Barack Obama -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Custom Search

Psychotic murderer

and coward

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Archived chronologically or in order of discovery

The Architect Of 9/11

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (known colloquially as KSM), was the military head of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Mohammed has been described by the the 9/11 Commission Report as a "terrorist entrepreneur" who "followed a rather tortuous path to his eventual membership in al Qaeda. Highly educated and equally comfortable in a government office or a terrorist safe house, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed applied his imagination, technical aptitude, and managerial skills to hatching and planning an extraordinary array of terrorist schemes. These ideas included murder, beheading, conventional car bombing, political assassination, aircraft bombing, hijacking, reservoir poisoning, and, ultimately, the use of aircraft as missiles guided by suicide operatives."

Obama Brings 9/11 Plotter To New York City

CNSNews.com is reporting that self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.

The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.

The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but he is no longer expected to meet that deadline

It is also a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

And Obama is bringing four other terrorists with him.

And these 5 guys now have all of the rights you do. The first thing the lawyers will do is ask the judge to throw out all the evidence against them because it was obtained through coercion.

The Worst Decision By A US President In History

David Horowitz believes the Obama administration has taken a giant step in its march to throw in the towel in the war against radical Islam. On FoxNews this morning, Peter King said of the decision to try the soldiers of al-Qaeda -- who by their own account have no country but their cause -- as civilians:

"may be the worst decision by a U.S. president in history."

It certainly is. It sends a signal to terrorists everywhere to attack civilians.

The administration is justifying its decisions on the grounds that because the 9/11 attackers targeted civilians they should be tried as civilians. This makes no sense unless you are a Democrat who believes that the "holy war" that Islamic jihadists have formally declared on us is no different from the acts of isolated individuals who have decided to break the law. This is the approach to the war on terror that John Kerry championed in 2004. Now that Americans have had the poor judgment -- the suicidally poor judgment -- to make a leftist their president, this is the strategy our nation is set to pursue.

The decision to try the jihadists in a civilian court is also a decision which will divulge America’s security secrets to the enemy since civilian courts afford defendants the right of discovery. It is also a propaganda gift to Islamic murderers who will turn the courtroom into a media circus to promote their hatred against the Great Satan -- a hatred shared by their apologists at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the pro-Castro Center for Constitutional Rights who have pioneered the campaign against Guantanamo and whose influence in the Obama Administration is pervasive. (BTW, The newly appointed lawyer for the president is the husband of Obama’s recently departed Maoist communications director Anita Dunn.)

Finally, this move continues and enlarges the refusal of the President and the American Left to recognize that:

1. We are in a war that has been declared on us -- in which we, in other words, are the victims.
2. That the war is conducted by religious armies whose war is inspired by their reading of the Koran.
3. That the number of Muslims who support their war plan is in the tens of millions
4. That they are aided and abetted by many Islamic governments and by the international Left.

Trial and Terror

Andrew McCarthy says the decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other top al-Qaeda terrorists to New York City for a civilian trial is one of the most irresponsible ever made by a presidential administration. That it is motivated by politics could not be more obvious. That it spells unprecedented danger for our security will soon become obvious.

The five 9/11 plotters were originally charged in a military commission. Military commissions have been approved by Congress and the courts. Eleven months ago, the jihadists were prepared to end the military case by pleading guilty and proceeding to execution. Plus, the Obama administration is continuing the commission system for other enemy combatants accused of war crimes. If we are going to have military commissions for any war criminals, it is senseless not to have them for the worst war criminals. In sum, there is no good legal or policy rationale for transferring these barbarians to the civilian justice system. Doing so will prompt a hugely costly three-ring circus of a trial, provide a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s anti-American bile, and create a public-safety nightmare for New York City.

There is, however, a patent political rationale behind Obama’s decision.

The terrorists are clearly committed members of the al-Qaeda conspiracy to wage a terrorist war against the United States -- so much so that KSM cannot help himself, bragging about his atrocities against our country, including the 9/11 massacre of nearly 3,000 Americans. Further, controversy surrounds the intelligence-collection measures used by the Bush administration after 9/11 -- measures such as enhanced interrogation that, though they saved countless lives, have been stridently condemned by the antiwar Left. This antiwar Left, Obama’s base, has demanded investigations and prosecutions against Bush officials.

The Obama Justice Department teems with experienced defense lawyers, many of whom (themselves personally or through their firms) spent the last eight years volunteering their services to America’s enemies in their lawsuits against the American people. As experienced defense lawyers well know, when there is no mystery about whether the defendants have committed the charged offenses, and when there is controversy attendant to the government’s investigative tactics, the standard defense strategy is to put the government on trial.

That is, Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, experienced litigators, fully realize that in civilian court, the Qaeda quintet can and will demand discovery of mountains of government intelligence. They will demand disclosures about investigative tactics; the methods and sources by which intelligence has been obtained; the witnesses from the intelligence community, the military, and law enforcement who interrogated witnesses, conducted searches, secretly intercepted enemy communications, and employed other investigative techniques. They will attempt to compel testimony from officials who formulated U.S. counterterrorism strategy, in addition to U.S. and foreign intelligence officers. As civilian "defendants," these war criminals will put Bush-era counterterrorism tactics under the brightest public spotlight in American legal history.

This is exactly what Obama and Holder know will happen. And because it is unnecessary to have this civilian trial at all, one must conclude that this is exactly what Obama and Holder want to see happen.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama and his adviser, Holder, rebuked the Bush counterterrorism policies and promised their base a "reckoning." Since Obama took office, Holder has anxiously shoveled into the public domain classified information relating to those policies -- with the administration always at pains to claim that its hand is being forced by court orders, even though Obama has had legal grounds, which he has refrained from invoking, to decline to make those disclosures. Moreover, during a trip to Germany in April, Holder signaled his openness to turning over evidence that would assist European investigations -- including one underway in Spain -- that seek to charge Bush-administration officials with war crimes (which is the transnational Left’s label for actions taken in defense of the United States).

Now, we see the reckoning: Obama’s gratuitous transfer of alien war criminals from a military court, where they were on the verge of ending the proceedings, to the civilian justice system, where they will be given the same rights and privileges as the American citizens they are pledged to kill. This will give the hard Left its promised feast. Its shock troops, such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, will gather up each new disclosure and add it to the purported war-crimes case they are urging foreign courts to bring against President Bush, his subordinates, and U.S. intelligence agents.

Continue reading here . . .

9/11 Terrorists Will Use Trial For Propaganda

Breitbart is reporting that the five Islamofascists facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks, but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men ~~accused of murdering~~ who murdered nearly 3,000 people, including Muslims, in the nation's deadliest terrorist attack will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

Fenstermaker met with Ali last week at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He has not spoken with the others but said the men have discussed the trial among themselves.

Critics of ~~Attorney General Eric Holder~~ Barack Obama's decision to try the men in a New York City civilian courthouse have warned that the trial would provide the defendants with a propaganda platform.

Dean Boyd, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said, "yada, yada, yada."

Obama's Due Process Doctrine

Wes Pruden writes: Willing student or not, reality continues to give Barack Obama a late education in how the world -- including the United States -- actually works. Obama and his attorney general are giving the rest of us an Ivy League tutorial in constitutional law.

When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. awarded the Islamic radicals the opportunity to take their rhetorical carnival of murder and mayhem to New York City for the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 assault on America, Mr. Holder insisted that he was only acting in the American judicial tradition of due process. A military tribunal is OK for a GI in Afghanistan but not for a criminal the GI captures there. His prescription is actually more in the tradition of "Rules for Radicals," the manual of civic disorder and troublemaking written by Saul Alinsky, Mr. Obama's revered mentor in all the things not in the province of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. Obama and the attorney general have had interesting instructors.

Neither Obama, nor the attorney general, were quite prepared for the overwhelming, bipartisan, transracial outrage over their remarkable doctrine of "due process." Obama, questioned by reporters in Asia, insisted that the noose was ready for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (or KSM in the helpful shorthand applied to unpronounceable names). The legal niceties were necessary, but the wait for the hangman -- or the needler, or electrician or whomever -- would make the anticipation all the merrier.

Obama said anyone offended by the unprecedented legal privileges afforded KSM in a civilian trial, instead of submission to the usual military tribunal for criminals captured on the battlefield, "won't find it offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him."

The attorney general, sharply questioned by several senators at a hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, with more than a hint of prosecutorial smugness, that "failure is not an option." Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a Republican, agreed. "I don't know how you could say failure is not an option. I'm a farmer, not a lawyer, but it seems to me ludicrous."

It's not clear whether this is constitutional law as taught at Harvard Law, but it sounds a lot like law once taught in the court of the infamous Judge Roy Bean, "the law west of the Pecos." Judge Bean held court in his saloon and, like Messrs Obama and Holder, made up his precedents as he needed them. Guaranteeing death for KSM, as much as the architect of 9/11 deserves it, sounds a lot like the Old West idea of frontier justice, as typically applied to a murderer or horse thief: "We're going to give you a fair trial and then we're going to hang your ornery hide." The judge usually put the carpenter at work on the gallows as part of the proceedings.

Obama, constitutional law instructor or not, and his administration of eager amateurs continue to demonstrate that they just don't understand the America that put them in office. Mr. Grassley's remark, that he's just a farmer but that the attorney general's guarantee of justice rigged sounds "ludicrous," shows just how out of touch the attorney general is with the traditions of due process. Holder's assurance that even if acquitted by a civilian jury KSM would never be "released into our country" betrays his silly assurance that "failure is not an option."

