Attorney General Eric Holder will announce today that the five suspects most closely tied to the September 11th attacks will be moved to New York City and tried in civilian courts. The suspects include: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to masterminding the plot, selling it to bin-Laden, and working out the logistics.
Waleed bin Attash is accused of involvement in the 1998 African Embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and of recruiting some of the so-called ‘muscle hijackers.’
Ramzi Binalshibh was a member of the Hamburg cell who attempted to enter the United States for pilot training but was rejected. He worked as a liaison between Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta.
Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi allegedly financed the hijackers from the United Arab Emirates and facilitated the travel of the ‘muscle hijackers.’
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali (aka Ammar al-Baluchi) is accused of providing logistical support for the hijackers, as well as cultural training for their time spent in America.
These five detainees are the so-called worst of the worst. Much of the evidence against them is tainted by torture. However, there remains banking, travel, and electronic records that can implicate them. If these men can be tried in civilian courts then it is hard to see why all of the detainees cannot be tried in civilian courts. I hope the Obama administration gets credit for this from the same people who have been justly critical of them on these issues so far.
In related news, President Obama’s legal counsel, Greg Craig, is being replaced by Anita Dunn’s husband, Bob Bauer.
Let’s see if the Republicans and Harry Reid throw another fit over the horror of bringing al-Qaeda suspects to the United States for trial.
lets see….? are you kidding? last night i took my dail dose of the nut farm- mmark levin. un effing believable. he was actually screaming!!!!! the move must be stopped. stopped. stopped. it was fascinating. just wait. once the ag makes it offiial every single “pundit” will be receiving their marching orders and then the fun will begin.
I CAN’T WAIT!
because, what? they might be acquitted? In New York? What are these clowns really afraid of?
Afraid of the rule of law? The Constitution?
link
These clowns are afraid that the evidence gathered before 9/11, which is untainted, will show that the Bush administration ignored obvious connections and threats, in their monomaniacal focus on Russia and Saddam Hussein.
That’s what they are afraid of.
And they are afraid that the record of torture will we played out in the courts for all to see and some names might be dropped during cross-examination that will make the cover-up start to unwind.
Also probably afraid of the closure that civilian trials and verdicts will bring – make it harder for them to use the phrase “September 11” to scare everyone and obfuscate.
There is lots of evidence on all of them that predates 9/11 and thus predates torture. Most of it was gathered in the Southern District of New York as an ongoing effort after the first WTC bombing in 1993. That evidence permitted the extradition and conviction of the 1993 highjackers. The last to be arrested (and later convicted) was Ramzi Yusef. According to reports, Yusef had files on his computer that pointed to another attack.
In addition, there is information developed as a result of the Bojinka incident that identified the hijacking of aircraft as a possible threat. IIRC, reports several years ago said that KSM’s name was acquired through that investigation.
In addition, there is the work that John P. Oneill did for the FBI before he was canned in 2001.
An evidence developed before 9/11 will be untainted of torture.
No question there is pre-torture evidence against KSM and the rest. But what exactly is it evidence OF? Will it stand up to scrutiny? Is it perhaps a carefully engineered “legend,” which is a standard component in false-flag psyops? Not saying 9/11 was necessarily a false-flag psyop, mind you — just that it might well have been. If the pre-torture evidence was really so conclusive, why would “they” have felt it so necessary to obtain the confession? — In asking these questions, I don’t expect an answer from you, of course. The point is that KSM’s lawyers are well aware that, considering how it was obtained, the confession, far from being the clincher against KSM, taints the entire case. Come to think of it, the prosecution knows this too. So, I expect the trial will look a lot like Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Baily.
Just to clarify. These guys are some bad dudes, no question. But still the case againsst them looks like bullshit to me, and even if it isn’t, evidence obtained under torture is worthless.
Interesting questions. It will be interesting to see the answers in an open court of law.
