. He is OUR leader, not the world leader. It seems no matter what we do, people don't like us because they are jealous. I find it amazing that we are a country who is the first to send people and aid and millions after a natural disaster; to send troops when people need help; to try to help countries with their problems such as hunger and AIDS. Yet, we are looked at as the bad guy.

Why don't these other countries with whom he is so concerned ook on some other countries as badly as they supposedly look at us? Where was the outrage over Saudi Arabia and other countries after 9/11, demanding apologies? What about when Russian invaded Georgis? (Hell, you have to admire Putin. even though I thought he was wrong. At least he basically stood up and say screw you, I don't care what you think; I did what I felt was best for MY country.) What about Cuba? No, now we have a bunch of liberal idiots who think Cuba is great, even though they don't have a pot to piss in and can do nothing but line the pockets of the Castro brothers.

Something is really wrong in this world nowadays. The only good coming out of the Obama years is that people have started to pay more attention to what their govt. is doing. And, I doubt we will see another Demo president (and definitely not a liberal) for a LONG time.

BLD other countries don't like americans because most americans are arrogant and seem to think they can do what they want when it comes to international affairs.

But Americans have the military might to back up such ventures where as other countries are left on the sidelines crying about being left out of the game.

BLD - I don't think we are arrogant; how are we arrogant? We don't feel we can do what we want when it comes to international affairs. Funny how these same people don't mind taking our money or other help.

So I have a solution. We do not help anywhere else. When he wants to send in our troops someday to help in Darfur (which I am sure he will, based on what he wrote on his website during the campaign - that's one of his pet projects), forget it. When human rights groups scream about how people are treated by the Taliban, we don't send in people - can't interfere. Helping free Tibet, another pet liberal cause? Sorry - screw you Tibet. We can't get involved. Any country who needs money or aid can go to any of these other countries who you feel find us so "arrogant."

What do you suggest? We sit by and wait for the countries to say please help us? Based on what you suggest - that we "butt out" - all or most of Europe would be speaking German.

BLD

The world does see Americans as arrogant. The reason why is because we get to do things here and expect the same where ever we go. I agree that we should turn our backs on some of these situations just like we've always done until our interests are threatened. Churchill begged Roosevelt from 1938 to get into WWII. If Japan had not attacked he probably could have held out until Britain was about to fall before we became involved. Churchill saw what would happen and new they couldn't do much about it without our help. Roosevelt saw it too but was hamstrung by congress and wouldn't push the matter until Japan attacked us. The aid we were sending prior to that was as far as he dare go. We have an obligation to intervene in some instances, but when we do it should be with the full might we can bring to bare and to it's completion without hesitation or we should not become involved at all.

Members of Congress have it in their power to put an end to this lunacy right now. If they don't, they are as complicit in Mohammed's civilian trial as the president. Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution give Congress the power to establish the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to create exceptions to that jurisdiction.

Congress could pass a statute limiting federal court jurisdiction to individuals not subject to trial before a military tribunal. Any legislator who votes "nay" on a such a bill will be voting to give foreign terrorists the same legal rights as U.S. citizens – and more legal rights than members of the U.S. military are entitled to.

Archangel, how do you know that "all" of the world or Europe finds us arrogant? All you ever hear about are the few the press reports. And as for intervening when necessary, I say "never"; no, we should never intervene ever again because if WE decide it is necessary, then we can be called arrogant. And I don't want us to be the country who sits there at everyone else's beck and call to help when they tell us it's the right time. "Ok, USA, you're our lap dog and we want your money and men so come on over" and we bend down and kiss there feet and thank them for their approval and send money and troops.

I don't know how old you are but I grew up when it was clear what and who was good and evil, and the world appreciated us. Cuba was not considered to be a wonderful place led by a wonderful man, which the Congressional Black Congress and Hollywood liberals seem to have decided is the case. People who took over businesses and controlled their countries like Chavez were not good. People who today call themselves Palestinians were terrorists and you would never have seen Arafat in public. Now it seems like everything is topsy-turvy.

People accuse us of "going to war for oil" and such nonsense but if that were the case, why would we be still buying it and buying it at market prices? We did not go over and take over a country to run it so we could control the oil. And the logic escapes me with this anthem. They get angry with us but they have no problem with someone like Chavez who takes over businesses, banks, and the oil business and screws up their economy. And from what I have heard, I don't think his rise to power was necessarily bloodless. Same with Castro. Yet no liberals seem to be screaming about what horrible people they are. No, they want to visit them and hang out with them and be friends.

