Robert Gibbs: KSM will be “tried, convicted, and likely executed,” will “meet his maker”

Posted by: ST on January 31, 2010 at 4:31 pm


WASHINGTON – Accused Sept. 11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is likely to be executed after being tried and convicted, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

Gibbs spoke on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The Obama administration has begun looking for places other than the heart of New York City to prosecute Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators in the face of fierce criticism tied to security and costs.

Here’s video of Gibbs’ remarks to a surprisingly and refreshingly aggressive John King on CNN:

Bbbbut what about the whole “fair trial” thing the administration has been pushing since the news that KSM will be tried on American soil first broke? I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but I actually find myself (mostly) agreeing with something written at the ultra-liberal Firedoglake blog by Democrat attorney Cynthia Kouril:


White House press spokesman Robert Gibbs just said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) would likely be executed after trial and conviction. WTF?!?

Am I the only person left who still remembers a legal concept called presumption of innocence? Am I the only one who remembers that the whole point of a trial is that the outcome is not certain?

Listen Gibbs, do NOT insult the prosecutors who are about to work their asses off trying to put together a winning criminal case. Do NOT insult the hardworking defense counsel who are going to put thousands of hours into making sure that KSM gets due process. Do NOT insult the excellent federal judges of SDNY by suggesting that any one of them would preside over a kangaroo court. Do NOT insult our entire criminal justice system.

In a real trial, the outcome is not known before the trial occurs. Further, much of the information in the hands of the government which will be used at trial against KSM should currently be Grand Jury Material, subject to secrecy under Rule 6e. Which means that you, Robert Gibbs, cannot legally know exactly what that evidence might be. So, how could you possibly know if KSM is going to be convicted? How do you know that?

Then again, this isn’t and never was going to be a “real trial” to begin with: AG Eric Holder has already admitted, without even realizing it, that the “fair trial” angle was a complete farce.

Ms. Kouril likely wants KSM to get a true fair trial in a civilian court with due process and all that, while I think he should be tried in a military tribunal in Gitmo because he is not an American citizen who should be afforded any Constitutional “rights.” Not only that, but he’s a confessed terrorist who has already boastfully admitted his guilt. But even with those differences in her beliefs and mine, she’s dead on on one thing: No one in the administration should be pre-determining anyone’s guilt before a trial has been conducted, especially when they’re routinely preaching about the “fairness of the US justice system” and how the legal process must “run its course.”

When even liberals start to see through the joke that is the rationale for the Obama’s/Holder’s decision to try admitted terrorists in civilian court on US soil, you know the administration is in trouble. They’ve already backed down on having the trial in NYC, but will they back down, also, on trying KSM on American soil at all? Gibbs hedged when asked about that by John King, but I seriously doubt they will – in spite of rumors to the contrary. They’ve got too much already invested in trying to “show the world that the American justice system can be fair even to terrorists” to turn back now. Not only that, but there’s also the whole putting the Bush admin on trial by proxy thing, which they wouldn’t give up for anything – not even in the interests of our national security.

The only question is: When will the rest of the world start waking up, too, to see that the KSM trial will be nothing but a pathetic show trial that will aid Al Qaeda more than it will “repair” our standing with European elites? Or will they remain as clueless as this administration has been? Clueless and, I should add, dangerous.

Cross-posted to Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

19 Responses to “Robert Gibbs: KSM will be “tried, convicted, and likely executed,” will “meet his maker””


  1. Anthony says:

    Jeez, between “Pixie” Gibbs’ and Obama’s own prejudicial remarks, they’re laying a deep foundation for a motion for a mistrial that a judge will have to take seriously. Do these clowns have any idea what they’re doing?:o)

  2. Otter says:

    Do these clowns have any idea what they’re doing?~ Anthony.

    YES. And that is why they are doing it.

  3. Dave E. says:

    Anthony, the concise answer is nope. They are not just ideologues, they are amateurs.

    And ST is right that they are turning what should have been a precise presentation of facts to a military tribunal into what will be a civilian show trial. It’s going to get slammed by one or more federal judges. The only question is at what level.

  4. I was going to post the same thing as Anthony but will only add that we should have saved ourselves the $200m in between the end of interrogations and the execution. Now that we aren’t allowed to interrogate captured terrorists without first reading them their Miranda rights anymore, why don’t we just execute them summarily at capture as unlawful combatants as the Geneva Convention allows? Two hundred plus million dollars or the cost of a bullet? Easy decision.

  5. NC Cop says:

    Well, when those federal judges dismiss evidence and some terrorists receive light sentences or flat out dismissals, the Obama administration will blame Bush saying “See! Their torture techniques are the reason they were let go!!”

    However, if that does happen I think you can write off B.O. and the dems in 2012. We can only pray that they don’t get thousands more people killed with their impotent foreign policies.

