9/11

9/11, al-Nashiri, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Military Commissions, USS Cole

Holder holding KSM death penalty hostage for 9/11 civilian trial? (Update: plug these other damn holes!)

by  • 

One April 21, 2010, I took issue with this (now repeated) assertion by Attorney General Eric Holder before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: Yes. In an Article III court, a person can plead guilty to a capital offense; that is not allowed in a military commission.

In fact, 949i(b) of the Military Commissions Act indicates an accused may plead guilty and specifically states that a guilty plea is the equal of a finding of guilty by a panel (a military commission’s jury):

Finding of Guilt After Guilty Plea.–With respect to any charge or specification to which a plea of guilty has been made by the accused in a military commission under this chapter and accepted by the military judge, a finding of guilty of the charge or specification may be entered immediately without a vote. The finding shall constitute the finding of the commission unless the plea of guilty is withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence, in which event the proceedings shall continue as though the accused had pleaded not guilty.

Sec. 949m(1) “Numbers of votes required” elaborates

“(a) Conviction.–No person may be convicted by a military commission under this chapter of any offense, except as provided in section 949i(b) of this title or by concurrence of two-thirds of the members present at the time the vote is taken.
“(b) Sentences.–
(1) No person may be sentenced by a military commission to suffer death, except insofar as–
“(A) the penalty of death is expressly authorized under this chapter or the law of war for an offense of which the accused has been found guilty;
“(B) trial counsel expressly sought the penalty of death by filing an appropriate notice in advance of trial;
“(C) the accused is convicted of the offense by the concurrence of all the members present at the time the vote is taken; and
“(D) all the members present at the time the vote is taken concur in the sentence of death.

It is clear that subsequent to a guilty plea, a finding of guilty by a military judge is commensurate with a unanimous guilty verdict vote by a panel. If that were not true, then a military judge also may not assume lesser thresholds were meant should an accused plead guilty in order to impose any penalty requiring lesser minimums. For example, The MCA also says:

“No person may be sentenced to life imprisonment, or to confinement for more than 10 years, by a military commission under this chapter except by the concurrence of three-fourths of the members present at the time the vote is taken.”

Yet AG Holder is not arguing that a military judge does not have the authority to sentence Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any of his four lieutenants to life imprisonment, should they plead guilty to charges carrying that as the maximum penalty, without the concurrence of “three-fourths of the members present.”

As Debra Burlingame stated back in April:

“Congress could clear up any ambiguity by amending the statute.” She added, “Why would anyone who supports an Article III capital plea vote against it? The defendant wants to plead guilty.”

But let’s back up to the summer of 2009 when, after a 5-month review by the Department of Justice’s Task Force, the White House announced it would ask Congress to “fix” the Military Commissions Act. Why did they not state then that the death penalty verbiage needed fixing?

If they discovered a problem only after Congress passed legislation last year, then Mr. Holder should stop fear-mongering on TV and ask President Obama to ask Congress to again fix the MCA.

Update: During his November 18, 2009 appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder gave no indication that the death penalty subsequent to a possible guilty plea in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole might not be within the authority of a military judge:

“We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.”

Which prompts me to point out that just last week the Military Commissions at Gitmo were restarted, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi pleaded guilty to conspiracy and material support charges, and, according to the Department of Defense, procedures remain in place to impose the fullest sentence allowed by statute:

Al Qosi faces a maximum penalty of life in prison on the two charges, Iglesias said. His sentence will be determined by 12 military officers as part of the commission at an Aug. 9 sentencing hearing, he said.

So, why is it even an issue over whether a military judge may impose the death penalty, should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed plead guilty before a military commission, when his sentence would be decided by a 12-member panel and the MCA gives them full authority to determine his sentence? If, as Holder says, there is a “real problem,” he should spell it out to the President and Congress and they should plug the damn hole in the statute.

In addition, there has been no “swift and certain justice” for the Cole bombing that President Obama promised last year:

“Both the 9/11 and the Cole families had the president look them in the eye and say, ‘We’re going to close Gitmo, move forward with this process, and hold people accountable,’ ” said Commander Kirk Lippold, a proponent of military trials who was the commanding officer aboard the U.S.S. Cole when it was attacked in Yemen in 2000. “When does an unfulfilled political promise become a lie?” Lippold asked.