Let's do this - the Middle East wants us out of their countries, so we remove barriers to building nuclear power plants and drilling for oil and other natural resources on our shores. We also develop other forms and become energy independent. We stop buying from them and let their countries suffer the sting of their reduced economies without our demand. We then pull out and if they want to beat and kill people under their cavemen-like beliefs under the Taliban, so be it. We will leave them alone and they will leave us alone. You don't like our lifestyle and beliefs, then leave our country. Don't blow it up - just leave. We won't come to yours trying to convert you to our western ways, you don't come to us and try to bring us back to the stone-age.

Then why the dog and pony show in New York..

Have you seen Obama do anything besides dog and pony? Beer Summit? The press ate that up. Obama is more concerned about appearance than anything substantive.

Stay tuned to this trial. Photo Ops abound for Obama.

Narcissism at its finest.

jayney,

Did you learn that big word from Beck, Limbaugh, or Hannity?

Yuba2000 - Why do people assume that anyone who is against Obama has not arrived at this conclusion on their own? Unlike many who support Obama and just repeat the talking points they get in their e-mails from Axelrod and Plouffe and whoever is in the O camp and that are posted on the Dem website, some of us do research, read, have educations, and engage in independent thought and analysis to reach a conclusion of our own.

yuba2000 - perhaps it was Webster. Some people can READ.

Just another media blast for omouthy. How he can even change his clothes once a week between screen shots is beyond me. I can just see a bunch of liberal appeals attorneys jumping all over these remarks to let the guy walk. How can you have any kind of bias trial when a white house occupant says your guilty and your going to die. Is this jury coaching. Hmm

The judge should lock him up for obstruction or better yet place a gag order on him nationwide. And the individual charged should take him to civil court for his slanderous remarks. I'm curious how the liberals could even believe the completely incompetent Bush administration didn't arrest the wrong guy and hold him illegally during the illegal war. Surely his intelligence people were clueless right.

yuba2ooo please attempt to demonstrate on intellectual capacity greater than that of a crowbar. Myself I don't believe I have seen/heard 3 hours or your three favorite personalities listed above and yet I would say that the dead air space on a radio dial is more worthy of my attention than your remarks.

Not setting him up as a Martyr, setting him free. The defense counsel can now safely argue that the President has, by his public statement, poisoned any potential jury pool, guaranteeing that their client now cannot get a “fair” trial anywhere – so must be released. Obama sure is one smart lawyer….

Brothers in religion is what this is. Obama the muslim does not want to upset his muslim family.

Barak Hussein Obama.mmm.mmm.mmm

What a joke. What a fool. what an idiot.

My buddy voted for Obama beacuse he said he was tired of the bumbling idiot in the White House. Hail the new Chief, same as the old Chief. At least with Bush we could laugh at his idiocy. with Obama we have to cringe.

The President is not an attorney involved in this case. There is nothing wrong with him giving his expert legal opinion that, when the case reaches its conclusion, the Defendant will be found guilty.

Even the prosectors are perfectly allowed to say that they are convinced of the Defendant's guilt, it happens on TV every day.

"by his public statement, poisoned any potential jury pool"

Agree 100%. Also no Miranda rights were read, so the civilian defendant was not made aware of his rights.

Based on that, Khalid should represent himself, get the right of discovery, and move for dismissal based on lack of Miranda.

He should then walk free, being found innocent of the charges against him. Hopefully he changes his plea to innocent in open court - then we'll see the sparks fly, and Obama's ratings plummet.

WHat Clotho???? He may not be the Lawyer on the case, but he hired that Lawyer!! No, He is the Executive Chief of the Government about to Try said Suspect!!!!

He said nothing of Guilt, He said Executed!! Remember it will be up to the Judge what sentence (If found Guilty) he will get (unless he decides (Which is his right) to have the Jury decide sentence).

The President did not say that. He said what the sentence of guilt would be. That is different!

If KSM is acquitted either by a not guilty verdict or on a rule of law (e.g., Miranda), I wonder if MSNBC or NBC will still be able to ignore the stupidity of this decision? Or will they still stroke the big O's ego and find a way to spin it as not his fault?

I wonder if Disney will shoot a commercial as he walks out of the courthouse - "KSM, you have just been acquitted, what are you going to do?" Will he respond "Go to Disneyland"?