Democrats Abandoning Obama

Kasie Hunt is reporting that New York politicians were able to kick the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial out of Manhattan, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that not a single member of Congress wants the trial held in their home town either.

A growing coalition of lawmakers are saying "not in my back yard" to the terrorism trial, as even the most loyal Democrats are moving to block funding for any civilian trials. The pushback may represent yet another congressional rebellion against a high profile Obama White House terrorism decision, proving that even a persuasive Obama can’t overcome the power of local politics.

"We’re going to do everything we can to make sure they don’t point at western Pennsylvania as a possible venue," said Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.). "We are all united, going to voice our opinion, both at the state level and at the congressional level."

These politics are playing out in several regions around the country, from western Pennsylvania to northern Virginia and other potential locations for a 9/11 trial. The National Republican Congressional Committee plans to use the issue to target Democratic representatives Bill Foster and Debbie Halvorson in Illinois, Scott Murphy and Michael McMahon in New York, and Kathy Dahlkemper in Pennsylvania.

Virginia Sen. Jim Webb is leading Democrats' charge against the trials in the Senate. Webb favors military commissions, and he says Virginia lawmakers will be opposed to having a civilian trial in Alexandria.

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is not opposing the trials "out of hand," his spokesman said, but "he would want an explanation as to why it’s any safer in western Pennsylvania than it is in New York City."

Obama is also going to face louder calls to move the trials out of the U.S. entirely. Democratic senators had an "intense discussion" about the administration’s Guantanamo Bay policies during a policy lunch Tuesday, one senator said.

Eighteen senators -- including two Democrats -- have signed on to legislation backed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to strip funding for civilian trials for the accused 9/11 conspirators. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) will introduce a companion bill in the House.

"I believe these individuals are war criminals and that their alleged evils against our country warrant their trials in military courts," said Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who is facing a tough reelection battle this year. "Trying these conspirators in civilian court is giving them a public stage to advocate their cause."

Obama knows he has a problem, but still seems committed to finding a location for a federal trial.

"We've tried a lot of terrorists in our courts; we have them in our federal prisons; they've never escaped. And these folks are no different. It's been one of those things that's been subject to a lot of, in some cases, pretty rank politics," Obama said in an interview Monday on YouTube.

But the longer the local fights drag out, the more problematic the issue will be for Democrats in November.

Obama’s Revisionist History Of Terrorism

Daniel Greenfield opines, that since taking office, Obama’s key objective on terrorism has been to transform the public perception of it from an international military conflict, to a limited domestic criminal problem. Renaming terrorism to the bureaucratically euphonious term, "Man Caused Disasters" was straight out of the first rule in the textbook of organizational coverups, to phrase your sentences so that the identity of the perpetrators of the crisis remain as vague as possible. Focusing on everything but terrorism, while shutting down Gitmo and dispatching top Al Qaeda terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to civilian trials, was meant to restore the illusion of normalcy, while doing away with the terrorism focus of the Bush Administration.

There was a reason that once in office, Obama showed a very limited interest in pushing for the prosecutions of Bush Administration officials, as the left wing expected him to. Unlike them, Obama understood that the best way to shift the conversation was by avoiding the topic, not by confronting it head on… because while the American people may have turned on the Republicans, they were more likely to support a tough on terror approach, than not. Main Street America was a long way from ACLU headquarters, and so Obama decided that the best way to win the debate on terrorism… was not to have it all.

Seeing how fast Cheney’s numbers shot up by simply calling him out on terrorism, could have only stiffened Obama’s resolve to avoid the issue. But the issue refused to avoid him, whether it was demands that he come to a decision on Afghanistan, a renewed wave of terrorist attacks on American soil or a growing backlash from New York over holding the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trials in the city -- Islamic "man caused disasters" just refused to go away.

By moving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into the civilian legal system, Obama and Holder were undertaking to engineer a massive shift in how America dealt with terrorism. It was a shift that everyone from lawyers to liberal pundits to the nutroots had been pushing all along. It was the message on the earliest posters tacked up by left wing activists on the streets of Lower Manhattan, even as the ruins of the towers were still smoldering. The shift would transform terrorism from a conflict fought in defense of America, to an internal criminal matter for the legal system to deal with. The difference between the two lies in far more than just a matter of which judges get to sit on the bench and where the trial takes place, it cuts right to the issue of what is really happening here.

Treating Islamic terrorism as a criminal problem transforms it from an international threat, into something purely local, akin to an armed robbery or a murder or two. And as liberal doctrine would have it, crime is not really preventable except through social welfare policies. That is precisely the tack that European governments have taken on terrorism, working with Muslim communities to improve their economic and social status. That would have been the next stage for the Obama Administration, if a roadblock hadn’t risen up on the road to the New York trial.

Continue reading here . . .

At least read the last paragraph.