George Harris Kansas City Star Reader Advisory Panel 2008
Maybe the legal minds out there can straighten me out on this. What is wrong with President Obama sounding confident about the conviction of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed?.
In an interview with reporter Chuck Todd the president said, 'when' not 'if' Mohammed is convicted, and immediately the press got into a tizzy about the president creating a problem for the prosecution by publicly pronouncing the pre-decided guilt of the accused.
Of course the defense will try to use this at trial. But what if the president had sounded tentative about the guilt of the accused. Then anyone could say, "Well, if even the president of the United States is uncertain that Mohammed is guilty, how can the government prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Pre-trial publicity in the form of such pronouncements is a potential issue when the jury pool contains some people who haven't already heard about the case. These are the ideal jurors. But if there are people anywhere in the country, or the world for that matter, who haven't already heard about the arrest of the 9/11 mastermind, I don't think I'd want them on the jury anyway.
If Saddam Hussein could be given a fair trial in Iraq, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed can get a fair trial here. It's time for justice.
Delicious
Digg
twas, it's not the
lib way to answer questions that prove how they lack a soul and are dishonest. The good news is that ksm will join the others of his ilk in hell.
WoodKC - I'm not so sure about that
If Miranda is required in U.S. civilian courts (which it is), then THAT'S his defense. Nothing said to interrogators is admissible. And for Obama to say that, even if he is acquitted he won't be released from custody, well what's that all about? How could anyone be acquitted of charges and still be held in custody? None of it makes sense.
The Miranda Rule
A Miranda violation simply excludes the tainted confession and evidence resulting from it. A case can proceed IF there is untainted evidence (e.g., statements made prior to arrest; statements made to other people, such as cellmates; eyewitness testimony; photos, letters, and other evidence not obtained as a result of the non-Miranda interrogation; etc.).
Faceless - I understand all of that.
I assumed our best evidence was in the interrogations.
.
You didn't respond to the second part of my post:
And for Obama to say that, even if he is acquitted he won't be released from custody, well what's that all about? How could anyone be acquitted of charges and still be held in custody?
Twas - Why I Didn't Respond to That
Re, your comment, "And for Obama to say that, even if he is acquitted he won't be released from custody, well what's that all about? How could anyone be acquitted of charges and still be held in custody?"
I didn't respond primarily because I was out of town and hadn't heard him make that particular comment. However, since he seems prone to making dumb statements lately, I'm sure your quote is correct. For the record, this was really dumb, as was the other statement about the certainty of conviction. Although I agree with the concept of a trial in NYC, the handling has been bumbling at best. He's an attorney and he should have a staff of smart attorneys advising him -- he should know to keep his mouth shut. What he should have said is that he has confidence in the legal system and the ability of the judge and jury to reach the right decision, and that's it. As in, shut up already! LOL
you need to ad lib
when you can't do your job. Hope the real musicians were able to cover for your incompetence.
Yeah and I had to miss the Chiefs game because my son had soccer practice (coach let us know on Friday). Season tickets and I miss the best game, oh well it's all good.
you need to ad lib
Look the AG made his decision to have the trial in New York City. Nothing you or I say will change anything. No use arguing about it. Unless you want to go to Washington D C and get him to change his mind.
And by-the-way ad lib is very much a part of jazz music and I'm real good at it.
hjMizzou
I thought I forbid you from blogging on this subject until you answered my questions. And, by the way, your statement that the AG made the decision is 1) not an answer to my question, and 2) is not necessarily true (Obama had to direct the Secy. of Defense to hand the ball to AG), which means that OBAMA made the decision on New York.
Ah the classic lib
approach, you've proven yourself to be worthless hj. Now go take your meds and have a nap.
If you want a good laugh everyone, read my first post and then every hj post since that time. Great example of the modern lib.
Yahoo Chiefs beat Pittsburgh in OT
Thank You I learned to ad lib in jazz band years ago.