At best, al-Nashiri was placed on the back burner of Guantanamo’s military commissions calendar.

Yet what if the answer to Commander Lippold’s question is elected and appointed government officials were hoping for a swarm of appeals over whether Constitutional rights attached to the case the moment al-Nashiri set foot on U.S. soil, those appeals would tie up the case for years, and ultimately the courts would destroy military commissions?

The President and Attorney General can begin to prove their words are their bonds by both restarting al-Nashiri’s military commission immediately, at Gitmo, and asking Congress to take any ambiguity out of the MCA before the summer recess begins.

9/11, Cordoba House, Ground Zero, Imam Rauf, Muslims, sharia, sharia law

Mega Manhattan Madrassa

by  • 

Islamic charity in the third-world usually comes literally with a stick; the starving multitudes are lured by offered food yet to receive aide, one must already be a Muslim or enter that faith for the sustenance to keep coming. Forty-two percent of Pakistan’s population is illiterate and millions of dirt-poor children only survive by attending Middle East funded madrasses where they learn only one thing: the Koran. Another example among the thousands you can find online is goon squads in India are left to dole out substance in Muslims-dominant areas:

In Toba Tek Singh in Punjab, the local government forbids poor Christians from taking advantage of a meals service because of their faith. This is revealed by a survey Assist News Service, an agency of the Protestant community. Recently, the Punjab government decided to offer a free meal service called “dastar Khwan” for the poor, inviting entrepreneurs and philanthropists of every state to finance the project, built largely with public money. The authorities have opened canteens in different areas and villages in the province where every day from 13.00 to 15:00 lunch is served for poor people at a cost of only 9 cents. The initiative was a success all over the Punjab, but not in the district of Toba TAK Singh where many Christians were prevented from buying the meal token. … Ashiqi Masih, a poor man who is well known among Muslims for his Christian faith, decided instead to rebel against the discriminatory treatment. “I argued with the manager of the kiosk — he said — stressing that the government has never allowed discrimination against Christians. I said if this was their policy, why not put a sign on the stand saying: ‘Only for Muslims ?”. … In response to the accusations, a district spokesman says the government has no policy of discrimination toward Christians. “The citizens — he stated — have to resolve problems among themselves. The government only has the task of providing flour subsidies.”

In America, the Islamists must be a bit more subtle as the population here is better fed. Unless you are voting in Philadelphia or debating the Gospel at an Arab festival on a public street in Dearborn, our federal and local governments frown on thugs intimidating non-Democrats and non-believers. Here you need Islamic “fun-centers” to lure in the children.

Cordoba Initiative Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf indicated during recent Friday prayers that he looks forward to converting the children and grandchildren of those slaughtered on 9/11 to Islam. But in Manhattan, you need to go big to draw a crowd; you need what would be the largest mosque in America, it overlooking Ground Zero, and an imam heading it who claims to be a “bridge builder,” who blames 9/11 on “United States foreign policy” as “an accessory to the crime,” who will not condemn Hamas for its countless acts of butchery, and who claims to be a man of peace.

Is it religious bigotry to point out that Islam’s sharia law is discriminatory? Is it prejudicial to accurately state that by far most of the world’s Islamic charity goes to spreading Islam and feeds only the faithful? Is it discriminatory to accurately state Islamic charities have funded three-quarters of the 2,300 mosques in America, fund Pakistan’s madrassas, and support terrorism? Is it Islamophobic to correctly state that in Islamic-governed nations you find police beating unaccompanied women and courts that sentence to death, prison, or the lash women who are gang-raped if they were “immodestly” dressed and “invited” the crime?

To be fair, Imam Rauf only says he wants America to accept a little bit of discriminatory sharia law. He is content to wait ten, twenty, or however many years it takes for America to become a Muslim-dominant country. Evidently, everybody will initially be welcome in the Cordoba House pool, woman need not wear a burka bikini, no Muslims will be offended, and no one will be punished for inviting rape. All of Islam’s fun can be imposed on a non-believing minority at a later date.