Or what about the pics if this man decides to talk a walk to the World Trade Center site and stands there with a smile on his face with a thumbs-up sign?

I can only envision that if he does not get convicted as Obama and Holder are so sure will happen - especially if Holder is running the show - that will be the end of both of their careers, and the cries of impeachment will be running high.

Pres. Obama states the obvious and all the haters go wild. I hope he's right and they hang the blighter. The president made clear that he's not the trial and jury for the benefit of the wingnuts, knowing they would jump all over him.

funny, I don't feel any of that. Maybe you're just paranoid.

No, Bob. You are correct in being concerned. However, if we survived Carter and Clinton, we can survive Obama. Keep doing the right thing and voting for people who are actually proud of what this country stands for and who aren't out to remake it according to some convoluted agenda. How this little man with no experience and no skills what to speak of (other than being able to read) got elected, I will never know.

We haven't survived Bush yet..2 unending wars.. one started with Bush Lies and falsehoods...Economic disaster..Are you guys for real or living in an alternate universe?

If you are proud of the job Bush did ..you have no credibility

The press liked him better in the swimsuit competition.

"I hate to be over-the-top about anything reported in the news, but I'm really concerned about our country (and my family) with this guy in charge."

Yep, you are over-the-top. You're buying into the Cheney/ Rove fear campaign, that makes people like you think if you're not a crazy warmonger, you're making America less safe.

In truth, President Obama ("that guy" to you), is already making the country safer, by not having the world hate us. Under Bush, a lot of moderately religious people became fanatics, due to the hatred the world had for America.

We can't kill them all, but we can try to reach some understanding. It's a position of strength, not weakness.

I don't watch them or listen to them. I am afraid of Obamas choices!

I love how your position of strength has affected the terms in North Korea's situation!

18.5 - Um, do you listen to the news (other than MSNBC or NBC) and read? Countries still seem to hate us. The only ones you claim "love" us now are those who were never a threat in the first place, e.g., France. I don't see Iran or North Korea behaving any differently with Obama in charge.

BLD actually Sarkozy (the French Executive) can not stand Obama. I think there EGOS clash!?

Mcbob,

It sounds like you are taking fox news seriously. Think of it as a political National Inquierer.

Seriously. It's a right wing owned tabliod hell bent on discrediting anything Obama. Don't believe it, for your sake, your families sake, and the countries sake.

I completely agree with that. Look what the cameras did to Judge Ito and the O.J. trial.

Um, that's not going to happen. There are usually laws about press in the courtroom, and although I am not sure what NY's are, I don't think it would happen. And, even if the Judge tried to do it on the basis of an urgent reason, you would have the ACLU filing suit.

It's not just what he says. It's the fact that if he is representing himself, he is going to get access to the same documents an attorney would, which could give him information about our intell and other sensitive issues. He could then pass that to other people. Didn't you recently read about the attorney who represented the blind shiek who was convicted of passing information from him to others on the outside? That is the very reason why KSM should be nowhere near a non-military tribunal - the control over what he has access to is going to be much more lax.

Actually any intelligence related to sensitive collection means or ongoing operations can be hidden by the intelligence organs from everyone including congress, under a highly useful clause called "on-going operations".

bld,

You seem to know more about this than the attorney general of the United States of America.

In fact, the way you are going on in your posts, you seem to be one of those people who seem to know everything about everything. Unfortunatly, your type is all too common these days. Talking about sh!t you don't know nothing about.

Sorry Yuba200, 19.4, but I guess being an attorney I have a different perspective on this than others who are not. Frankly, I think anybody knows more than Holder. And I can think for myself. It makes no sense. If they know they are going to be convicted, then why not just do it in a military court? Why risk him not getting convicted and the expense to NYC? As someone said earlier in these posts, all it takes is one person to vote not guilty. And as for the problems with turning over sensitive information, it is a concern. I have read a lot about it but here is a site I found that summarizes the issue nicely:

http://politicalfriends.blogspot.com/2009/11/terrorists-in-civillain-courts-what.html

And the personal attacks really don't bother me (especially since I think your double-negative made a positive), so I imagine it won't bother you when I say that you are probably one of those who don't read and think for yourself, but only repeat what the O-lovers and MSM want you to hear and therefore, end up talking about @!$%# you know nothing about.

It's their word against his, that they did or didn't read him the miranda rights.

They can say they did.

