Obama : KSM Will Undergo A Moscow Show Trial Then Will be Executed

[rightwinger]

Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

WASHINGTON – From opposite ends of the globe, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

Try finding an IMPARTIAL Jury Now.

.

So what is more likely to result in KSMs finding of not guilty?

1. The fact that Obama thinks he will probably be convicted

2. The fact that George Bush tortured the guy 186 times

 

[manu1959]

Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

WASHINGTON – From opposite ends of the globe, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

Try finding an IMPARTIAL Jury Now.

.

So what is more likely to result in KSMs finding of not guilty?

1. The fact that Obama thinks he will probably be convicted

2. The fact that George Bush tortured the guy 186 times

and in a nut shell you have why obama and company want to put him on trial....

 

[Contumacious]

OK. The fellow is guilty. He had a big hand in the attack that killed 3000 Americans. In many nations, he would already be dead.

But, since we are a nation of laws, we will do the right thing, give him a trial, formally establish his guilt, then execute him.

I listened closely and heard that the reason for this circus was so that the rest of the world could see how American justice works.

But didn't AG Holder defeat the purpose by saying that is he were found not guilty, well, we'll keep him locked up anyway...???

Friday, November 13, 2009

“If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Is Acquitted, President Obama, Will You Release Him?”

Posted by: Meredith Jessup at 10:45 PM

This type of question is one ABC News' Jake Tapper has asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs before. This is obviously an important question to address now that the Obama Justice Department has officially declared the trials of 9/11 conspirators will take place here in the States.

Tapper asked the administration about its policy back in June and, in true Gibbs fashion, the question was just dodged altogether. Props to Tapper and Fox News' Major Garrett for their willingness to press the White House on this issue:

TAPPER: Two questions about developments today. One regarding the Ghailani trial — him being flown to the United States — if any of the detainees who are brought to trial through the U.S. criminal courts, or even through military commissions — if any of them are found not guilty, will the administration let them free?

GIBBS: Well, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about…

TAPPER: Forget the military commissions.

GIBBS: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about the court cases either.

TAPPER: Well, this is an important part of — you’re talking about a credible justice system; bringing these people to justice. You’ve spoken at great length about this — the president has. If they are found not guilty, will they be found…

GIBBS: Well, let’s discuss that if it ever comes to fruition.

TAPPER: But isn’t that what is underlying a credible justice system? The idea that if you’re found not guilty, you’ll be free?


GIBBS: Sure.

TAPPER: So…

GIBBS: But I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out.

TAPPER: So you’re not willing to commit to freeing people if they’re found not guilty?

GIBBS: I’m not willing to get into playing hypothetical games.

TAPPER: It’s not a game, Robert. It’s a question about the credibility of a justice system.

MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS: Just the principle of it.

GIBBS: No, it’s — I’m not debating legal principles. I’m just not getting into the hypothetical back and forth of what happens on a case.

TAPPER: OK. So the Obama administration is refusing to say that if someone is found not guilty, they will be set free?

GIBBS: Jake, I am not going to get into the hypotheticals about specific outcomes of cases.

TAPPER: I’m not asking you to talk about a specific case. I’m talking about in general.

GARRETT: For all the detainees brought to the system — into this system of justice, which this administration said can and has in the past handled adequately — more than adequately, according to your talking points this morning, the terrorism cases brought before it in whatever venue — if that justice system, which the administration says should be trusted, renders a verdict of not guilty, is that person released?

GIBBS: We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes.

TAPPER: Well, then how is the world supposed to have any confidence that this new system of justice that you guys are ensuring is going to be the case with detainees, is actually credible?

GIBBS: We think the Southern District of New York has a very good record, as it relates to trying and convicting terror suspects.

TAPPER: I believe what your — the facts sheet said this morning — was that it has a 90 percent success rate.

GIBBS: I think 90 is pretty good.

TAPPER: I’m not questioning whether 90’s pretty good. I’m asking you about the 10 percent.

GIBBS: And I’m, in this specific case, not going to get into those hypothetical

 

[manu1959]

so let me see .... they want to close gitmo...problem.....no one wants them....

hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

hey...lets have a trial on us soil ... convicted them of a crime and put them in prison....

genius ....

oh wait...what if he is found innocent on a technicality...like not reading him his miranda rights or violating his civil rights by having dogs bark at him....

hmmmmmmmmmm.....

i got it...we will detain him as an enemy combatant.....

perfect ….. a win win ….. wait….where will we detain him…..well there is this army base in cuba….

 

[PoliticalChic]

Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

WASHINGTON – From opposite ends of the globe, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

Try finding an IMPARTIAL Jury Now.

.

2. The fact that George Bush tortured the guy 186 times

Not tortured, water-boarded.

The equivalent of the college sport of chug-a-lug.

In fact, I think we have a shot of you engaging in same, right here:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q714hZoHOL0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q714hZoHOL0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Xenophon]

So skip the trail and hang him now.

 

[The T]

So skip the trail and hang him now.

