ABC News: "What Happens If a 9/11 Terrorist Defendant is Found Not Guilty?"

What Happens If a 9/11 Terrorist Defendant is Found Not Guilty?

"I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice," President Obama said in Tokyo. "The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it."

But what happens if KSM or any of the other 9/11 defendants the Obama administration is bringing to New York for criminal prosecutions -- including Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi -- are somehow found not guilty?

Attorney General Eric Holder brushed off the question, saying, "I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome -- in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court."

Not everyone is so confident, of course. KSM, for instance, was subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" that many consider torture. This includes being waterboarded 183 times in a one month. Could this undermine the case against him?

Fears of giving KSM the rights afforded defendants in a criminal case have led some to conclude that a military tribunal might be a better venue for him.

In September 2006, debating the Military Commissions Act, then-Sen. Obama said KSM and those like him would get "basically a full military trial with all the bells and whistles. He's going to have counsel, he's going to be able to present evidence, he's going to be able to rebut the government's case. Because the feeling is that he's guilty of a war crime and to do otherwise might violate some of our agreements under the Geneva Conventions."

"I think that's good that we're going to provide him with some procedure and process," then-Sen. Obama said. "I think we will convict him and I think he will be brought to justice. I think justice will be carried out in his case."

But when Holder announced on Friday that five defendants would face military tribunals, KSM was not among them.

In June, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian national, was brought to the Metropolitan Correctional Center to face 286 separate criminal charges stemming from his alleged role in the Aug. 7, 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, including conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to kill Americans, and a separate charges of murder for each of the 224 people killed embassy bombings.

We asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs what would happen if Ghailani is found not guilty?

Gibbs wouldn't bite but the question is important. If he will be freed, that prompts questions of national security and whether civilian courts are as appropriate as other venues for such trials. If he won't be freed despite being found not guilty that undermines the credibility of the trial.

"We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes," Gibbs said.

The following day, the Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, asked “if we’re going to treat this terrorist detainee as a common civilian criminal, what will happen to Ghailani if he’s found not guilty? And what will happen to other detainees the administration wants to try in civilian courts if they are found not guilty? Will they be released? If so, where? In New York? In American communities? Or will they be released overseas, where they could return to terror and target American soldiers or innocent civilians?”

McConnell continued: “If Ghailani isn’t allowed to go free, will he be detained by the government? If so, where will he be detained? Would the administration detain him on U.S. soil, despite the objections of Congress and the American people?”

McConnell said the questions about Ghailani resemble the questions about Guantanamo in general.

“On the question of Guantanamo, it became increasingly clear over time that the administration announced its plan to close the facility before it actually had a plan,” he said. “If the administration has a plan for holding Ghailani if he’s found not guilty, then it needs to share that plan with the Congress. These kinds of questions are not insignificant. They involve the safety of the American people.”



"I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court"

Information that has "NOT BEEN PUBLICLY RELEASED" that gives him "GREAT CONFIDENCE?"

Further proof the 9/11 Commission failed in its mandate of providing a "FULL AND COMPLETE ACCOUNTING" of the 9/11 attacks.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

I told you it would be a

I told you it would be a show trial.

Of course it's going to be...

An effort to make the public think that all 9/11 concerns have been addressed. One question I have is why aren't they including OBL in the line-up? Can't they try him in absentia like they did for the embassy bombings?

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

They simply need a new

They simply need a new boogeyman every few years to keep the "global terrorist network" image alive. Long gone is the talk of "smoking Bin Laden out of his cave." For awhile OBL was the boogeyman (and I guess still is the ultimate, overarching one, like the final boss of a video game), but then the focus was Mohammed Atta, then Moussaoui, now KSM...

In short they are desperate to reinforce the OCT.


'like the final boss of a video game'

Good one! Thanks for the laugh, though I know the reality is anything but funny.

Discovery process

Well, I would not mind being part of the discovery process here. We will finally get our "white paper" on 911, which was promised by Colin Powell back in 2001. It will be essential for the defense team. Who funded the team? Where were the safe houses in Canada? Specifically, what border crossings were used? Where is the video from Boston Logan? This is only a sample of the discovery that will be requested.


Fixed jury?

A.G. Eric Holder says, "I have access to information that hasn't been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in prosecutions of these cases in federal court." What does this mean? It is already publicly known that these five intend to plead guilty, so that can't be it. (Versus the 5 who don't intend on pleading guilty who will face a military tribunal).

These verdicts appear to be fixed before the fact somehow. And there will certainly be a huge security lockdown on the entire area, due to the 'threat of terrorism' which will prevent truth activists from getting anywhere near the area. GZ itself might even be cordoned off. hmmmm.

Edit: You beat me to the punch, Jon. WTF, is right.

I bet...

The 9/11 Report itself won't be used as evidence.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

The fix is in

I can't believe they'd let them actually go to trial and force the U.S. to admit shoddy evidence and let defense lawyers have a field day. I think they will let them "plead" guilty. The only convictions we can get are through the military tribunal sham.



"May we, in our dealings with all the peoples of the earth, ever speak the truth and serve justice. "
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Oh no, they've got some secret evidence

that the 9/11 commission was never privy to... that will back up the "confessions" and guilty pleas. Of course this exposes the 9/11 report as being a cover up, but that won't matter since we get "justice."