See my above post. If Miranda is not read, "everything" is not "thrown out". Any lawyer will tell you, it just means that any statements against interest that he made after arrest are not admissible.

There is plenty of evidence, and if he really wants to confess and be martyred as he stated, he can just sign a written confession right now.

since when do you read someone their miranada rights when you capture them in war. I can see it now, fighting going on all around and you stop to read someone their miranda rights.

Clotho no evidence has been made public! So either your working with the GOvernment on this case, or your full of $#!T!

I believe that we have substantial evidence (or at least Hope We Do), but I don't Know We DO!!

and DW your right, but the US Government decided to try him in Civilian Court!?!?!?

That being said, how do we know that the US Government didn't read him his Miranda Rights???

About the Miranda warnings - they don't read people Miranda rights when they are captured in war. Also, if they had read him his rights and he asked for counsel, they couldn't use anything he said anyway because they did not provide him counsel. And, if he had waived them, he would have had to sign something. So, the fact it is "their word against his" is not a good argument. Besides, they would have to produce witnesses - the agent who allegedly read them, the interpreter, etc. Even if they risked perjury by saying they did it, if the Judge is a liberal who chooses not to believe them, he can say he doesn't believe them and find KSM was not read his rights.

BLD we don't know that counsel for not given to anybody!?

He was labeled an enemy combatant and therefore exempt from the process of civilian prosecution. The military does not issue Miranda warnings, nor does the CIA. The judge should be thankful that whoever brought him in allowed him to surrender instead of shooting him and leaving the body for the birds. America really needs to grow up.

Beyond - I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. If you are saying we don't know he wasn't given his rights, I think it is pretty obvious. And I am pretty sure that the attorney will raise it because it is his duty to do so as his attorney. If there is a viable argument such as this; if there has been a violation of his rights, then the attorney would have to raise it or possibly be in violation of his ethical duties under the law. Furthermore, failing to raise such arguments would be a great issue for appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel.

name one thing he hasen't he hasen't done well with the exception of the current topic and what facts do you have to back them up. Everything i see him doing now is everything he said he was going to do.

Close Guantanomo in 1 year

Use the Stimulus to creat over 100,000 new jobs!

DW - did you read the most recent news about how their lovely "transparency" website shows jobs being created in districts that don't even exist?! There are so many things, I just don't have time to list them all right now.

Yeah Maybe he can plea deal down to wreckless flying, get sentanced to counseling and time off for good behavior, these are our humane laws, just like this guy had his follower humanely ram a jet onto the Twin Towers.

Another blind fool.

They are war criminals - they should have a military tribunal, not a federal trial with all of the priveleges afforded a US citizen.

I hope we bring him to US soil to be convicted in our courts. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did confess he was the Mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks then he already plead guilty then guilty he is!

The sad part about this whole trial is when he is convicted, he will not suffer the same pain as the victims in the World Trade Towers as the building exploded or as someone would, when they jumped out of the windows so they wouldn't burn to death. I wish we could make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed suffer as 9/11 victims did.

Cut off his head and send it to Osama Bin Laden with a note that says "You're Next".

How's that for payback? Everyone is worried how this Devil will be treated and if he would get a fare trial. Give me a break, the bastard killed over 2000 US Citizens a morning and we are worried about fairness? I hate this. I hate being so angry to this day about 9/11. What a spit in the face we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden.

I also think we Americans should show how angry we still are when they bring him to the courts. I pray someone or a mob gets to him first.

God Bless American forever!

Angry US born American!

posts from birthers are automatically asinine and yours is no exception.

sharky, don't call my comment asinine. Just show us the certificate, instead of ridiculing when you have a big problem and your chief has spent $1.8 million at last count on his lawyers to prevent the truth from being exposed.

"birther" is a nasty term not originated by people who want to know the truth, but by those such as yourself who want to hold questioners up to ridicule rather than answer the question, which YOU CANNOT.

And, rather than being snide and nasty, comment, if you can, on the police/Gates analogy.

But I have a term for deniers such as yourself: OSTRICHES.

Sharky as Opposed to the president tampering with the jury pool....now thats SMART

more and more each day...the IDIOT that is OBAMA becomes more and more clear

t

If the GOP and McCain/Palin campaign were satisfied that Obama met the requirements to be President, why are you nutjobs still not satisfied?

Even Hilary wouldn't have stood by for Obama being nominated/elected if he wasn't legally acceptable.

the lack of wisdom/intelligence and obvious ignorance of you "birthers", would be astounding, if it wasn't so typical.