  6. memomachine says:


    What worries me is something that has only been touched upon lightly and that is the corrosive effect the KSM trial will have on the American legal system.

    From the presumption of innocence to the potentially insane result of an acquittal there are a multitude of issues that the KSM trial will affect. But the issue most in my mind is what happens afterwards? There is only one way a federal law can be created and that is through Congress and a signing by the President. But a law can be interpreted or re-interpreted by the courts and this can seriously affect the courts due to precedence. Our court system is based not just on the law as written but the law as interpreted by the courts themselves.

    So what if KSM is acquitted and then promptly re-arrested and incarcerated indefinitely without any further due process?

    Once due process has been given, can it then be taken away at the whim of the government? If you are acquitted of all charges can the police re-arrest you based on nothing at all and jail you? If we do that to KSM then any American is potentially subject to the same treatment.

    This opens a very ugly door wide open for abuse. If this is allowed by the appellate and Supreme courts then it -is- the law as interpreted by the courts. And since a major foundation of the legal system is that the law must apply equally to all then that means that we are ALL potentially KSM in the eyes of the government.

    There lies madness.

  7. tailgunner says:

    Reminds me of that line in the old Westerns…”Give him a fair trial…THEN hang ‘im.”

  8. Carlos says:

    One of the greatest misunderstandings by the public of B.H. Obama is that he is a constitutional lawyer. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    If he were a real constitutional lawyer, he would have recognized all the arguments made in the past several years, all the problems with bringing the prisoners-of-war to American soil, and all the potential dangers of anyone from him down through the prosecutors and investigators screwing up the entire process and releasing highly classified material through discovery.

    The fact he taught constitutional law in Chicago only goes to show how weak legal education is in our country today (along with the rest of education).

  9. Marshall Art says:

    Indeed. That he taught constitutional law doesn’t mean he taught it well, or that he had a good enough grasp of it in order to teach it at all. These bozos have stepped in it so deeply on this issue that the more they say about it, the more likely they’ll say something really stupid. That’s the likely result of doing stupid things.

  10. Dave B says:

    This whole debacle has already affected our safety. It causes a “question” as to whether the Christmas bomber should be mirandized… and of course one of those idiots made the decision to let him lawyer up.

  11. drjohn says:

    How does the above statement jibe with this statement from an idiot Constitutional law professor scholar?

    I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.


  12. Great White Rat says:

    Yes, this will give the defense a good argument for a mistrial. Remember when Nixon was pilloried for saying Charles Manson was guilty? Manson nearly got a mistrial when he brought the LA Times into the courtroom and showed it to the jury, and that was AFTER the trial began. Obama and his cronies are poisoning the jury pool BEFORE the trials begin.

    But they don’t care. They’ll blame Bush and Cheney and Fox News anyway, as NC Cop says. Carlos put his finger on the greater harm, and that’s the classified material that the defense will receive during discovery (and promptly give to AQ).

    So instead of a military tribunal that would dispense proper justice quickly, we have the very real possibility of a civilian trial that will (1) waste hundreds of millions of dollars, (2) let the 9-11 plotters walk, (3) refuel the “blame Bush” rhetoric tank that’s been running low lately, and (4) tell AQ exactly what anti-terrorist intelligence and methods we have.

    It’s hard to believe this administration could be this stupid by accident.

  13. Carlos says:

    GWR, they won’t have to give it to aQ, the Times will print it for them as a service to the terrorist community they so proudly serve.

    And they aren’t this stupid. It is incompetence, maybe bordering on treason, but very much planned.

  14. Wyatt Earp says:

    Hey Gibbsy, Josef Stalin called and even he thinks this show trial is a disgrace.

  15. ZippyTheWerewolf says:

    @ Pasadena Phil

    I agree. One bullet is the economical way to go.

  16. Great White Rat says:

    And they aren’t this stupid. It is incompetence, maybe bordering on treason, but very much planned.

    Bingo, Carlos. My point exactly.

    And I forgot one other ramification of holding the civilian trial: (5) give the AQ terrorists a worldwide megaphone to spread their lies and recruit more jihadis.

  17. Nothing epitomizes the idiocy of this administration than this situation.

    It was blindingly obvious from the very moment the decision was made to try KSM and his cohorts in NYC that it was a disaster waiting to happen. At first it was just the right screaming, but the more reasonable Democrats have joined in as well.

    The result is that the administration is backing down and al Qaeda is laughing. Congratulations, Barry.

  18. ZippyTheWerewolf says:

    Excellent point GWR.

  19. Carlos says:

    Tom, I hope you aren’t implying the likes of Chucky Cheesy Schumer is a “more reasonable Democrat”. He doesn’t want the trials stopped – only that they be moved away from NYC so that city’s not a bigger target than it already is.

    And I haven’t noticed Hillarious commenting on this yet. Maybe she’s feeling that the American people are getting just what they deserve after rejecting her for this social retard.