« | »

Obama To Select Venue For KSM Trials

From greatly relieved Washington Post:

Obama will help select location of Khalid Sheik Mohammed terrorism trial

By Anne E. Kornblut and Carrie Johnson
Friday, February 12, 2010; A01

President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash.

We thought Mr. Obama was going to focus his purportedly brilliant mind on saving and creating jobs. Now he has decided to get involved in the minutia of selecting trial venues for Gitmo detainees?

And are we now supposed to be reassured that he will be deciding where to put the trials?

When has Mr. Obama ever made a good pick? From Joe Biden to the Indianapolis Colts, he has been laughably wrong at each and every turn.

In fact, Mr. Obama’s only consistency has been how consistently wrong he has been.

Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.

Administration officials acknowledge that Holder and Obama advisers were unable to build political support for the trial. And Holder, in an interview Thursday, left open the possibility that Mohammed’s trial could be switched to a military commission, although he said that is not his personal and legal preference.

"At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it’s done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules," Holder said. "If we do that, I’m not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding."

So we have to hold show trials to prove to the world that we are capable of dispensing justice? Why do we have to do that?

Isn’t it because people like Messrs Holder and Obama have spent the last nine years proclaiming how unjust our treatment of the detainees has been?

Administration officials said the president’s involvement has to do with securing congressional funding for the costly trial before bipartisan efforts to strip financing for the case against Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators gain greater momentum. They said it was a matter of national security, not just politics.

Senior White House officials said that the decision to try Mohammed in New York was Holder’s and that no single person in the administration was responsible for handling the politics of that choice

More of Mr. Obama’s famous ‘the buck stops here’ responsibility shouldering.

[S]everal sources questioned why the administration — especially one replete with political veterans — has not done a better job of managing the complex politics of national security.

Because they are “replete with veterans” of politics, of running campaigns — and little else.

Managing the politics of terrorism has not been assigned to one person at the White House. Many people are dealing with the issue of the trial, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon, senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.  Increasingly, Phil Schiliro, the head of White House legislative affairs, has worked on building support in Congress. The new White House counsel, [Anita Dunn’s husband] Bob Bauer, is also managing "a central piece of it," one senior White House adviser said.

Again, how reassuring. 

Word of Obama’s increased attention to one of the biggest national security issues he inherited comes as disagreement grows over the Justice Department’s use of federal courts to try accused terrorists. George W. Bush’s administration employed that strategy at least 100 times, but the public mood has shifted since the Mohammed trial announcement and a thwarted Christmas Day airline bombing plot…

Eric Holder recently claimed that the Bush administration has “used the criminal justice system to convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism-related charges.”

It looks like the media thinks they had better cut his clam by two thirds.

In his interview, Holder reiterated his belief that a civilian trial would be the best legal option for Mohammed. "Trying the case in an article III court is best for the case and best for our overall fight against al-Qaeda," he said. "The decision ultimately will be driven by: How can we maximize our chances for success and bring justice to the people responsible for 9/11, and also to survivors?"

Does anyone believe that giving these terrorists a full blown civilian trial with all the attendant privileges and rights to appeal is the way to best maximize the chances of bringing justice to those responsible for 9/11?

Whom are we trying to impress?

The Taliban or the ACLU?

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, February 12th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “Obama To Select Venue For KSM Trials”

  1. U NO HOO says:

    Obama, you can use my house. We have a spare bedroom. And a big dining/living area and a family room…I’m just saying…

  2. proreason says:

    He may “insert himself” into the debate. But he certainly won’t pick the venue.

    Because if he did, then he wouldn’t have anbody to blame.

    And whatever you think about him, it’s undeniable that his absolute first priority is to always, always have somebody to blame.

    • GL0120 says:

      As astute as always PR!
      Anyone who believes that Holder made the initial or any decision about this or anything else (the Black Panther voter intimidation case for example) is falling into TCO’s trap.
      He makes every decision, he feels that he’s far too brilliant to allow anyone else to make a decision, and then he finds someone to take the blame for it once it goes bad.
      He’s surrounded himself with fools who believe that their loyalty will be rewarded when he’s never taken care of anyone but himself.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..”He may “insert himself” into the debate…..”

      No doubt. Does anybody here remember ‘Chicken Man’ (He’s everywhere!, He’s everywhere!)?

      Just some more ‘kick-up-some-dust’ manuevering to distract everyone from what’s really taking place behind the scenes.

      My mother-in-law taught kindergarten for 31 years and I don’t ever recall her having a class as unruly or inept as the Obama administration appears to be.

    • BigOil says:

      He’s surrounded himself with fools who believe that their loyalty will be rewarded when he’s never taken care of anyone but himself.

      May be why Barry brought so many Clintonistas into his administration. They remained loyal to BJ no matter what the circumstances.

    • jobeth says:

      GL0120
      “He makes every decision, he feels that he’s far too brilliant to allow anyone else to make a decision, and then he finds someone to take the blame for it once it goes bad.”

      With every new body under the proverbial bus, I keep thinking of the “useful idiot” concept.

      How much plainer can it be? And yet his flunkies keep queuing up for their place in line in front of that bus.

      You’d think they could figure it out…but then they ARE Dem’s and lefties.

  3. GetBackJack says:

    Oh, and never interrupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.

  4. Right of the People says:

    Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department.

    Let me correct that:

    Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain (the appearance of)* an independent Justice Department.

    *(editing error)

    • eaglewingz08 says:

      A black man is ‘inserting himself in the debate’? That sounds vaguely racist and whiffs of some stereotype or another. Are we supposed to be reassured that Obama voted ‘present’ on the issue the first time around when all of this hoopla could have been avoided? Do we have to ask what else is Mr. Obama voting ‘present’ on? Should we be gratified that Mr. Obama is voting present, or would his input lead to even more leftwing policies? If we had a mainstream media, they might be asking those questions, but we have to seek succor with the blogosphere, FOX News and the Washington Times for actual news and analysis.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      “Scuze me while I whip dis out”

      Really, “inserting himself”. Only a pr–k like him would think of a thing like that to say.

  5. wirenut says:

    Transparently, Mr. Holder & Company, wish to thwart justice. Apparently, if you don’t hate your enemies, you must admire them. Three words: tree and rope. One size fits all, domestic or foreign. The real victims of 9/11/01 never had an option.

  6. Chuckk says:

    Obama talked himself into a corner on the campaign trail. It’s fun watching him try to squirm his way out.

  7. Flession says:

    Well…he did pick UNC to win the NCAA championship last year. Which they did. Can’t say I’m too disappointed in this regard, seeing as I am a UNC fan…

    Even though they’re doing horrible this season, but I digress.

    That, though, is merely a example of a blind squirrel finding a nut: it happens every once in awhile.

    Anyways, it seems as if Lord Barry has decided to intervene in the Judicial Branch of the government, which is always lovely to see. Granted, he’s not the first to do that specific act, but to attempt to give this scum a American trial is disgusting.

    It’s starting to turn into Bill Clinton’s presidency all over again, where we were attacked constantly and harshly, and his response was either nothing or a absolute disaster.

  8. bobdog says:

    If Obama genuinely wants to help, perhaps he could appear as a defense witness. Based on his terrible track record as a White Knight, it would almost certainly guarantee a death penalty.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »