U.S. stalls on trial for September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

[Voegelin]

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – As the U.S. military prepares for the first war crimes trial under President Barack Obama, its most high-profile case against the planners of the Sept. 11 attacks is stuck in political and legal limbo . . .

Read more: U.S. stalls on trial for September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

So the military is trying a Gitmo inmate charged with killing one American but Barack Hussein Obama can't make up his mind what to do with the 9/11 terrorists. Why? Its not like Obama is too busy to make a decision. . . .
​

 

[Catherineanne]

Read more: U.S. stalls on trial for September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

I was under the impression that in the US a man is legally innocent until proven guilty. Does this no longer apply?​

Even if we have satan himself in the dock, until he is found guilty by due process, then he is an alleged criminal, rather than an actual one. This is one of those freedoms we are all fighting to preserve, remember.​

 

[lawtonfogle]

God will do the right thing and intercede on behalf of this beautiful, Christian nation! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

Oh, and here I was thinking all the people preaching about how Godless America was were actually right about a few things...

 

[Voegelin]

I was under the impression that in the US a man is legally innocent until proven guilty. Does this no longer apply?​

People are not potted plants. They are allowed to make judgements. What a jury decides may or may not indicate guilt. Think OJ. In addition, the top guys admitted guilt:

WashingtonPost.com: National News

But all that is beside the point. The question is why Obama yanked them from the military and hasn't put them on trial or even decided where to try them. But then this is the guy who called the jihadist who attempted to bring down a passanger jet over Detroit last Christmas "an isolated extremist". This after another jihadist had gunned down 13 Americans less than two months earlier at Ft. Hood (that trial is taking some time too).

 

[Yusuf Evans]

I was under the impression that in the US a man is legally innocent until proven guilty. Does this no longer apply?​

Being that he is not an American citizen, he's not protected under the Constitution. I say we just send him back to Kuwait and let them deal with him.

 

[laconicstudent]

Being that he is not an American citizen, he's not protected under the Constitution. I say we just send him back to Kuwait and let them deal with him.

*bored tone of voice*


You don't have to have a citizenship to be protected by the Constitution and receive due process.

 

[Catherineanne]

People are not potted plants. They are allowed to make judgements. What a jury decides may or may not indicate guilt. Think OJ. In addition, the top guys admitted guilt:

WashingtonPost.com: National News

But all that is beside the point. The question is why Obama yanked them from the military and hasn't put them on trial or even decided where to try them. But then this is the guy who .......... This after another jihadist had .............

No, the point is the headline equates to trial by media. And any comment from any of us amounts to speculation and hearsay.

In the UK such a headline, and any such public speculation come to that, would itself be illegal until the day after the man is found guilty, if he is. It risks prejudicing a fair trial.

Perhaps we have more respect for the law than the US does.

 

[Catherineanne]

Being that he is not an American citizen, he's not protected under the Constitution. I say we just send him back to Kuwait and let them deal with him.

The US media is under the US law. It is the US media that is conducting trial by media, which in turn prejudices his chances of getting a fair trial.

In the UK this would be totally unacceptable, because it would give his defence counsel grounds for asserting that a fair trial is not possible because of prior prejudice. And without the possibility of a fair trial, he would walk free. Therefore, to ensure that they are not responsible for the walking free of potential scumbags, the media have to say 'alleged', or 'charged with'. They cannot presume upon any conviction, however strong the evidence, and however much we all 'know' that any given person is guilty. In law he remains legally innocent until proven guilty. If the law fails to convict him, then he HAS to walk free, even if he is actually guilty. The law is concerned with legal guilt, and rightly so. Due process must be followed, or else anarchy will prevail.

An alleged perpetrator remains an alleged perpetrator until after conviction. At that point, the media can (and indeed does) proceed to call him whatever they like, and make up for their previous self restraint, not before.

 

[Catherineanne]

*bored tone of voice*

You don't have to have a citizenship to be protected by the Constitution and receive due process.

This is correct. Anyone in the UK committing murder would be prosecuted under British law, regardless of their citizenship. Only diplomats are immune.

Strangely enough, in civilised countries we do not offer the protection of the law to our citizens, and lynchmobs to foreigners, however tempting it might be.

 

[Voegelin]

A Democrat whose mother was killed in the World Trade Center attack was on Fox this morning. He said up through 2008, the DOJ and the military were in contact with the families and informing them of what was happening. After Obama and Holder took over, the door slammed shut. Nothing from the government to him or the 30 or so other families he knows. He said he didn't want this to be a partisan issue and it should not be one but he and others are frustrated. He also said it appears this fall's election is why the Obama administration will not make a decision on where and when to try the Gitmo inmates.

 

[Billnew]

I was under the impression that in the US a man is legally innocent until proven guilty. Does this no longer apply?​

Even if we have satan himself in the dock, until he is found guilty by due process, then he is an alleged criminal, rather than an actual one. This is one of those freedoms we are all fighting to preserve, remember.​

I would offer:

But Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the attacks, and four alleged accomplices are still sequestered at Guantanamo without charges.

Seemed like when the previous president was in office...what was his name? Seems like there were people screaming about people being detained without benefit of trial?

I believe it should be the same now. These people need to face a trial, to prove guilt or innocence. Why the military hasn't already done this is because one party stood up and proclaimed the way we tried people through out history was wrong and that all prisoners should get civilian trials, with all the rights given to our citizens, as opposed to military court, which is used to decide military crimes, and less likely to be influenced by the emotions.

Prisoners detained in war, should be tried by military courts. Those arrested in the country by civilian authoritys should be tried in civilian court, unless it can be proven that the crime is more along the line of
a military attack.
Example: several people from Iraq fly into Mexico, cross into the USA with weapons and begin the war on our home front. This is a continuation of the war over seas, thus would be a military issue.
Some one from any nation not at war with the USA would be a civilian matter, if arrested by civilian authorities.

These people need to face a trial. The guilty should know why they sit in prison, the innocent should be able to make arrangements to leave the prison. The military court system is less burdened by crimes then any local courts. Unless we want to hire new judges specifically to hear these cases, then the military should run the trials.