It was the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland that declared “Sentence first! Verdict afterwards.” However, President Barack Obama appears to have taken a lesson our two from her majesty. Today, President Obama assured Americans that they should not be offended by trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court because he will be convicted and executed. I will be discussing this story tonight on MSNBC Countdown.
In an interview with NBC News, Obama said those offended by the trial will not find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” He then appeared to recognize the impropriety of those remarks and said that he was “not going to be in that courtroom. That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”
It is highly ironic that, in defending the noble decision to grant a fair trial to these men, Obama may have crossed the line in contributing to the prejudicial atmosphere against them. It is always a bad idea for a politician to comment on cases pre-trial. However, the greater damage may have been caused by Attorney General Eric Holder in his original press conference on the decision. The only thing missing from that transcript is a case caption to make it a formal motion for venue change. Holder specifically states that he wanted KSM tried a couple blocks from ground zero and wanted to give New Yorkers the satisfaction of trying one of the villains of 9-11.
I am not certain that such a trial will occur. If there is a case to be made for a venue change, this is it. Holder only magnified the need for such a motion.
For the full story, click here.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought this.
Curiouser and curiouser.
“Let’s give ‘em a fair trial and hang ‘em” used to be a joke. Now it’s policy.
Mr. Obama is irritatingly silly/stupid. Are you sure that he went to law school? Was Orly Taitz his classmate and she the class valedictorian?
The man knows or cares nothing about the U.S. Constitution or the rule of law.
Something is seriously wrong with Mr. Obama’s judgment. None of us like the alleged murderer who will be “on trial” but the behavior of Holder/Obama is bizarre beyond comprehension; and I voted for him….
As a non-lawyer who has just an average understanding of the trial system, this will be a travesty of justice the U.S. will never live down if there is no venue change, a real mockery.
Former Fed,
I think the comparison to Orly is way off base. This slip of the tongue is a minor issue that may warrant a change of venue, but who in this country, other than Orly Taitz and her followers, have not heard of KSM and what he is alleged to have done? I am not sure that any venue would be entirely free of prejudice. At least it should be less prejudicial than a flawed military commission at Gitmo.
rafflaw,
Of course my comment is technically way off base, but as a matter of abjectly stupid comments, Obama’s is right on par with Ms. Taitz Esq. That was no slip of the tongue.
I going to be live blogging the Professor’s appearance on Countdown.
Keith is not there. This has been happening a lot lately.
Segment #5 – not yet.
Segment #4 – not yet.
Segment #3 – OK here we go. Obama interviewed by Chuck Todd. Eric Holder testifying before a committee of Congress. The Professor is on. New set behind him, books in shelves. KSM needs a body wax. Less power but more principles, good line. That segment was too short. Now I can change the channel to watch WW2 in HD.
FF LEO–
Maybe you’d consider it a “Freudian slip” of the tongue?
FFLEO:
“The man knows or cares nothing about the U.S. Constitution or the rule of law. …Something is seriously wrong with Mr. Obama’s judgment. None of us like the alleged murderer who will be “on trial” but the behavior of Holder/Obama is bizarre beyond comprehension; and I voted for him….”
——
Agreed, but that kind of (inappropriate) talk is everywhere; a NY Congressman was on The ED Show saying he was happy that his neighbors would get to sit on the jury and convict KSM. Me thinks the fix is in on this one.
More broadly though I agree with you totally, Holder and Obama have no interest in re-installing the full spectrum of Constitutional rights to the citizenry. They aren’t even interested in correcting a clear and obvious injustice as the governments position on the Seigleman case reveals in submissions to SCOTUS, which were released last week:
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/obama-lawyers-democrat-alleging-political-prosecution-jail/
Former Fed,
I am still not buying what you are selling. Orly Taitz is still saying the Obama is a Kenyan who was not born in Hawaii. And saying that KSM will be convicted is on the same level?? I think I want some of whatever you are smoking. I believe that KSM was brought to Federal Court because the FBI was able to get enough evidence against him without using any torture induced evidence. Didn’t KSM admit to the crime on more than one occasion? If so, and if he is believable, why would it be a stretch to say that he will be convicted??
This is not all that hard to believe. We need some national divergent to distract from the economy and other smoke and mirrors that occur. RWR was credited with bring this to an art. LBJ did the same but when you complained you ended up dead, playing golf at midnight. I still think that the reason that cheap bastard gave the DOI his ranch. You don’t do much prospecting or digging on “National Treasures” such as these. Would I know more than what I have said here?
rafflaw,
Obama’s comment is more damaging than Taitz’s utter nonsense.
