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 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.
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?
rafflaw,
Let’s try KSM in Texas.
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?
Then we have a conundrum that Mr. Obama exacerbated, especially given his high office.
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.
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.
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.
Former Fed,
You haven’t said why Obama’s comment is more damaging.
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.
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?
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??
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/
FF LEO–
Maybe you’d consider it a “Freudian 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.
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.
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.
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.
“Let’s give ’em a fair trial and hang ’em” used to be a joke. Now it’s policy.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought this.
Curiouser and curiouser.