Putting Admitted Terrorists on Trial
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSH)
I must say that I am very confused about bringing an admitted terrorist into our country and its court system, where everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, has an attorney assigned to them if they cannot afford one, and they enjoy the full rights and benefits of any other individual accused of a crime in the United States.
Evidence will be brought to bear on the case and, based on the preponderance of the evidence as presented skilfully by attorneys on both sides, and as adjudicated freely and with respect for the law, the judge and/or jury will find KSH innocent or guilty.
If, as Eric Holder, Obama’s choice for the U.S. Attorney General, has indicated ‘KSH’ should be found guilty of horrible crimes and should be brought to justice, I am wondering what is Holder’s real purpose of trying this mastermind here. He must know that there is a chance that the well-meaning set of 12 honest, everyday jurors in this case, through legalese or side-deals or bias, might find to acquit. Right? Then what?
Holder says he’s guilty, yet brings him here (while trying others in a military tribunal) to “try” him in a courtroom which Holder expects to find him guilty. I see the twisted mess we are left with if this happens. But where’s the upside?
Am I missing something?