Yes Ms. EM’
Thanks for the link lottakatz–I am on my way there now.
Former Fed,
You haven’t said why Obama’s comment is more damaging.
LK,
The Seigleman case is tough. Something has to be said though about the former 91 state attorneys general of all political persuasions who say this is a First Amendment issue. The punishment seems bit harsh.
rafflaw,
The rights of due process, a fair trial, and innocent until proven guilty are the bedrock principles of our judicial system. Mr. Obama just snatched those principles out of KSM’s grasp.
Former Fed,
I understand the due process rights, but my claim is that his comments do not undermine that. KSM cannot go anywhere in this country and not be presumed guilty. That work was done long before Obama’s statements.
Then we have a conundrum that Mr. Obama exacerbated, especially given his high office.
rafflaw,
FFLEO pointed out that Obama is a lawyer and JT pointed out that he is a president. He doesn’t make statements without clearance from about 5 speech writers and 10 psychics and that’s after 13 focus groups with FMRIs. He meant what he said and it was meant to telegraph his intent to deny due process to KSM. The denial of due process isn’t an aberration for Obama, it is his SOP. Obama doesn’t believe in our Constitution any more than Bill -o. Hasn’t he done enough to prove that to you by now?
rafflaw,
Let’s try KSM in Texas.
Former Fed,
I like the idea of trying KSM in Texas where it is well known that defendants always get a fair trial!
Jill,
It is good to hear from you. As to your claim that Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution, I am afraid that I cannot agree with you. It is true that I was disappointed in his use of the state secrets privilege along with his hesitancy to go after the people who tortured the detainees and those that authorized it. I was also dismayed at the recent filing in the Siegleman case, but to say Obama doesn’t care about the Constitution is going way too far. Is he as progressive as I would like, no. However, he is the best we have and the best we have had for a decade. We just have to bring him over to the progressive side. What is this stuff about psychics? Did Nancy Reagan take up residence in the White House again?
I don’t see the problem with expressing confidence about the government’s case. It’s also meant to reassure the public about the stregth of their case and the effort to begin bringing some closer to the 9/11 attacks.
I have no experience in Law except having served on a couple of juries. I do, however, have several friends and relatives in that profession and the President’s comments were all they talked about. Everyone of them agreed with the general sentiment as expressed on this blog. People who voted for him are seriously beginning to question his principles, or lack there of.
raff,
I might have found that persuasive at one point. But there are simple truths in the nature of a man and his actions. Lawyers understand prejudicial language or they are not worth the parchment their diploma is printed on. It’s that simple. He’s too accomplished a speaker not to know what was coming out of his mouth either. Did someone say Freudian Slip? That’s even worse. For someone touting bringing our enemies to justice, he’s been doing a pretty half-assed job of it and saying something prejudicial like he said was unprofessional at best, reckless in any case, and a stunning display of poor judgment.
Sorry, but as time goes on, he’s not keeping his word on much of anything of substantial value but most especially as it applies to the Constitution. Need I say more than his continued use of Bush-style signing statements violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine? Writing law at His Imperial Whim is WAY outside the President’s job description as prescribed by our Founding Fathers. That alone shows how seriously I think this “scholar” takes the Constitution. Gitmo open and the Patriot Act still in place with all their attached abuses. Cheney not under arrest. The list just keeps growing. He’s proving not just a disappointment. That’d be acceptable. He’s turning out to be a fraud. Simply unacceptable. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had about enough of fraud in government and in the character of men. Failure is one thing. Empty promises and lies quite another.
rafflaw:
The statement is significant in that it is indicative of prejudice.
Was Obama live to air? I’d suggest it should have been possible for POTUS to request that footage not be used. A professional media organisation should also have people capable of recognising a mistake or suggesting it as a mistake if said and offering a “re-take”.
Didn’t something similar happen with Obama’s “slip” with disabled sports or …. ??? I forget – it was unflattering anyway.
The problem is the reactionaries to the “re-take” are just as bad, if not more aggressive with claims of manipulation!!!! Oh the outrage!
It would be helpful if everyone was a bit more grown up about some of the more substantive and significant issues of our time.
Pete,
Do over.
Really?
“Grow up” is your counter argument.
Unless you’d like a “re-do”.
Like a 5 year old.
1) He’s a LAWYER. He should know better than to make such prejudicial remarks in the press ABOUT ANY CASE much less one this important. If he DOESN’T he’s incompetent. Or he has a reason. End of story. This is not open for debate and you’d know this if you had a law degree. This is basic stuff – Lawyer 101.
