In a UK court judged by a jury of my peers - how about you?
I prefer that you answer the question that I asked -- which was -- would you prefer to stand before a U.S. Court or an Iranian Court?
In which country would you prefer to have been accused of committing a crime?
Of course you've already answered all my questions -- you don't believe that a British national would get a fair trial in an Iranian court -- so why should the United States turn over KSM to Iran for trial?
You aren't presenting a serious argument.
You’re joking, right? Extraordinary renditions, abuse of prisoners, forced imprisonment without trial, torture and kangaroo courts behind closed doors run by the military – I don’t know a single Muslim, and living near one of the largest Muslim communities in the UK I know quite a few, that respects the American justice system.
Even some Americans don’t trust it – OJ ring any bells?
Again, you're joking. Moving KSM out of all of the violations of American law you mention is what you decry. So which is it?
a)The American Constitution with a presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, an impartial jury, right to representation, right of appeal, right to face accusers, right not to incriminate oneself, right not to be tortured or coerced to testify
b) a Military tribunal with all the offenses perpetrated by the Bush administration
c) trial on the moon.
Which do you pick?
The people who would criticize the O.J. trial do so because they presume that a guilty man went free -- because of the very rights afforded to defendants in the American justice system. So what is your argument exactly?
I can’t think of another Muslim country that could return a guilty verdict and not be accused of being a pawn of, or pressurised by, the American government. That’s what’s needed here. If KSM was found guilty by a totally independent Muslim court everyone – including all those terrorists in waiting - would believe, without doubt, that he must be guilty.
And certainly you've already agreed that no American (or even you) is going to feel that the Iranian court is going to impartially try KSM. So if there is no consensus on your ideal change of venue to one that everyone is going to agree is impartial -- what's your next move?
Is evidence gathered under torture "fruit from a poisoned tree" and therefore to be excluded? It's only one of several possible questions awaiting possible rulings. Is this a speedy trial? What has the extended imprisonment and KSM's treatment during that time done to his ability to aid in his defense?
Good question -- but the first one we need answered is what is KSM's plea going to be in federal court? If he's merely going to persist in pleading guilty -- there will be no jury to hear evidence at all.
According to the WSJ’s Jess Bravin, a threshold question awaits. That is, will KSM confess to orchestrating attacks? A yes to such a move, of course, would make his case relatively easy for prosecutors. Bravin writes that if Mohammed acts to speed his own execution and await what he asserts is glorious martyrdom with a guilty plea in federal court, that would bypass a trial, eliminate the need to select a jury and lead to sentencing probably before the end of 2010.
Perkins Coie’s Harry Schneider, who helped defend Osama bin Laden’s former driver, in a military commission, thinks a confession is the likeliest scenario.
“I think the most likely scenario is these guys don’t make any bones about it and they confess their involvement,” said Schneider, who helped defend Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former driver, in a military commission. “They are proud of what they did.”
That said, writes Bravin, if Mohammed works with his American lawyers to stall the case, he has plenty of tools at his disposal, criminal lawyers say.
David Kelley, a Manhattan U.S. attorney under George W. Bush now at Cahill Gordon, says “first and foremost” among the issues Mohammed could raise is the conduct of the government.
According to government documents, Mohammed faced waterboarding 183 times while in government detention. Defense lawyers could seek to have the case dismissed because of the harsh treatment. Kelley said it was hard to conceive of a federal judge dismissing the charges, but the judge might take more seriously defense challenges claiming that detainee statements were coerced.
“The government has lots of information about these folks. The challenge is converting that information into admissible information under the rules of evidence,” Mr. Kelley said.
The “forced confession” tactic was echoed in this NYT article from the weekend. If the Justice Department does try to introduce evidence that the defense lawyers argue was coerced by torture, “I think that we’re going to shine a light on something that a lot of people don’t want to look at,” Denny LeBoeuf, an ACLU lawyer who led the group’s efforts in Guantánamo capital cases, told the NYT. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/11/16/looming-ksm-questions-will-he-confess-get- the-death-penalty/
But there is one question I'm eagerly awaiting to hear before the court -- and that is -- are you KSM the accused?
From October 2002:
KARACHI - Ever since the frenzied shootout last month on September 11 in Karachi there have been doubts over whether Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed head of al-Qaeda's military committee, died in the police raid on his apartment.
Certainly, another senior al-Qaeda figure, Ramzi Binalshibh, widely attributed as being the coordinator of the September 11 attacks on the United States a year earlier, was taken alive and handed over to the US. The latest information is that he is on a US warship somewhere in the Gulf.
Now it has emerged that Kuwaiti national Khalid Shaikh Mohammed did indeed perish in the raid, but his wife and child were taken from the apartment and handed over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in whose hands they remain.
Sources close to Pakistani intelligence agents say that the wife, under intense interrogation, has revealed information that is likely to lead to a new crackdown in Pakistan, as well as in Southeast Asia.
After the Taliban and al-Qaeda were routed in Afghanistan at the end of 2001, many fled to Pakistan to regroup and set up new cells. One of these, as described in Asia Times Online, From the al-Qaeda puzzle, a picture emerges, was in Karachi, with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as its head.
Initially, the joint ISI-FBI plan was to take Shaikh Mohammed alive so that he could be grilled, especially as he was believed to have knowledge of other al-Qaeda cells in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and elsewhere. However, as a plainclothed officer climbed the stairs toward the third-floor apartment, a hand grenade was thrown, and he retreated. Reinforcements then arrived, and for the next few hours a fierce gun battle blazed.
The FBI, still keen to take Shaikh Mohammed alive, teargassed the area, and a number of people were captured. However, despite instructions to the contrary, a few Pakistan Rangers entered the flat, where they found Shaikh Mohammed and another man, allegedly with their hands up. The Rangers nevertheless opened fire on the pair.
Later, the Pakistani press carried pictures of a message scrawled in blood on the wall of the flat, proclaiming the Muslim refrain of Kalma, in Arabic: "There is no God except Allah, Mohammed is his messenger"). An official who was present in the flat at the time of the shooting has told Asia Times Online that the message was written by Shaikh Mohammed with his own blood as his life drained from him.
Subsequently, to their surprise, the raiders learned that Ramzi Binalshibh had been netted in the swoop. And nothing further was said of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
But now it emerges that an Arab woman and a child were taken to an ISI safe house, where they identified the Shaikh Mohammed's body as their husband and father. The body was kept in a private NGO mortuary for 20 days before being buried, under the surveillance of the FBI, in a graveyard in the central district of Karachi. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html
The question remains -- were the detainees at Gitmo really who we were told they were -- and is this one of the dark secrets some don't want admitted in a public trial?
What a tangled web Bushco weaved.
[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (11-22-2009 11:01 AM).]