Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

KSM mistrial!

Post by Michael Allen on Nov. 20, 2009 at 11:31 am with 8 Comments »
November 20, 2009 6:16 pm

In case you haven’t heard, the president of the United States just declared accused 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed guilty and even announced what his sentence will be.

I’m not kidding. A newsman asked President Barack Obama if he understands why ordinary Americans are so offended that Mohammed (“KSM” in Newspeak) is receiving constitutional rights due only to American citizens. Obama replied: “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he is convicted and when the death penalty is applied.”

Oh really?

Can you imagine the uproar if President Bush had assured Americans that an untried defendant in a federal court would certainly be “convicted” and receive the “death penalty” months before he even went on trial? Such a blunder would no doubt be ascribed to Bush’s “stupidity.”

It’s hard to ignore it coming from Obama, but of course the mainstream news media won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole. They still believe our president is far too intelligent (“he edited the Yale Law Review!”) to blow off a sacred American belief that the accused are assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Prejudgment normally provides grounds to drop criminal charges, throw a case out of court or bring in a “not guilty” verdict. It will not do so in this case, because no federal judge in his right mind is going to turn KSM loose just because the president of the United States screwed up. And besides, the federal court (like the Obama administration) knows this isn’t a real trial. KSM has already (proudly) admitted he planned the 9/11 attack on New York City. This “trial” is no more than a costly display of liberal self-righteousness. The worst possible outcome of Obama’s gaffe will be a defense motion for a mistrial that will delay the proceedings for a few weeks (and a few more million dollars).*

Yet all of this craziness begs a question: Why on earth is Khalik Sheikh Mohammed, a prisoner of war, being tried as a civilian under due process of law in a federal courtroom in New York City? Why are we even discussing the “constitutional rights” of a pathological, self-confessed Jihadist terrorist?

It is now perfectly clear that sane people in the USA have only one recourse: We must immediately pop some corn, lay in a big stash of cold beer, and sit back and watch this televised circus as it unfolds. The multimillion-dollar “trial” of Khalik Sheikh Mohammed could very well go on for a year, maybe more.

As Charles Krauthammer recently noted, OJ doesn’t have anything on KSM…

*Another possibility is that KSM’s lawyer will file for a change of venue to move the trial to a less “partial” courtroom in, say, Yemen.

Leave a comment Comments → 8
  1. “This blog offers readers a behind-the-scenes glimpse of The News Tribune’s opinion sections. We post observations, our editorials prior to publication, commentary we can’t fit into the print edition and interesting ideas we’ve come across.”

    So what exactly is this supposed to be? Seems like I just turned on Fox news…I though this was the TNT not Michelle Malkin’s website

  2. Pacman33 says:

    Is there something in particular you actually refute in Michael Allen’s piece?

    Your comment is a perfect example of how the majority of today’s media contains a liberal bias. I apologize if it seem I am singling you out. But so often, when someone dares to say or write anything that doesn’t lean or is critical of left it is immediately dismissed as right-wing rhetoric without any substance being addressed.

    Most days I wonder if I logged on to Media Matters or when reading TNT content. Maybe that is what’s responsible for the attraction.

  3. Pacman,

    Oh you are right. He presents a balanced reasoned opinion.

    Its not that that what he writes is critical of the left. It has nothing to do with the “left”. This is the problem. Typical open-ended questions “Why on earth is Khalik Sheikh Mohammed, a prisoner of war, being tried as a civilian under due process of law in a federal courtroom in New York City? Why are we even discussing the “constitutional rights” of a pathological, self-confessed Jihadist terrorist?”

    We are doing this because it is the LAW. SOmething recognized by all four Judge Advocate Generals of the Army ,Navy ,Air Force, and Marines.

    This makes about as much sense as saying ” Why haven’t we dunked them in water to see if they float” Oh wait we did dunk him in water.

  4. Another example. The TNT “POLL” offers three choices:

    “The 9/11 terrorists should be:

    Tried in civil court in New York City
    Tried by a military tribunal at Gitmo or elsewhere outside U.S. borders
    Should be classified as enemy combatants & locked up indefinitely without trial”

    Again a deceptive misunderstanding of events. There is no plan to to have a trial in civil court. They will be tried in CRIMINAL court.

  5. Pacman33 says:


    Your statement “We are doing this because it is the LAW” is absolutey absurd and untrue. Even if your claim was factual, explain to me why a suspect in the USS Cole bombing and four other terror suspects will be tried by military commissions instead of a federal courtroom.

    Your claim about the Judge Advocate Generals, or JAGs, is also false. Infact the JAG’s not only support the commisions, but have worked closely with congress to form the framework of these commissions. Their testimony in commitee hearings have been extremely helpful with recent reform. Even if your claim was factual, what JAG’s “recognize” is irrelevant. Judge Advocate Generals are nothing but lawyers with a couple of stars on their collar who give advise.
    Here is some of their opinions from a Armed Service Commitee hearing in July:

    “We are willing to be judged by what we are putting together today. You ought to feel very comfortable sending anybody to this commission process with these changes because we have what we believe to be a fair and just system,” Vice Admiral Bruce E MacDonald USN, JAG.

    “At that time, I stated that I supported the military commission process. My views have not changed.”BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES C. WALKER, USMC,JAG

    As for the TNT poll, I think they meant “civilian” instead of “civil”. I believe the term “federal” would have been the most appropriate usage. “Civilian court” is the most commonly used term in D.C. and media sources. I have not seen or heard of anyone refer to it as a “criminal court” when addressing the NYC trials.

  6. derekyoung says:

    Could you explain what rule prohibits the President from expressing his opinion? You claim that it could cause a mistrial, but I don’t think he will be sitting on the jury or a judge. Do prosecutors also have to be impartial?

    It seems like the misconduct would come from prosecuting someone you do not believe to be guilty.

  7. villager98 says:

    The President misspoke, notable only because he is usually more careful. If President Bush had said the same thing it would bring no more outcry than we have heard about this instance, although Bush did it more often. By the way, pacman, you are a million miles off base factually.

  8. Pacman33 says:

    By the way creep, nice pop shot. Do you really want some of this? Please tell, how many miles? Come get some.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0