Execution "Likely" for Sept. 11 Mastermind

(CBS/AP)  The Obama administration said Sunday it would consider local opposition when deciding where to hold Sept. 11 terror trials and pledged to seek swift justice for the professed mastermind of the attacks.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," said President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs. "He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of."

Objections from New York City officials and residents have intensified since the Justice Department announced late last year it planned to put Mohammed and other accused Sept. 11 conspirators on trial in federal court in lower Manhattan. In its new budget, the Obama administration is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting terrorist trials.

White House aide David Axelrod said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other city officials have changed their minds after initially supporting the decision for trials in the city, citing logistics and costs.

"The president believes that we need to take into consideration what the local authorities are saying," Axelrod said. "But he also believes ... that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice swift and sure."

The administration said late last year the trials would take place in federal court in lower Manhattan, near where the World Trade Center once stood. But there's growing opposition from the city, and it now seems likely that the White House will decide to hold the trial elsewhere.

Safety and cost have been issues in the debate, but some officials also have questioned the administration's legal strategy for using civilian courts for the suspects instead of military tribunals.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said the administration should shift the trials to military courts, which he said have been reviewed by Congress to ensure fairness. He and other Republicans have criticized officials for charging Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court in the Christmas airliner plot instead of turning him over to military authorities.

"We have to make a distinction between a kid who breaks into a sandwich shop in Detroit and a Nigerian terrorist who wants to blow up an airplane flying into Detroit," Alexander said.

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, indicated he didn't support the request for $200 million for civilian trials, saying he favored trying terrorism suspects safely, quickly and inexpensively.

"If there's somewhere we can try them without spending that money, why spend the money? We've got a lot of other fiscal problems," Bayh said.

Gibbs spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" while Axelrod appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Alexander and Bayh spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

[Leaderless]

LOL, since barack and eric treats this scumbag as a common criminal with constitutional rights, shouldn't he be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They basically convicted this scumbag already by talking about his excecution.
We all know this scumbag should be trial as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal. This would have cost a lot less and not have to compromise classified materials.

[hutch1934]

If this man is executed, then a few Americans should share his pain: George Tenet, Louis Freeh, Thomas Pickard (interim FBI head) and Robert Mueller. These men had foreknowledge and the actual events of 9-11 were orchestrated by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Oh, for good measure, throw in the crazy neo-conservative plus Arial Sharon and the Saudi Royals. There is room in Hell for the lot of them

[tlwalker4]

So...now the President's official talking head has said that this guy is likely to be executed.

Remember, the Obama administration has made him a criminal defendant instead of an enemy combatant, so he has all those defedant rights. Including the right to a fair trial. Thus, the President's official talking head has just handed the defense counsel a wonderful arguement--the man cannot get a fair trial since the Federal government, represented by the President and his henchmnen, declare publicly that he will probably be executed. And people who are not guilty are not executed. The President has in effect said that he is guilty. So, the argument will go, how can one possibly seat a jury free of prejudice if the President says he is guilty? And a telling arguement it will be.

Talk about tainting a trial!

The possibilities are three:

1. That the Obama administration people are too stupid to realize
that speaking out like this taints a trial;

2. That the Obama administration people realize that speaking ourt
like this taints a trial, but they did it anyway, because they
think talking tough aout terrorists, after soft-pedaling around
the whole thing, will help them win back some support;

3. The Obama administrtion did this deliberately, in order to taint
the trial, for reasons of their own (whatever those may be), that
are at this time opaque to the rest of us.

[acupuncturegirl]

I don't think you guys get it.

Rush gets it... Obama gets it... IT IS NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THESE GUYS WILL GET CONVICTED IN A FAIR TRIAL. The government may not have enough evidence. Period.

And, since 911 was an inside job, many of us feel, perhaps the evidence is tainted.

Civilian trials, which are the only legal way to go, MAY NOT CONVICT them, especially if held OUTSIDE NY. Thats why the Hoaxer wants them IN NY. He NEEDS a conviction from hysterical jurors.

Military trials will NOT work either. Judges will be FORCED to release people who are not charged and tried, eventually. THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO release many. You can't hold people who have not been convicted of crimes, forever. That is against our law no matter civil, criminal or military.

Thats the consequence of AN INADEQUATE, DISHONEST, INVESTIGATION INTO 911.

We, like the president, are caught in a web of our own device.

[displeased]

Swift justice? It's already been 8.5 years. And $200 million for security? That's our efficient and cost effective government for ya.

[Mortar_29]

I am for locking him up for another 8.5 years until we kill him.

[IndependentTexas]

After getting all the info we needed from him, we could have lined him up against a wall at Gitmo and shot him. That would have cost us five bullets, not $200 million.

[inventagod]

Wow - I guess we don't need trials anymore? The President's talking heads have declared this man guilty.
But what if they are wrong?
I would hate to be in this 'terrorist's place.
Our government has plucked men from a crowd before, and declared them guilty, and they were not.
All the President's Men have been biased and proven crooks in the past, I recall...
There is a mob mentality here, set in place by an ex-President and his minions. These were dishonest men, who have been forced out of office by voters tired of the good-old-boy network.
Let the trials proceed before you tar and feather these objects of your hatred.

[erb0087]

by Mortar_29 February 1, 2010 1:29 PM EST
It happens. That is what the French did with Polanski!

=========================================

That's why I don't live in France.

That, and the lousy cuisine.

My nephew was there, and he said there isn't a decent restaurant anywhere in the damn country.

Just a lot of fast food joints.

[Mortar_29]

Erb, I have been to France. And on this point, you and I both can agree, my friend.

[erb0087]

Maybe I'll just try to find the answer myself.

I don't want some librarian with an over active imagination, suspecting me of any past crimes.

Anybody else can post the question there, tough.

Folks braver than me.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/askalib/

(Askalib means "Ask a librarian")

[erb0087]

Anybody else can post the question there, though.

On any academic subject, actually.

Your tax dollars are paying for this service. You might as well use it.

[erb0087]

"Have any cases in he past involved terrible crimes committed by Americans against the citizens of a country like Mainland China, and what happened in consequence if and when they got back to America. "

==============================================

I'd better be very careful abot asking that question of the Libary of Congress.

The questioner has to identify himself.

I don't want anyone to think it's one of those "I have this friend, who..." type questions, and suspect I've actually commited such a crime, or plan to. And tip off the Feds or something.

Is that being too paranoid ?

[Mortar_29]

Maybe not.