Obama prejudiced KSM trial

[Anonymous]

The Administration made a big deal about giving KSM all the rights afforded a criminal defendant, and then Obama opined that KSM was guilty and would receive the death penalty. I guess he forgot about the presumption of innocence. The defense attorneys will enjoy quoting Obama in their pleadings. What was he thinking?

[jsteele]

Apparently he was thinking that KSM would be convicted and then executed. If he didn't think that, he would never have risked a civil trial. I doubt there is a single juror in NYC that could be further prejudiced in this case, regardless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Administration made a big deal about giving KSM all the rights afforded a criminal defendant, and then Obama opined that KSM was guilty and would receive the death penalty. I guess he forgot about the presumption of innocence. The defense attorneys will enjoy quoting Obama in their pleadings. What was he thinking?

Well, since he is not a member of the judiciary, I see no problem. The executive branch's function is to prosecute.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like we all agree that there is no presumption of innocence for the defendants in this case, so the civil trial is purely a show trial at the waste of millions of dollars of tax payers money and years of time. It would have been more reasonable, expeditious and less costly to proceed with a military tribunal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like we all agree that there is no presumption of innocence for the defendants in this case, so the civil trial is purely a show trial at the waste of millions of dollars of tax payers money and years of time. It would have been more reasonable, expeditious and less costly to proceed with a military tribunal.

I don't get this statement. Presumption of Innocence is the responsibility of a judge and jury. Obama is neither.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like we all agree that there is no presumption of innocence for the defendants in this case, so the civil trial is purely a show trial at the waste of millions of dollars of tax payers money and years of time. It would have been more reasonable, expeditious and less costly to proceed with a military tribunal.

I also expect that Nidal Hasan will be convicted of murder and sentenced to death. However, I support a fair trial for him as well. Also, expectations should not be confused with outcomes. Twice this fall I've expected the Green Bay Packers to beat the Vikings. Twice, my expectations were not met. As the saying goes, that's why they play the game.

[Anonymous]

Will Hasan plead insanity?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Will Hasan plead insanity?

My understanding is that the insanity defense is very difficult in the military justice system and will not likely be used by Hasan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will Hasan plead insanity?

I think it would amount to treason to his cause if he did so. It would be a propaganda coup for us, he'd be excoriated by his cohorts, and he'd probably be institutionalized under maximum security, so he would not even gain anything.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like we all agree that there is no presumption of innocence for the defendants in this case, so the civil trial is purely a show trial at the waste of millions of dollars of tax payers money and years of time. It would have been more reasonable, expeditious and less costly to proceed with a military tribunal.

I also expect that Nidal Hasan will be convicted of murder and sentenced to death. However, I support a fair trial for him as well. Also, expectations should not be confused with outcomes. Twice this fall I've expected the Green Bay Packers to beat the Vikings. Twice, my expectations were not met. As the saying goes, that's why they play the game.

I would think so. Hasan Akbar was sentenced to death for a similar act. He was the one who was convicted in military trial of a grenade attack on his own troops, and he is on death row now (due for an automatic appeal). Lastly, his lawyers were unsuccessful with introducing mental illness, although I do not know how to compare the relative merits of those claims vs. Hasan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Administration made a big deal about giving KSM all the rights afforded a criminal defendant, and then Obama opined that KSM was guilty and would receive the death penalty. I guess he forgot about the presumption of innocence. The defense attorneys will enjoy quoting Obama in their pleadings. What was he thinking?

Well, since he is not a member of the judiciary, I see no problem. The executive branch's function is to prosecute.

A prosecutor will lose his license to practice law if he/she intentionally prejudices a jury pool. Obama, an Ivy League educated lawyer, should know that. He reacted politically. Something he should have thought through before the anouncement. Another thing about the announcment of the KSM trial, it occurred right before Thanksgiving and while Obama was outside the US. Was that a coincidence? DOJ has been preety trial shy on the the other GTMO annoucements (at least since the Sen. Graham evicerated the AG on the KSM decision).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Administration made a big deal about giving KSM all the rights afforded a criminal defendant, and then Obama opined that KSM was guilty and would receive the death penalty. I guess he forgot about the presumption of innocence. The defense attorneys will enjoy quoting Obama in their pleadings. What was he thinking?

Well, since he is not a member of the judiciary, I see no problem. The executive branch's function is to prosecute.

A prosecutor will lose his license to practice law if he/she intentionally prejudices a jury pool. Obama, an Ivy League educated lawyer, should know that. He reacted politically. Something he should have thought through before the anouncement. Another thing about the announcment of the KSM trial, it occurred right before Thanksgiving and while Obama was outside the US. Was that a coincidence? DOJ has been preety trial shy on the the other GTMO annoucements (at least since the Sen. Graham evicerated the AG on the KSM decision).

Isn't the job of the prosecution to make the assertion that a defendant is guilty? I don't know how that prejudices a jury. That's their job. If prosecutors did not think someone was guilty, they would not charge them with crimes.

[Anonymous]

A prosecutor will lose his license to practice law if he/she intentionally prejudices a jury pool. Obama, an Ivy League educated lawyer, should know that. He reacted politically. Something he should have thought through before the anouncement. Another thing about the announcment of the KSM trial, it occurred right before Thanksgiving and while Obama was outside the US. Was that a coincidence? DOJ has been preety trial shy on the the other GTMO annoucements (at least since the Sen. Graham evicerated the AG on the KSM decision).

Isn't the job of the prosecution to make the assertion that a defendant is guilty? I don't know how that prejudices a jury. That's their job. If prosecutors did not think someone was guilty, they would not charge them with crimes.

Not in public before trial. The assertions are left for the courtroom. If you remember a few years ago, a former State's Attorney got in trouble for making similar public statements.

The comments are worse coming from the president because DOJ said the reason for the case was to show the world how fairly the US treats her enemies. Then after a little political fallout, the Administration guarantees victory. Any potential juror is going to be hard-pressed not to convict.