Possible KSM Trial Move Draws Backlash

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: Justice Department

(AP Photo)

Three retired military leaders Friday harshly criticized the Obama administration's possible reversal of its position regarding where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and his co-conspirators.

The administration had initially vowed to try the men in civilian court, but news reports Friday indicated that White House advisers were on the verge of recommending that the trials take place in military tribunals.

The White House says no decision has been made. But spokesman Robert Gibbs did not seriously push back against the reports, noting in an email to CBS News that Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged weeks ago that military commission trials were a possibility.

Major General William L. Nash, deeming the tribunals a "kangaroo court," told reporters Friday that if the administration goes through with military tribunals, "I would not look back as fondly as I once did on that second day in office."

That's when Nash and others stood with President Obama as he signed an executive order to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison facility. The White House has missed its self-imposed deadline to close the facility within a year amid resistance from Congress, and it appears the potential decision to try Mohammed and his cohorts in military courts is partially grounded in an effort to win funding from a skeptical Congress to close the facility.

The Washington Post reported Friday that Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham, an opponent of trials in civilian courts, has been negotiating with the White House "in pursuit of a deal that would secure his help in closing Guantanamo."

But the three military leaders said such a compromise was unacceptable.

"Closing Guantanamo Bay and moving the military commissions to the United States doesn't really close the concept of Guantanamo," said Nash, who pointed to the president's comments that America's security and values are not in competition.

Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said America's enemy would be "delighted" with a decision to try Mohammed and the other men in military tribunals.

Mr. Obama initially "chose the harder right over the easier wrong," said Soyster, arguing that the president "should hold firm to that."

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, former Navy Judge Advocate General, acknowledged that the administration was "probably being pushed" to try the suspects in military tribunals. But he said it would be "sad and a mistake that we should politicize these decisions and get Congress involved in what is clearly the constitutional responsibility of the president."

Holder, who initially proposed civilian trials, told the New Yorker last month he was "distressed" that people "who know better" have suggested that civilian trials would not work.

And on Feb. 14th, Vice President Biden said on "Face the Nation" that "we have no doubt the best, most effective legal way to get his guy behind bars for the longest time and get the most information with the most certainty is in an Article Three court."

He added, however, that that the president would consider a military tribunal if Congress were to limit funding an expensive federal case.

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

11 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment See all 11 Comments

by pr_boxer March 6, 2010 7:39 PM EST

dave, I say that KSM is NOT a prisoner of war, because I understand what the legal term "Prisoner of War" means. You obviously don't!

Reply to this comment


by Dave1-- March 6, 2010 8:37 PM EST: pr_boxer - I also do NOT think he earned the right to be formally designated as a "prisoner of war" because he committed at least two war crimes that deny him that right.

He did not wear a uniform and targeted the innocent (instead of a military target). As such, according to international law, I think he has absolutely no rights and may be executed anytime, anyplace without trial. I am not suggesting we do that, I still believe he should be treated like a prisoner of war and tried in a military court.

As I previously stated, I consider it BRAIN DEAD STUPID to pretend you are not at war, and that he is not a soldier. You are a FOOL if you treat him as a common criminal and give him the full protections afforded by our criminal justice system.

by Dave1-- March 6, 2010 3:58 PM EST

pr_boxer - You say "KSM is NOT a prisoner of war. " You say he is not an "enemy combatant" and "he's certainly no soldier, he's a criminal."

You sound like you like to pretend we are not at war. If you wish to confront your self imposed blindness about that I suggest you google "Bin Laden full text declaration of war" and read several of the items

You appear to be making stuff up and ignoring the obvious if you don't think he is a soldier! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

The Islamic extremists formally declared war against us and waged war against us by killing the innocent and taking down the Trade Towers. I mean, how difficult it that for you? Clearly he was taught, trained and provisioned by a group that formally declared war against us.

What makes you make stuff up and ignore the observable and easily confirmable fact of physical reality that stares you in the face?

Reply to this comment


by ToolMangler1 March 6, 2010 5:26 PM EST: A person waging war with you will declare it up front and follow the Geneva Convention agreement. They will also be dressed in an identifiable uniform. (That it to differentiate them from civilians,)
Any other conflict will be deemed 'criminal'


by Dave1-- March 6, 2010 6:58 PM EST: Yes, according to the Geneva Convention a soldier MUST wear an identifiable uniform in order to gain the rights given to them by the Geneva Convention. If they do not wear a uniform, they have no rights, and may be immediately shot.

Of course, if you are a really STUPID person you might suggest that waging war without a uniform and targeting the innocent gives you more rights than wearing a uniform and targeting military targets.

Of course, if you are BRAIN DEAD STUPID, you pretend you are not at war, and that he is not a soldier. You treat him as a common criminal and give him the full protections afforded by our criminal justice system.


by pr_boxer March 6, 2010 2:56 PM EST: KSM is NOT a prisoner of war, remember the Bush Admin called him an "enemy combatant", Whatever his status he's certainly no soldier, he's a criminal.

Those who want him tried by a Military Tribunal are under the false impression that it would insure conviction. One thing for sure is an unfair trial will result in a propaganda victory for the radical Islamist.; Reply to this comment


by Dave1-- March 6, 2010 4:14 AM EST: Article 84 of the Geneva Convention states "A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, unless the existing laws of the Detaining Power expressly permit the civil courts to try a member of the armed forces of the Detaining Power in respect of the particular offence alleged to have been committed by the prisoner of war."; Reply to this comment


by RobAla March 5, 2010 9:13 PM EST: OK - three people don't like the idea of military tribunals - and millions of Americans do like the idea. Why is this author concerned with the 3?; Reply to this comment


by peregrine3 March 5, 2010 7:19 PM EST: The problem with washington....I know, we don't have all day, is that an admission, or inferrential admission of misjudgement is a sign of weakness and ignorance. I think its been proven on countless accounts that the lack of pragmatism in washington is self serving therefore counter to the act of serving the people. I know all of the blogger out here have never been guilty of misjudgement so of course they are free to critize.; Reply to this comment