2) He’s PRESIDENT. His sworn duty is to uphold the Constitution, not enable and perpetuate violations of said document. Duh. The Oath of Office is called an oath and not a suggestion for a reason. Basic Con Law. You don’t need to be scholar to understand that. Even a cursory understanding of Art. II tells one this.
3) He’s MEDIA SAVVY or surrounded with media savvy people. Look how he got elected. Their specialty is controlling information. If you don’t think it was cleared by someone as a taped interview? You are naive in the extreme. Machiavelli in the Modern Age 101.
Restoring the Constitution and the Rule of Law are the two absolute requirements for helping repair the damage of the Bush years – both domestically and in our foreign relations. Losing the moral high ground our systemic protections USED to provide kind of makes it hard to tell other nations how to behave and not have them laugh at us. No matter his motivation, any action he takes counter to that is a move that helps the bad guys.
So next time you want to make the “grow up” counter argument, perhaps you should take your own advice and not act like a simpleton when it comes to the analysis of substantive and significant issues of our time – namely the nature of politicians and the violations of the Constitution that this so-called “scholar” has not only continued from Bush but in some cases embraced.
BIL–
I was the one who questioned whether it was a “Freudian slip” of the tongue. It could also have been an inadvertent slip–or an intentional comment. All of which give me pause for thought.
My husband and I aren’t lawyers–but we were both taken aback by what President Obama said.
BIL,
In Australia we’ve seen it sensationalised on the news services already.
Obama saying “when” rather than “if” and the conflict media goes to work with; GOTCHA!!
It is not mature, it is not professional from the media. It’s TERRIBLE for POTUS if he meant to say it, I agree. I suggest he didn’t, and that he might well have been given the opportunity, with a sensible question to correct it;
“Sir, did you mean that?” That sort of on/off record stuff goes on all the time.
It’s not naive or Machiavellian; our leaders and our media should NOT be inflaming a significant issue.
Fair trial in the USA surely you jest. We have to show the world how righteous and justified we are in all aspects of war. Meep.
The truth is, we don’t know if KSM is guilty. The “evidence” given to the public is his self confession. We don’t know the circumstances of the confession. What we do know is the US tortured KSM and torture’s highest purpose is to extract confessions. Who has told us about the confession for the past 9 years? The govt. We know that the govt. has lied to the American people about matters of life and death. In my mind, we cannot assume KSM is guilty, let alone that he should be put to death, until the truth comes out in a legitimate civil court trial. Closure doesn’t come from convicting the innocent. It comes from knowing the truth.
If the govt. wants to restore my faith in the US system of justice, it will reinstitute our system of justice. That would include a full investigation of torture, going to the top, and it would include full and fair trials of our detainees.
Jill–
I believe KSM provided certain information before he was waterboarded.
Elaine,
That’s what the govt. told us. It has never been shown in any kind of independent forum when he was tortured and what information he gave. That’s one important reason we need a trial.
One could conclude that in order for KSM to receive a fair trial by a jury of his peers, the jury must first be tortured, the verdict must become a state secret, an NSA letter must be issued to all jurors and their librarians to gag them forever, lawyers must be classified as enemy combatants, court stenographers must be placed on a non-existent rendition flight, the judge must be hooded and a White House press release must read “oh hell yes, he’s going to be guilty and we are going to fry his sorry ass.”
By the way, hell has frozen over, except for the Orly Taitz part, I actually agree with FFLEO. Nothing like a show trial to bring the country together. How’s Somalia for a great venue.
I think they should throw out the against KSM case based on the fact that he was tortured. If the American system of justice cannot effectively prosecute a terrorist SUSPECT without torture, they don’t have a case and he or she should be set free. Sorry, that’s the way it works in America.
Obama knew EXACTLY what he was saying in that interview. He said it to placate those who are upset about the trial in NYC. Holder made the same assurances in his testimony. Their statements were PLANNED.
Whatever you believe about the genesis of 9/11, the effect has certainly been a decline in the rule of law, the loss of the presumption of innocence, and the curtailing of American freedoms unprecedented in American history…all this while we still do not adequately screen baggage or packages stored in the belly of aircraft, and many international students with visas have gone missing, including a number of students admitted to the country after 9/11.
What in the hell are we doing as a country? More importantly, what are we TOLERATING as a country?
Meep.
In the first sentence, it should have read “the CASE against KSM.”
