Obama was wrong again, backs out of Civilian 911 trials

[Danno 1,228]

It looks like obamas most spectacular suicide venture is to be averted, he will drop the crazy 911 Civilian trials for the terror master minds.

THis whole idea was such a strange work of logic it was hard to fathom it could have ended in any satisfactory result, Not for this administration or the American people.

Does anyone doubt this whole political abortion would have been a "Gift from God" to Rush Limbaugh and every other Rightwinger with a web site or even web cam?

Why he ever thought this could work is truly a mystery to be revealed in some future tell-all book.

On so many angles it was doomed.

-Obama claimed the civilian trial will show the world we are a nation of laws and principles..... then he openly declared the verdict would be GUITLY. ( I think thats called a show trial)

-He sets NYC as the location despite logistics.

-THis very trial would have to dismiss any evidence gathered under duress or torture which leads one to speculate what evidence would remain that hadn't been tainted?

-The defendant would have access to a wide scope of military/ security info to form a defense.

- By some legal fluke should the defendant not be convicted, how many US attorneys would line up to defend him in his immigration plea? (answer: a lot)

Without a doubt This event would have show Obama to be the total mis manager that he is, he looses face by back tracking but it is nothing compared to what would have happened.

.... even suggesting a civilian trial should be a "teachable moment" for the nation, after all, didn't this guy teach law???? If he can't get this right...

Also, "Who in the hell is giving him advice? Joe Biden?

-----------------------------------------------

White House may switch to military trial for Sept. 11 suspect Khalid Sheik Mohammed

Mar 5 06:55 PM US/Eastern

Sheik Mohammed

Jennifer Loven, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON - Looking to breathe life into President Barack Obama's stalled pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, White House advisers are inching toward recommending military trials for alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused henchmen.

Attorney General Eric Holder's original plan to try them in a civilian court in New York City met with criticism so fierce that it threatened to derail Obama's promise to shut the U.S. military's Cuban prison.

As difficult as the politics are concerning how and where to try the most notorious terror suspect in U.S. custody, that's only one step toward the even more fraught and complicated goal of closing Guantanamo where Mohammed and nearly 200 other terror detainees remain.

Closing Guantanamo was a signature promise of Obama's presidency, and it is still unkept well past his original deadline of January. Failing to keep it would have huge implications for the president, both with his base of supporters in the Democratic Party and in his efforts to remake America's image around the globe.

Holder decided in November to transfer Mohammed and four other accused Sept. 11 terrorists from Guantanamo to New York City for civilian trials. City officials initially embraced the idea.

But they later reversed themselves, citing the enormous costs, security and logistics of hosting a Sept. 11 trial - making things awkward for the Obama administration. And then the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing altered the political dynamic further, as Republicans focused anew on Obama's terrorism policies in general, including the trials.

The drumbeat of policy criticism, combined with the increasingly loud outcry from New York, made it nearly impossible for the White House to hold on to Holder's decision without review. That review is not finished, so no new recommendation is yet before the president. A decision is not expected for weeks, said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss private deliberations.

But the recommendation almost certainly will be for a switch to a military process for the five accused men, said administration officials.

The reason for the probable reversal is simple: The more the trial controversy spun out of control, the harder it was becoming to make progress on other, already difficult issues crucial to closing Guantanamo, such as securing funding from Congress for the closure, arranging a replacement facility in the United States and planning other trials.

White House officials now see the Mohammed trial decision as the key to unlocking those logjams.

Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Peter King and Sen. Lindsey Graham, have proposed a ban on trying terrorism defendants in any American community.

The administration believes a civilian trial is doable, even preferable, as a demonstration of U.S. commitment to rule of law. Officials have cited the numerous terrorism trials held previously in U.S. criminal courts. They also argue that decisions on how to prosecute defendants are not for lawmakers to make.

But the White House also wants to move on.

As the Obama administration has been forced to defend its terrorism policies, the White House has taken control of the decision-making process on major terror trials and in negotiations with key lawmakers, all with greatly reduced input from the Justice Department.

In political terms, that could suggest Obama and his top aides have lost confidence in Holder for not having generated enough political support with local officials before making his decision to try Mohammed in New York. But privately White House aides blame New York officials' reversal and the heightened security fears that followed the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

If Obama does settles on a military commission for Mohammed and the others, he will face criticism from liberal Democrats. This was evident Friday even based on the hint of such a decision.

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero. "Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fearmongering."

Donna O'Connor, a spokesperson for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, a national organization of more than 200 relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks, also bemoaned the potential choice. "Civilian trials in federal courts have resulted in hundreds of successful terrorism prosecutions whereas military commissions are an illegitimate system that undermine the rule of law," she said.

New York officials cheered, however.

"It makes absolutely no sense to hold a multiyear, almost billion- dollar trial in a community that had already grappled with Sept. 11 and is the financial capital of our country," said Julie Menin, who is chair of Community Board 1 in Lower Manhattan.

Regardless of reactions, the White House hopes the eventual decision will accomplish one important objective: moving beyond one controversy so Obama can tackle others.

-

Associated Press writers Verena Dobnik in New York and Devlin Barrett in Washington contributed to this story.

The Canadian Press, 2010

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This amateur administration is painful to watch.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't sound like a lot of thought went into the idea - telling the city of New York what is going to happen without first at least talking to the NY authorities.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

It didn't have anything to do with campaigning, which seems to be all this bunch is good at.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Holder should get canned for that.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It does speak for the state of our justice system though doesn't it.

[Danno 1,228]

Holder should get canned for that.

No kidding, this thing had a very small chance of not turning into a national embarrassment.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's wacky, for sure.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At least this administration is not above admitting and correcting a mistake. I know of a very recent administration that did not have that capability.

[Scandals Ball Sac 0]

At least this administration is not above admitting and correcting a mistake. I know of a very recent administration that did not have that capability.

Do chumps like you ever quit thinking of Bush and blaming Bush? Sheeeesh

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Do chumps like you ever quit thinking of Bush and blaming Bush?

Go and grow some balls, #######. Or should I say Natty?

Edited March 6, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Scandals Ball Sac 0]

Go and grow some balls, #######. Or should I say Natty?

I'm not Natty or whatever. Stay on topic chumpster

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not Natty or whatever. Stay on topic chumpster

Like you even know what this is about, Natty. Have another drink.

[Danno 1,228]

At least this administration is not above admitting and correcting a mistake. I know of a very recent administration that did not have that capability.

That earlier Administration must have been doing something right, they not only served 2 terms but Obama is now carrying on a third as it copies most of what they were doing, except spending, they stepped up the pace there.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That earlier Administration must have been doing something right, they not only served 2 terms but Obama is now carrying on a third as it copies most of what they were doing, except spending, they stepped up the pace there.

Nobody is saying that the previous administration didn't do anything right. But they also made mistakes - quite a few. And they admitted to none. That was the point I was making. Of course, you've never been good in detecting the essence of any point raised.