Thing is? They've already asked to be put to death? WHY prolong it but to rally more radical Islamists to their cause?

 

[rightwinger]

Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

WASHINGTON – From opposite ends of the globe, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

Try finding an IMPARTIAL Jury Now.

.

So what is more likely to result in KSMs finding of not guilty?

1. The fact that Obama thinks he will probably be convicted

2. The fact that George Bush tortured the guy 186 times

and in a nut shell you have why obama and company want to put him on trial....

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

 

[Emma]

Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case

WASHINGTON – From opposite ends of the globe, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder firmly rejected criticism Wednesday of the planned New York trial of the professed Sept. 11 mastermind and predicted Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be exposed as a murderous coward, convicted and executed.

Same thing the Iraqi government said about Saddam. I guess we know how that turned out.

Try finding an IMPARTIAL Jury Now.

Is this going to be a jury trial? I hadn't seen that, but in any case the jurors simply need to be willing to listen to the arguments presented by both sides.

 

[Annie]

So what is more likely to result in KSMs finding of not guilty?

1. The fact that Obama thinks he will probably be convicted

2. The fact that George Bush tortured the guy 186 times

and in a nut shell you have why obama and company want to put him on trial....

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

That's bullshit. Manu's correct. Enjoy and remember it was YOUR guy that took down the judicial system.

 

[rightwinger]

and in a nut shell you have why obama and company want to put him on trial....

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

That's bullshit. Manu's correct. Enjoy and remember it was YOUR guy that took down the judicial system.

It was YOUR guy who held them for six years without charges, without legal representation and without a trial

THAT is our judicial system

 

[Annie]

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

That's bullshit. Manu's correct. Enjoy and remember it was YOUR guy that took down the judicial system.

It was YOUR guy who held them for six years without charges, without legal representation and without a trial

THAT is our judicial system

And he and the others do not qualify for that. Never mind. BO and EH are going to inverse, so all will be well. Decisions have outcomes too, not just elections.

 

[The T]

So what is more likely to result in KSMs finding of not guilty?

1. The fact that Obama thinks he will probably be convicted

2. The fact that George Bush tortured the guy 186 times

and in a nut shell you have why obama and company want to put him on trial....

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

NO. We had him in a Military TRIBUNAL precisely because he committed an ACT OF WAR on behalf of the group of Radical Islamists that mean the DEMISE of everything WE as a nation hold dear.

By his act, he perpetuated that which the 9/11 Commission told us that they were at war and had DECLARED WAR upon this nation and everything WE stand for (LIFE/LIBERTY/PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS).

You are so wrong on so many levels, and you really SEEM to defend by this decision of Obama/Holder to make a MOCKERY of what we do/should hold dear.

And by ALL appearences? You seem to defend what they did.

Our past history proves you WRONG...I have in other threads highlighted what FDR did to NAZI Terrorists sent by Hitler, and their ultimate demise. WHY is this any different?

Thing is? There IS NO difference, except those NAZI'S were intercepted before they could do any damage.

_____________

You seem to want to confer rights on people that had made WAR against ME...Against you...our FAMILIES.

DEFEND IT.

It's a DIRECT CHALLENGE I put upon *YOU*.

 

[Dr Grump]

so a mock trial ... so he can be a maytr and used to recruit more camel jockey suicde bombers not to mention putting the previous administration on trial...

That horse has already bolted the days you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh, and what is the problem with putting the previous admin on trial?

 

[rightwinger]

and in a nut shell you have why obama and company want to put him on trial....

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

NO. We had him in a Military TRIBUNAL precisely because he committed an ACT OF WAR on behalf of the group of Radical Islamists that mean the DEMISE of everything WE as a nation hold dear.

By his act, he perpetuated that which the 9/11 Commission told us that they were at war and had DECLARED WAR upon this nation and everything WE stand for (LIFE/LIBERTY/PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS).

You are so wrong on so many levels, and you really SEEM to defend by this decision of Obama/Holder to make a MOCKERY of what we do/should hold dear.

And by ALL appearences? You seem to defend what they did.

Our past history proves you WRONG...I have in other threads highlighted what FDR did to NAZI Terrorists sent by Hitler, and their ultimate demise. WHY is this any different?

Thing is? There IS NO difference, except those NAZI'S were intercepted before they could do any damage.

_____________

You seem to want to confer rights on people that had made WAR against ME...Against you...our FAMILIES.

DEFEND IT.

It's a DIRECT CHALLENGE I put upon *YOU*.

Which way do you want it?

If it is covered as an act of WAR, why weren't they provided the rights of prisoners of war. You play whichever side of the fence prevents them from having any rights.

You see, the US Justice system is on trial here as much as the accused terrorists.

 

[manu1959]

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

NO. We had him in a Military TRIBUNAL precisely because he committed an ACT OF WAR on behalf of the group of Radical Islamists that mean the DEMISE of everything WE as a nation hold dear.