I really don’t want a known terrorist set free, especially one with a death-wish, but at the same time, I am beyond frustrated that this individual was tortured (water boarded 183 times) when we likely had a solid case before the compromised profession. What kind of sense does that make?
WhollieB wrote:
“By the way, hell has frozen over, except for the Orly Taitz part, I actually agree with FFLEO.”
__________________________________
Well, Geewillikers WB!
rafflaw,
You are, by everything I have ever read from you on this blog, a very intelligent and kind person, so I cannot understand how you believe Obama cares about the Constitution when he is willing to imprison the innocent. I just do not understand this.
“Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions . . . . and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material’ . . . If true, that means that there are 75 so-called ‘Fifth Category’ detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial” — The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, yesterday, quoting The Washington Post.” (from Glenn Greenwald today)
I wonder if Manson received a fair trial. The reason I ask is, aside from the obvious psychological similarities and motives (I wonder if Manson would have been tried as a terrorist these days), there’s the whole Nixon thing.
The remarks are stupid, but stupid is not the same as evil. Even the Professor admits, the President quickly back tracked. If this was in a planned speech, you’d all have a point about he should have known better, but it wasn’t. Has nobody here ever misspoke at an important moment?
For as much as some here rally against the idea of “President as King,” they sure seem willing to give him the King’s influence over the courts.
Gyges,
I think you underestimate the influence of media as related to the medium of transmission. Does it prevent successful voir dire? Maybe not, but it certainly does not help. Back track or not? Poor law skills exhibited. Slips of similar magnitudes could have serious consequences for a client and/or an attorney. “The King’s influence” is not the issue. Improper influence is. This is improper even if he were not President but merely an attorney attached to the KSM case.
Gyges,
The president is acting like a king. He is also making king-like determinations about our detainees, saying some will get civil trials, some will get military commissions and some will be imprisoned without any trials. I would hope that would bother any citizen of the US as it isn’t Constitutional. He was clearly trying to influence the public, and this also is not acceptable for reasons many of us stated previously.
Buddha and Jill,
There’s plenty to criticize Obama about, let’s not cry tyranny over what’s probably a slip of a tongue.
Let’s cry tyranny about his actual policies. You want to talk about his continuation of clearly illegal Bush policies, I’m there. You want to complain about his back tracking on campaign promises, count me in. You want to have a discussion about his support of clearly discriminatory marriage laws, I’m sure you know I’ll be a voice.
This however requires nothing more than “that was stupid,” possibly with “it’s been awhile since he’s practiced law.” Do you honestly think that the President saying “when” and not “if” is going to change the opinion of one person in this country about this trial? Either you still have faith in the system we’ve been saying should be used these long years since 9\11 or you think it’s weak enough that a single misplaced word can turn it into a show trial. If the second is the case, then it was going to be a show trial anyway.
Your constant assertion that I “don’t get” politics just because I refuse to consider every single utterance as incredibly important is insulting, and quite frankly I’m sick of it. What I don’t think YOU get is that PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE; even the president of the United States Sometimes must have to stand naked. How many times in the past week has somebody had to go back and edit what they’ve said on this website? That’s with the opportunity to reread and consider before you hit “submit.” As much as I would like for President Obama to be perfect, he isn’t. He stutters, he misspeaks. As someone who had a severe speech problem growing up, I speak from experience when I say that sometimes your mouth just doesn’t follow your brain, no matter how slowly and carefully you talk.
I say on slips of the tongue we give people the benefit of the doubt, but on actions we hold them accountable. Sound fair?
Because who doesn’t need more Dylan in their life?
The President’s statement was the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen him do and I wonder if he “poisoned” the ability of KSM to get even the semblance of a fair trial? To see it as a harbinger of the man’s evil is a bit overdone, given that we have been living through 8 years now of politicians making the same type of stupid statement on bothe the Right and the Left.
While I was aghast at the interview with Todd, I was not surprised by it. Since 9/11 the national dialogue has made that kind of statement viable. We are living in a age, media supported, where the meme has become that we are “fighting a war” against a strategic concept. The arbiters of the parameters of national discussion have brought in bounds in service of this, concepts that are legally unthinkable. It has polluted the whole discussion of the issue and made all politicians fearful of being considered “not tough enough on terror.” I blame the President for lending his voice to this fear of reality and presume that intellectually he knows better, but is talking out of political expediency and fear. However, if you really want to use evil as an adjective in discussing this man’s politics, then I suggest that you have literally hundreds of people that rank above him on the evil scale.