The case against them is most likely not bullshit or DOJ would not have brought them to US courts.
The evidence obtained under torture was never evidence to begin with. The torturing was not about gathering evidence. In some cases it was about fabricating phony evidence, such as the Saddam-al Quaeda link and probably the “dirty bomb” plan. In other cases and this is like in KSM’s case, it was about vengeance, about making someone believed to be guilty wish he was dead.
Given the experience that both the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Virginia have with trials of terrorists, I think that the judge will put the kibosh on the Barnum and Bailey atmosphere, even if it is coming from DOJ.
The question that we will have to wait to see unfold is to what extent the judge will permit the use of state secrets either to prevent disclosure of government wrongdoing or to reduce the defense’s possibility to prevail. Will the judge put a finger on the scale of justice?
If the judge allows introduction of evidence about torture, it could begin unwinding the coverup that has protected the chain-of-command.
very interesting – so they’re afraid trying them in civilian court will get to the torture issue? I thought the ag would get to it when the time was right, but now I think I truly underestimated the guy. Guess Cheney, inc are already set for counterspin (do they have an office in NY?).
Actually, I think that what DOJ might be most afraid of is losing the legal doctrine of state secrets, which was first introduced during the McCarthy period. It is very useful to a chief executive for all sorts of reasons.
As for the torture issue, I don’t know whether they are afraid of it or assuming that it will come out in trial and thus relieve them of some political fallout. If a judge orders it, it’s different than if an executive department voluntarily releases it. The second could be construed by our feckless media as playing politics.
I don’t know how DOJ will play it, but it will be interesting to watch.
Well, here’s one guy who agrees with me, anyway:
“Aside from the virtual certainty that the trial will devolve into a media circus, there’s an incredibly good chance that Mohammed and his comrades will go free.”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/khalid_sheikh_mohammed_trial/
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to masterminding the plot, selling it to bin-Laden, and working out the logistics.”
Yes, after being waterboarded a few times. Actually, if you recall, he was waterboarded 183 times in one month (March 2003).
Now, I’m not suggesting KS Mohammed is a nice guy. Rather, I’m suggesting that his trial will be a circus.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/18/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-was-waterboarded-183-times-in-on
e-month/
I would doubt that DOJ would try to enter his confession as evidence. That would indeed open a huge can of worms.
Not to mention that he confessed while he was still free.
And that report is reliable? Does it come somewhere other than the US press? I’m not sure that we will know until the trial starts presenting the evidence that the DOJ thinks it has and defense has the opportunity to present contrary evidence.
But if there was a confession independent of coercion, a brag perhaps in a training video for al Quaeda, there will be two points at which the defense can attack it. The source (provenance) and the accuracy of the translation. Having those facts validated would be immensely helpful to future historians looking at this period of history.
we’ll see if the al-Jazeera interview holds up to scrutiny.
I missed that one. Would like to see the link and details.
That is what, like Cheney confessing in the Washington Times to ordering torture? Or maybe the Washington Post.
The precise date of this interviewis in dispute, as is the whole thing, actually.
Thanks for that. Not much for a prosecutor to hang his case on in that article. And no reference to any coverage that actually appeared in al-Jazeera.
Plus. No byline.
Yes, he did — but it’s not that simple.
He has confessed to a lot of stuff. Really a lot of stuff. Like, too much stuff.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6452573.stm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1599861,00.html
Anything after his capture will be inadmissable (and DOJ would be foolish to introduce it) because his torture has been documented in the CIA IG report.
However, if there are confessions (or rather brags) before his capture, then those would be admissable–and subject to normal cross-examination. If the provenance can be traced back to his actual words (such as through the testimony of a al-Jazeera reporter as a hypothetical), then there would be pretty good evidence.
Like you, I’m not sure that that evidence really exists. So there is probably going to be a lot of evidence based on intelligence, which will require at least one member of the defense team be cleared for closed CIPA proceedings before the judge.