If Oba Mao has nothing to hide? Why are all his documents SEALED? Why has he spent $2 million blocking access to documents that EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT RELEASED? look at it this way. Liberals did the same thing to McCain about being born on a military base in Panama, what did he do. IMMEDIATELY Released his Birth Certificate. What does Oba Mao do? Spend $2 million blocking it.

AmLobo, you give rationalizations which were not on point.

First, the McCain campaign decided not to go there on its own...I believe it was a mistake not to demand the evidence...especially after the attack on McCain's birthplace in American military property while his father was serving in the US Navy based in the Panama Canal Zone.

If Hillary couldn't reveal/expose the fact that John Edwards had an illeg child, during the campaign, why would you think that she could bird-dog Obama's certificate?

And you choose further to use the insulting term "nutjobs" and use birthers, your left-wing term, and, as I stated above, are an utter failure at producing the evidence of birth, if an dwherever it exists.

Why are your comments simply insulting and off point?

kscolorado, And do you have any proof that President Obamawas not born in Hawaii? If memory serves me well, the burden of proof is on the accuser and you ks, are the accuser. So, where is the evidence to support your accusation?

OMG and I bet Colo still swears that Target is owned by the French, they dont spport the trumped up war so we should hate them! But go shop at Walmart... because they conveniently are major contributors the the party of "no... brains". Whaterver sheeple lmfao!

I've seen Obamas birth certificate. Saw it about a year ago. So has millions of other non-wingnuts. Uhh... try google. Or Factcheck.org. Dumba$$es.

kscolorado:

look at the posts above mine, and you'll see why I posted what I did.

I guarantee you that the GOP checked to see if Obama was a legal citizen. If he wasn't, everybody would have used it against him. McCain didn't "go there", because he didn't want to seem like an outright wackjob and he had no evidence to back it up.

Investigating someone's personal choices, is a lot different than investigating whether they are legally entitled to be President.

Edwards didn't have an "illegal" child. Having a kid with a mistress doesn't legally disqualify a person from being elected President.

It's funny that I have to explain this to you, when most intelligent people would've figured it out themselves.

Charlie: your posts contain some of the highest amount of bullsh*t on Newsvine.

I have never seen you post anything factual or provide credible sources.

You must like listening to hearsay and slander from Rush, Hannity, Beck and friends, then spouting it as fact.

No edwards had mistress while parading around his cancer stricken wife as campaign prop

If memory serves me well, the burden of proof is on the accuser

Legally speaking? Not in this case.

Lets compare it to the fact that anyone in the US, trying to get a job, has to prove their legally allowed to work in the US before being given said job. This requirement can be satisfied with a number of documents. The most popular usually being the applicant's Social Security Card and Government issued photo ID. It must be the original of both documents. You can not substitute either with "copies".

I know what your gonna say. Then why does a President have to show a birth certificate? The answer is, Because the prerequisite for this job is not only that the applicant be allowed to work in the US. But also that he/she was born in the US. This can only be done with the original Birth Certificate. Which, just as the Social security card and Photo ID, must be provided by the applicant.

With all this said, I must add,

The big questions are,

1. "Has the President satisfied this requirement of employment?"

There are many out there who say there is a sealed document that the President does not want to disclose. If there is such a document? Then yes, he must allow it to be opened. But.. this brings us to big question-

#2. Is there really a sealed document?

So, this is the irony of it. One question can't be answered without the other question being answered.

What is with out question is this,

It is the right of the employer, (The American People, whether it be one of them or all of them), to maintain a vigilance to ensure the employee did not acquire the job under false pretense. This practice occurs daily in corporate America. As long as you know you are not deceiving your company you will continue to be employed.

Please tell us what 9/11 terrorists have been tried and set free. What are their names? Where were the trials held? How come this did not make the news?

pay no attention to capricia. she lies .

Kiss this world loser. The primary reason there were so few military trials of the 9/11 terrorists over the past eight years was due to the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers challenging these tribunals in the court system. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Dept. and that includes Eric Holder whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America's enemies in lawsuits brought AGAINST the American people. During 2007 alone Covington & Burling contributed more than 3,000 hours of free top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.

Rasul v. Bush (2004);Humdan v. Rumsfeld (2006); Boumediene v. Bush (2008). All compliments of Covington & Burling...Eric Holder's law firm.