Gyges,
I would count this as an accident if it wasn’t exactly on message with what everyone else in his administration is saying/doing and it is on message with Obama’s own actions. That’s why I don’t think it should be discarded as an accident. Can Obama have an accident? Certainly yes. This isn’t one of them. I’ll say this again: The denial of due process isn’t an aberration for Obama, it is his SOP. This statement was all a piece of that denial.
I think its silly to claim that the President’s statement made any difference to the already “charged” atmosphere around this guy and this case. But … now that Obama has said that he wants KSM convicted and executed, are Beck/O’Reiley/Whats-her-toes-with-the-Adams-apple now going to start defending KSM? We should be seeing some tragi-comedy out of that cesspool pretty soon…
It’s also silly to compare Obama to a mentally ill woman – he’s f*@%ing up, but he’s not crazy.
Folks here are pointing out that Obama was a lawyer – but why has no one mentioned that he was on the faculty of the University of Chicago School of Law from 1992 to 2004 … teaching Constitutional Law!?!? That’s the thing that really irks me about his positions on issues like telecom immunity and failure to prosecute the people who ordered/allowed torture. Well, unlike the kooks who think he’s a Socialist Black Panther, I knew I was voting for a centrist – I just didn’t realize that he was going to occupy the center by standing mostly on the right and “hanging two” over the line on the left.
I may just be betraying my legal ignorance, but the only thing I can think of in the change of venue issue would be that Holder is planning on defending it by saying “where else would you hold the trial? Everywhere in the US will have similar prejudices, so there’s no advantage to moving the trial elsewhere.”
Jill,
I’d have hoped by now that repeating yourself doesn’t do a single thing to convince me that you’re in the right.
What Obama said was stupid, and may require a change of venue. I’ll ask again, do you honestly think that statement changed a single person’s mind, after how KSM has been portrayed in the media for the past few years?
There are two choices here. One: the courts are still an independent branch of government, capable of serving out justice free from the influence of the other branches of Government and mob rule. Two: they’re not. Either way, this one comment has no effect on the over all result of the trial.
The very fact that we’re having this discussion versus “these people need to go to trial” is a step forward. The fact that we have to have it is a sign as how far we have to go.
Our disagreement on this is mainly one of strategy and outlook. I’d rather concentrate on policy that Obama needs to change rather than possible slip ups that he can’t. Let’s start by treating the gaping chest wound, and work our way out to putting neosporin on the scrapes.
Gyges,
We aren’t going to agree about this, you don’t understand what my point is, so I’m dropping out of this conversation. I wish you the best.
I am not a lawyer, and I am not a New Yorker, but is it possible that maybe New York is more disgusted with the damage we’ve done to ourselves than the damage any terrorist has done to us? That a jury of New Yorkers may find a way to put the War on Terror on trial, the way the OJ jury put the Los Angeles police on trial?
I’m also wondering if the jury will be screened for 9/11 truthers, as 80,000 New Yorkers recently signed a petition to reopen the investigation into 9/11, by putting it on the November ballot. They had well over the number of signatures required, but a judge squelched it by saying citizens can’t order investigations. Maybe frustrated justice will out. I remember part of the spectacle of the Libby trial was finding jurors who weren’t so prejudiced against the Bush administration that they could actually serve. That took quite a while. Wouldn’t it be something to find most or many New Yorkers doubting the official story of 9/11 and thus being dismissed?
3,000 people died on 9/11. Our illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed by some estimates more than a million, not to mention the countless number of orphaned and widowed and maimed and displaced and those who now hate us. Our Constitution is in a shambles. Good luck, jury.
I’d be interested to know your opinions on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B5bkzypa6Y
What did you expect. I wonder if Al Queda and the Teliban is not the ememy of President Obama in his mind. His ememy is the Bush Adminstration and those who toutured those “brave freedom fighters” for Islam and the oppression from the the evil Europeans and Americans. His other ememies are any of the Americans who would stand in his way in tranforming the country into a Socialist State. He would rather try and convict men like Lt Col Chessani and the Navy Seals who go in harms way to protect you. He does not propose to do this with violence, but subversion via the Fabian Socialist/Communitarian model. President Obama has no commitment to the American Nation State. He is a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States. I will defend the Republic and I expect my president to do the same! What will he do when we have the next large scale attack on the Homeland? It will come and I am sure the intrepid Rham Emanuel will figure out a way to exploit the crisis via the Helgian Dialectic. I am not really big on conspirancy theroies, such as 9/11, NWO, and other far fetched crazy ideas. However, sometimes I wonder? Ultimately it is really about money, power, ego and the arogance that goes with it. As Cicero said: “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts, absolutely”!