I’m no lawyer, but the President of the United States and the Attorney General of the United States have both come out before a trial and told us that the civilian trial of KSM will result in the conviction and execution of the defendant.

Doesn’t that somehow taint the jury pool? Couldn’t the defendant claim that there’s no possible way to get a fair trial now?

Futhermore, aren’t defendants presumed innocent, and has this presumption been violated by the two highest-profile lawyers in the federal government?

…and we might as well quit trying.

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/insanity-of-the-day/

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Would it be improper, or at least appear improper, to ship a high-profile terrorist mastermind to New York City to be tried in a civilian court when you used to be a senior partner at a law firm that goes out of its way to defend terrorists? What if you used to make a lot of money doing so?

What if that same company gave you a $5 million bonus as you left it to take on a new job as Attorney General of the United States? Would that strike you as possibly being a conflict of interest? Would an extensive personal history of defending terrorists and endorsing the Presidential pardons of convicted terrorists seem to reinforce the idea that you might have some kind of soft spot for the worst people on Earth? Or not?

Will criticizing the corrupt sleazeball who serves as Attorney General put the author of this blog post on some kind of FBI watch list? I’ve got to know.

I have some questions. Anyone is free to answer.

Last week, the Obama administration, specifically Attorney General Eric Holder, announced that several terrorists including the guy behind the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, will be brought from Guantanamo to New York City to face trial in a civilian court, with a civilian judge, with a civilian jury, about 6 blocks away from the former site of the towers.

My questions:

1. These terrorists were capture on the battlefield by uniformed soldiers, not law enforcement folks. They were not read their rights. Why won’t they or their lawyers be able to ask for the charges to be dismissed because of this?

2. The President has called what these men experienced in Guantanamo "torture." Why won’t they or their lawyers be able to claim that any confessions of guilt were obtained under threat of further torture, and therefore should be dismissed by the judge?

3. These terrorists did not have access to legal counsel during their interrogations. Why can’t they or their lawyers claim that their rights have been violated and thus request that the charges be dismissed?

4. In their defense, these men or their lawyers will presumably be given access to the same confidential or classified information that the prosecution will use to make their case. What will be done to protect this classified information from being publically released or leaked by participants in the trial?

5. Given the public outcry against the supposedly illegal treatment of these terrorists by the public, what’s the possibility that a jury could acquit them outright and set them loose on American soil?

6. What’s to prevent these men from representing themselves in court, giving themselves a spotlight to gloat over the success of the attacks and rage against the Great Satan in the most public forum possible, while gaining access to our country’s national security information and infrastructure?

7. Please refute the following conclusion:

Pres. 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.

8. Please refute the following conclusion:

By transferring this case to civilian court rather than leaving it to be handled by the military-commission system created by Congress, Obama and Holder have needlessly created a perilous dilemma. Do we deny KSM & Co. the right to represent themselves and thus risk reversal of any convictions on Sixth Amendment grounds? Do we grant them self-representation but withhold critical discovery and thus risk reversal on due process grounds? Or do we grant them self-representation and disclose directly to our wartime enemies the nation’s security secrets, which they can then pass on to confederates who are actively targeting us for mass-murder attacks?

This stuff, more than anything else Barack Obama has done, tells me that he doesn’t have the country’s best interests at heart. Closing Guantanamo was supposed to make us safer, but the alternative that the administration has come up with is appalling. The idea that we give these guys a voice in a civilian court is stupid and evil. Expecting to convict them under American civilian law when no constitutional due process has been extended to them up until now is stupid and evil. Giving access to our intelligence services to people who want to destroy us is stupid and evil. Attempting to use the American courts to embarrass the previous administration for their honest attempts to defend the country against this scum is stupid and evil.

When reality sets in and we see what this decision unleashes, this stuff, more than anything else, might be the undoing of Barack Obama.

Michelle Obama thinks teachers are the key to a successful economy.

She’s full of crap, as usual, but this comment from a teacher would be a fine argument against any future bull markets.

Rebecca S of NY

"I think that Michele Obama’s artical is an excellant one. I am a public school teacher and I work very hard. We are well underpaid and work very hard. We need more money to teach the kids. I have over 22 students in my classroom and it is difficult. I should only have 15."