By his act, he perpetuated that which the 9/11 Commission told us that they were at war and had DECLARED WAR upon this nation and everything WE stand for (LIFE/LIBERTY/PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS).

You are so wrong on so many levels, and you really SEEM to defend by this decision of Obama/Holder to make a MOCKERY of what we do/should hold dear.

And by ALL appearences? You seem to defend what they did.

Our past history proves you WRONG...I have in other threads highlighted what FDR did to NAZI Terrorists sent by Hitler, and their ultimate demise. WHY is this any different?

Thing is? There IS NO difference, except those NAZI'S were intercepted before they could do any damage.

_____________

You seem to want to confer rights on people that had made WAR against ME...Against you...our FAMILIES.

DEFEND IT.

It's a DIRECT CHALLENGE I put upon *YOU*.

Which way do you want it?

If it is covered as an act of WAR, why weren't they provided the rights of prisoners of war. You play whichever side of the fence prevents them from having any rights.

You see, the US Justice system is on trial here as much as the accused terrorists.

out of uniform and not fighting per the rules of war.....that makes them a spy....shoot them at dawn....

 

[The T]

NO. We had him in a Military TRIBUNAL precisely because he committed an ACT OF WAR on behalf of the group of Radical Islamists that mean the DEMISE of everything WE as a nation hold dear.

By his act, he perpetuated that which the 9/11 Commission told us that they were at war and had DECLARED WAR upon this nation and everything WE stand for (LIFE/LIBERTY/PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS).

You are so wrong on so many levels, and you really SEEM to defend by this decision of Obama/Holder to make a MOCKERY of what we do/should hold dear.

And by ALL appearences? You seem to defend what they did.

Our past history proves you WRONG...I have in other threads highlighted what FDR did to NAZI Terrorists sent by Hitler, and their ultimate demise. WHY is this any different?

Thing is? There IS NO difference, except those NAZI'S were intercepted before they could do any damage.

_____________

You seem to want to confer rights on people that had made WAR against ME...Against you...our FAMILIES.

DEFEND IT.

It's a DIRECT CHALLENGE I put upon *YOU*.

Which way do you want it?

If it is covered as an act of WAR, why weren't they provided the rights of prisoners of war. You play whichever side of the fence prevents them from having any rights.

You see, the US Justice system is on trial here as much as the accused terrorists.

out of uniform and not fighting per the rules of war.....that makes them a spy....shoot them at dawn....

As many Germans submitted to in WWII when they donned civilian attire as to try to meld into the populace to HIDE their true identity/Aims...

Under the RULES of engagement? They were dispatched LAWFULLY.

 

[The T]

No we want to put him on trial because he committed mass murder

NO. We had him in a Military TRIBUNAL precisely because he committed an ACT OF WAR on behalf of the group of Radical Islamists that mean the DEMISE of everything WE as a nation hold dear.

By his act, he perpetuated that which the 9/11 Commission told us that they were at war and had DECLARED WAR upon this nation and everything WE stand for (LIFE/LIBERTY/PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS).

You are so wrong on so many levels, and you really SEEM to defend by this decision of Obama/Holder to make a MOCKERY of what we do/should hold dear.

And by ALL appearences? You seem to defend what they did.

Our past history proves you WRONG...I have in other threads highlighted what FDR did to NAZI Terrorists sent by Hitler, and their ultimate demise. WHY is this any different?

Thing is? There IS NO difference, except those NAZI'S were intercepted before they could do any damage.

_____________

You seem to want to confer rights on people that had made WAR against ME...Against you...our FAMILIES.

DEFEND IT.

It's a DIRECT CHALLENGE I put upon *YOU*.

Which way do you want it?

If it is covered as an act of WAR, why weren't they provided the rights of prisoners of war. You play whichever side of the fence prevents them from having any rights.

You see, the US Justice system is on trial here as much as the accused terrorists.

Since WHEN do POW's get afforded RIGHTS they don't have when they aren't PRIVVY to that of the Geneva Conventions?

They wear NO recognizable UNIFORM from any LAWFUL combatant under the rules of engaement.

YOU are out of your LEAGUE, LIB, and uneducated.

 

[mdn2000]

so many thoughts so many responses which one is right. So Obama is treating war like a crime, thats all.

Clinton treated terrorism as a crime, that is why we got attacked, so Obama does the same thing, it resulted in the Ft. Hood massacre.

I see no problem taking KSM into court, he freely admits his guilt, what happens when you go to court and plead guilty, there is no trial, you are sentenced right then and there. KSM is admitting he attaced the World trade center twice, once in 1993 and again on 9/11, the 1993 attack ties the 9/11 attack to Iraq, so if there is a trail this should come out.

But this is not about justice, this is about Obama, the guy is full of himself, Obama makes himself look good by making others look bad, not by accomplishments. It is the same as Obama standing next to a pile of dog shit and making a speech about how good Obama smells.

Justice, predetermined outcome, the Marxist did this under Mao, the accused were already considered guilty and the trial was a Marxist propaganda show, so this is just another example how Obama is a Marxist.