Bush Attorney General: 9/11 Trial Offers Jihadists Platform

Michael Mukasey, the attorney general at the end of President Bush's second term, ripped his successor's decision to prosecute the Sept. 11 conspirators in a federal court, saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.

Mukasey, in an interview with Fox News, called the civilian trial announced Friday by Attorney General Eric Holder "the wrong place, under the wrong circumstances, in the wrong forum."

"After 9/11, we recognized that we were at war," he said, arguing that military tribunals were created for this kind of case and noting that they have been used since the Revolutionary War and during and after World War II.

"There are forums that allow the presentation of evidence in a controlled atmosphere, where you can limit access to classified information, and where you can receive evidence gathered on the battlefield, not necessarily under the kinds of conditions in which police gather evidence in a conventional case," he said. "That's not true in federal court."

On Friday, Holder announced that the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees will be tried in federal court in New York for their alleged role in the attacks that killed 2,976 American civilians -- saying the U.S. will seek the death penalty against the defendants.

Holder said he decided to seek justice against the suspects in federal court rather than a military tribunal because the attacks targeted civilians on U.S. soil. But Mukasey and other critics say the attack was an act of war that should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.

Mukasey said it's unlikely that Mohammed will be acquitted because of his confession and other evidence linking him to the attack. But he added that same evidence could present problems in federal court.

"The real problem is that there is other evidence that may very well come from classified sources, that would be easier to handle in a military tribunal, much harder to handle in a civilian tribunal," Mukasey said.

He added that the trial also puts the terrorists on the kind of stage they seek.

"They want to be on a big stage and there's no bigger stage than New York," he said.

So investigating anything further about 9/11 would empower the terrorists? You're right, it would empower the previous administration and the currenty by continuing the war mongering and destruction of civil rights which was put into over drive after 9/11.

They could compromise delicate intelligence? What intelligence? It's not like the government had any at the time, or so they claim not to.

In any case, what are your thoughts?

~Keeper

I have no faith in anyone from the Bush administration. Every theory they have ever had seems to go the opposite way when all the facts are seen. What they may be most afraid of is the Jihadists convincing people in America that the reason they are attacking us is of our invasion into their own borders attempting to influence their culture through war and propoganda. In essence the Jihadists may come out and say something equivalent to what Ron Paul has said: They are over here, because we went over there first.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Michael Mukasey, the attorney general at the end of President Bush's second term, ripped his successor's decision to prosecute the Sept. 11 conspirators in a federal court, saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.

I would think that any *competent* lawyer could tear the prosecution a new ___hole, especially since there is more than a little evidence that fedgov was clearly involved in the commission of 9/11.

There's a very real probability these men could walk away smelling like roses.

First, Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11.
2002 Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds sons (7 and 9 years old) were imprisoned by the CIA.
Then Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was caught.
He promptly became the new mastermind.
KSM was waterboarded at least 183 times.
The c hildren were also tortured (kept in cages with insects).
KSM confessed.
Neocons and pundits went public and claimed „enhanced interrogation techniques work“ they are quick and effective.
They lied.

Questions for those, who don't want to give him a trial in a civil court:

Do you really believe KSM was responsible for the 31 plots he confessed to?
If tortured for a long time and seeing your sons tortured - Would you give bogus confessions?
If brought before a military court, do you believe KSM will get a fair trial?
If the USA is too scared to give this man a trial and due process, has it than not already surrendered before the terror?
Where are his sons now?

[edit on 14-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

Former AG Muskay seems to be afraid of something like many of the former Bush Administration perhaps they are scared that the public will learn how we were conned into this little war against terrorism.

Will it be televised? I bet not.
Will it be fairly analyzed by the MSM? Ditto.
Will any of the 911 commission omissions be brought up?

I think the Shrub boys would not like the general public to know that there are still a lot of holes in the OS. A public trial opens the door to this.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

...saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.

Hmmm... that does seem to me to be trying to hide something from the eyes of the public. They let us have OJ. They let us have Lay and Skilling. Let us have the REAL story.

"After 9/11, we recognized that we were at war," he said, arguing that military tribunals were created for this kind of case...

I'm not sure that can be enacted retrospectively? You weren't officially at war at the time of the event... like it or not that makes it a civil matter, to be dealt with in a civil court.

Even after the event, the US is still technically not 'at war' with any other nation. What are they at war with? Terror? They're at war with a noun???

I'm sorry, but surely one can only declare war on a nation-state? You might be resisting terrorists, or clashing with terrorists, or fighting them... but you're not 'at war' with them, in the legal sense. That's just a term for saturating the media with... Where was the official declaration of war from the US head of state, required by international law? The US didn't declare war with Timothy McVeigh, did they? No. That was a civil matter. Just like this.

Rewey

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA-analyst, who worked under seven US presidents and provided the morning intelligence briefings for many of them, wrote an interesting article: "Shining light on roots of terrorism".

...What the Fawning Corporate Media (or FCM) have so far neglected is the likelihood that the testimony will be so public that they will have to break their studied silence about why Sheikh Mohammed and his associates say they orchestrated the attacks of 9/11.

For reasons that are painfully obvious, the FCM have done their best to ignore or bury the role that Israel’s repression of the Palestinians has played in motivating the 9/11 attacks and other anti-Western terrorism.

It is not like there is no evidence on this key issue. Rather, it appears that the Israel-Palestine connection is pretty much kept off limits for discussion.

If you have plenty of time and want to know more about the torture issue. He also held an interesting talk:

Why Accountability for Torture is Crucial for Human Rights, Our Security and Our Souls.


[edit on 16-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]