Maybe The Sheikh's red headband was found in Building 7.

But...will the United States

But...will the United States be held responsible for these kinds of things...

The most severe form of learning disorders are owned by those that "already know everything."

What if

they spill the beans while on the stand. I would but I know I am just dreaming.

I'm hoping...

KSM gets on the stand and says, "I am not KSM. KSM was killed long ago, and his wife and daughter identified the body. I am just a body double that has been brought forward to make you think KSM is still alive, and to say what they have told me to say."

I am being sarcastic. I am hoping that KSM allows a lawyer to represent him rather than represent himself (Moussaoui).

It's important to note that the arguments being made about giving them a public setting to promote their "terrorist propaganda," and that it opens up the risk of invigorating "terrorists" to commit a terrorist attack are basically the same arguments that were used by some to prevent the Nuremberg Trials from taking place. Winston Churchill wanted to shoot them. Several people didn't want to give them the chance to spread their Nazi Propaganda for fear of invigorating the pro-Nazis of Germany.

I think it has more to do with what they could expose than anything else.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Good information.

I still think the pictures of KSM. The one where he is wearing an old white shirt and haggard looking and this new one of him brought out recently don't look right. Just like those old Bin Laden pictures with the beards and all that. These guys all have names that have been brought up a million times it seems. They've said they've killed the second in command about three times or so I think. And you know they have the technology to create pictures without anyone even being there. This whole thing could be a sham and there aren't enough investigative journalists with the courage to call them on their bluffs. I thought Bin Laden was the mastermind as well. Now it's KSM. This whole story reeks of propaganda and misinformation. I hadn't heard about that Winston Churchill/Nuremberg argument though. That is cool.

All I know is the guilty parties like Giuliani and the others who covered up this mess are upset over this trial taking place at all and that makes me glad about this thing.

I said daughter...

Because I did that from memory, but there's actually no mention of daughter. Just "child."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Cool argument?

I don't understand how Winston Churchill wanting to shoot Hitler/Himmler etc. is an argument.

Surely you don't think KSM should be shot without trial. Did you think Jon meant Churchill wanted to shoot those opposing a trial?


I'm talking about the argument against holding the Nuremberg trials that Jon made mention of during his post. I hadn't heard people were against the Nuremberg trials or feared holding them in public would cause problems or and the reasons they had or feared that Nazi party would be strengthened etc.

But what if..............

KSM says yeah we did it...we had help from US Government officials, the Bush Administration, the Mossad, some PNAC jokers, and access to the WTC from a security company to plant those explosives, And some of the old Enron boys chipped in if we destroyed the evidence in Bldg 7. Of course executives from Raytheon helped because Hani can't fly for shit. But yeah we did it . I planned the whole thing. It was a surprise for Osama's birthday. That's my confession, now where do you want me to sign.

Is this true?

I heard that if a military commission determines the death penalty it has to be signed by the President, but if a criminal trail does it's just a Judge.

Could the 5 NYC trials expect to be dealth penalty and the 5 Military Commissions will just be life sentences so that O doens't have to sign a death warrant?

Sure hope they don't please guilty. Will their defense (if there is any) have an opportunity to bring up collaboration evidence... we can only hope.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." (4th U.S. President, James Madison, Jr., 1751-1836)

New York no longer has the

New York no longer has the death penalty.


you read my mind.

Once again

we have an article that portrays KSM as a guy who can't speak English at all, and yet previously the Guardian reported KSM was fluent in English.

And where did this "evidence" that KSM wanted to go to NYC when he was arrested come from?

I thought he was shot dead when he was arrested?

Will KSM be asked about Bin Laden?

If so, what if he confirms that Bin Laden died in Dec. of 2001?

This would also mean that the 2004 and 2007 Bin Laden videos were fake. Which appears certain no matter what.

An Inconvenient Truth.


Where in the article does it portray KSM as being unable to speak English?

Here's some Washington Post drivel saying he can:

'Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives ..."'


I posted this under the wrong article. My bad.

Ah yes, the power of resurrection:


FBI Osama Bin Laden is not a suspect concerning 9/11

Enough said.

KSM is doomed from the word go...

Re "If he will be freed, that prompts questions of national security and whether civilian courts are as appropriate as other venues for such trials"

eh... actually no.... If he's freed it's cos he's innocent... in which case there is no question of national security.

Their layers should agrue that there isn't a hope in hell of a fair trial now give all the propaganda rammed down everyone's throat.

Any lawyer who actually tried to defend KSM would

be shot dead by any one of millions of people who are certain that he slaughtered 3000 Americans. The perps would not even have to bother. And, of course, any lawyer "defending" him would know that.

No lawyer who wants to stay alive would dream of ACTUALLY defending him.

Navy lawyer: Defending 9/11 suspects a patriotic duty

Navy lawyer: Defending 9/11 suspects a patriotic duty

Did you read the article you referenced?

"She is one of only a handful of Americans who work to defend those who committed the horrific attacks in 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people in the United States."


So - she already knows who "committed the horrific attacks" before anyone has had a trial.

That is not "defending." That is "pretending ." All part of the psyops.