Yahoo Chiefs beat Pittsburgh in OT
Thank You I learned to ad lib in jazz band years ago.
add a captcha pinheads
show some professionalism
I agree KC Star Burner
Steps in problem solving:
* Problem Definition.
* Problem Analysis.
* Generating possible Solutions.
* Analyzing the Solutions.
* Selecting the best Solution(s).
* Planning the next course of action (Next Steps)
Remember that prescients, having or showing knowledge of events before they take place, or intuition is really a lifetime of experience and judgement compressed into a decision.
hj can't
answer, because he is a clueless fool. You might qualify to write for the star.
assume
Since I'm the clueless fool you assume just tell me your answer BPD one WoodyKC.
Time for justice for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
On May 3, 2006, Bill O'Reilly led off his Fox News show with the sentencing of Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried in civilian court and handed several consecutive life terms for his role in the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to O'Reilly: "The al Qaeda savage promptly thanked them by saying 'America, you lost. I won.' But like what most of this degenerate says, he is wrong. Moussaoui is condemned to rot in his cell until he does die and if the Federal penitentiary is run properly, Moussaoui will be denied any and all privileges." O'Reilly explained that "by not executing Moussaoui, the U.S.A. shows the world we are a nation of laws, a nation that puts power in the hands of regular folks."
Now fast-forward a few years -- the Democrats take control of the White House, and the new president announces he's bringing Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York to face trial before a civilian court. O'Reilly, who praised the civilian trial of Moussaoui, says of the decision to Bush White House adviser Karl Rove: "Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, that is a terrible decision. ... Because you know, I know, and everybody knows it's going to cost the city of New York between $75 and $100 million. These animals are going to get up there. They're going to lie. The lawyers are going to turn it into an anti-Bush, anti-CIA, anti-American extravaganza."
Just think about that one for a moment -- O'Reilly, who praised the civilian prosecution of Moussaoui in 2006, is complaining about the White House's civilian prosecution of Mohammed in 2009, to a person who was part of the White House that decided to prosecute Moussaoui in a civilian court.
O'Reilly wasn't the only person to pull the ol' Moussaoui/Mohammed switcheroo on Fox News. Former New York mayor and 9-11 enthusiast Rudy Giuliani appeared on Neil Cavuto's show last Friday to attack the Mohammed decision as a "terrible, terrible mistake," explaining that the terrorist "should be prosecuted in a military tribunal." Cavuto neglected to point out that in 2006, Giuliani said of the Moussaoui trial: "It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law."
Indeed, confusion abounded among conservatives everywhere. Morning Joe namesake Joe Scarborough declared it "unprecedented" to try a terrorism suspect in the U.S. judicial system. To his credit, Scarborough later corrected this false assertion.
No one expects conservatives to support President Obama, particularly on issues of national security. But is a little consistency too much to ask? Well, maybe consistency is too much -- how about something less than outright hypocrisy?
Politically Motivated and Obvious
Having a show trial for this scum in NY is simply another way this President is attempting to embarras this country. Shame on him. He does not give a damn about the consequences, certain and potential to America. If there is a terrorist attack on New York during this folly the loss of any life will be directly on his head.
He is gutless allowing the AG to say it was his decsion alone to try these people in civlian courts. The AG does not order, and cannot order the Secretary of Defense around. This was Obama's decision and he should own up to it.
How can this be a "fair trial" when Obama has proclaimed to all the world he will be found guilty and sentenced to death? How can it be a fair tril if Holder has said if he is found innocent he will still be be held captive?
What if Miranda is put into the defense strategy? Does this mean all future captives will have do be Mirandized? What if he is acquitted due to Miranda? What if he is convicted in spite of Miranda? Does this mean Miranda has no longer any status?
This callous attempt to embarass our country and our conduct of war on terror will not be forgotten. Shame on you Obama, shame.
User login
Recent popular content
Kansas City Star
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Springfield News-Leader
Wichita Eagle
Emporia Gazette
Des Moines Register
Springfield (Ill.) State Journal-Register
Oklahoma City Oklahoman