Thread: 9/11 Defendants Proudly state :"We are Terrorists To the Bone"

New York rally planned to protest 9/11 trial
1 hr 43 mins ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A group against bringing the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks to trial in a U.S. civilian court will hold a rally in New York demanding Washington reconsider its decision, the group said on Tuesday.

The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition said it will hold an rally on December 5 at a park adjacent to the Manhattan federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried just blocks from Ground Zero.

No date has been announced for the suspects' transfer to New York or their first appearance in court.

Debra Burlingame, a co-founder of the group, said the trial gives Mohammed the opportunity to wage "jihad in the courtroom." The group supports trying the men before a military tribunal.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has defended his decision to move the trials from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to a federal criminal court in New York, saying the men can be tried fairly and successfully in New York.

The decision has divided the families of victims. Some say the trial is an opportunity to face the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and help bring closure while others say the men should be treated like war criminals.

"We are giving them the biggest stage that they could possibly want," said Tim Brown, a retired New York City firefighter who said he lost dozens of friends in the attack. "We are in a pre-9/11 mentality."

Burlingame declined to estimate how many people she expected to attend the rally.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_guanta...d5b3JrcmFsbHk-

Terror trials will pose tough questions about Islam
By Walter Rodgers Mon Dec 21, 9:25 am ET

Washington – The coming trials of 11 Muslim men in the United States for several separate acts of mass murder will sharply refocus attention on Islamic theology. It will also present the Muslim world with a “moment of truth.”

How the Ummah, the global Muslim community, reacts will be a crucial test of how the American public judges the mantra “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Political correctness aside, the jury is still out in the court of American public opinion.

Some time in the coming year, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantánamo detainees are to be tried in a civilian criminal court in New York for plotting the 9/11 terror attacks and for the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people. Five others will be tried before a military tribunal on separate charges including the attack on the warship USS Cole that killed 17 sailors.

In a separate court martial, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will face charges of murdering 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, reportedly because, as a Muslim, he found it morally repugnant to participate in wars against the Ummah in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Why is Islam so scary to Westerners?The trials will raise tough questions about Islam itself, a faith with 1.5 billion adherents.

For example, if Islam is a religion of peace, why do so many Westerners find it scary? Violent Muslim reaction to perceived insults is a major reason. In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was killed for making a documentary critical of Islam. A year later, more than 200 people died in riots and bombings after a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Intimidation now runs deep: Yale University Press this year refused to reprint the cartoons in a scholarly book about the incident for fear of inciting violence.

The second question these trials will raise is about Muslim loyalty. To whom do American Muslims show their primary allegiance: to the teachings of the Holy Koran or to our secular government? Mr. Hasan is not the first Muslim in the military to kill fellow soldiers because of divided loyalties. In 2003, Sgt. Hasan Akbar murdered two US soldiers with a grenade. He was presumably fueled by religious resentment.

Concern over divided loyalty has long dogged minorities in America. Half a century ago, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy, a Roman Catholic, was publicly asked if he owed his primary loyalty to the US Constitution or to the pope in Rome.

More recently, another American citizen, Jonathan Pollard, a Jew, was sentenced to life imprisonment for spying for Israel. Mr. Pollard now sits in federal prison because he was more loyal to Israel than to his native America.

Not a war on religionMuslims must remind themselves that it is 11 men accused of mass murder who are facing trial – not their religion, though it may be so construed in much of the Muslim world.

When radical Muslims claim the US has declared war on Islam, it smacks of mirror imaging. It is Muslims, not secular Americans, who view wars in a religious context and fight in the name of Allah, wrongly assuming the rest of the world is trapped in a similar mind-set.

It’s not in the character of the US to fight wars over religion. America was founded by those fleeing the aftermath of Europe’s horrific religious wars.

To his credit, President George W. Bush went out of his way to assure anxious Muslims around the world that they were not the enemy.

It’s sometimes thought that radical Muslims began their holy war against America in 1996, when Osama bin Laden published his grievances, or in 1979 when Shiite extremists took over Iran and the US Embassy in Tehran.

Actually, Muslim belligerence goes back much further. As diplomats in the 1780s, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with the envoy of the sultan of Tripoli. The envoy demanded outrageous sums as “protection” against Barbary pirates. Jefferson and Adams noted:

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon... [us].

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

A question only Muslims can answerIt is regrettable that American Muslims feel the need to hunker down after one of their own like Hasan goes rogue. But millions of other Americans have had to endure countless indignities at airline security checkpoints, hunkering down and wondering if another member of the Ummah wants to blow up flights because of an overzealous interpretation of the Koran.

As with all faiths, virtue lies in the effect it has on its adherents. So it is not unfair to ask: “Which Islam is the religion of peace, and how do we tell the difference?” Only Muslims can answer that.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20091221/cm_csm/269927

Gibbs: KSM will be “tried, convicted, and likely executed,” will “meet his maker”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0yRO...layer_embedded


Gibbs: Accused 9/11 plotter likely to be executed
Still no decision on where Mohammed will be tried
updated 4:59 p.m. CT, Sun., Jan. 31, 2010

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration said Sunday it would consider local opposition when deciding where to hold Sept. 11 terror trials and pledged to seek swift justice for the professed mastermind of the attacks.

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker," said President Barack Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs. "He will be brought to justice and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing and masterminding the killing of 3,000 Americans. That you can be sure of."

Objections from New York City officials and residents have intensified since the Justice Department announced late last year it planned to put Mohammed and other accused Sept. 11 conspirators on trial in federal court in lower Manhattan. In its new budget, the Obama administration is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting terrorist trials.

White House aide David Axelrod said New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other city officials have changed their minds after initially supporting the decision for trials in the city, citing logistics and costs.

"The president believes that we need to take into consideration what the local authorities are saying," Axelrod said. "But he also believes ... that we ought to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and all others who are involved in terrorist acts to justice swift and sure."

Safety and cost have been issues in the debate, but some officials also have questioned the administration's legal strategy for using civilian courts for the suspects instead of military tribunals.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, said the administration should shift the trials to military courts, which he said have been reviewed by Congress to ensure fairness. He and other Republicans have criticized officials for charging Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court in the Christmas airliner plot instead of turning him over to military authorities.

"We have to make a distinction between a kid who breaks into a sandwich shop in Detroit and a Nigerian terrorist who wants to blow up an airplane flying into Detroit," Alexander said.

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, indicated he didn't support the request for $200 million for civilian trials, saying he favored trying terrorism suspects safely, quickly and inexpensively.

"If there's somewhere we can try them without spending that money, why spend the money? We've got a lot of other fiscal problems," Bayh said.

Gibbs spoke on CNN's "State of the Union" while Axelrod appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press." Alexander and Bayh spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35168785...news-security/


Noted Counterterrorism Expert David Axelrod Insists Eric Holder's Doing a Bang-Up Job of Botching Terror Investigations, Endangering Public

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) suggested that Attorney General Eric Holder resign after a series of gaffes, terrorist attacks and bizarre activities that closely resemble dereliction of duty and selective enforcement of the law. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...lder-step-down http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-48030697.html

Alexander said] the embattled Holder likely made the decision to read Miranda rights to accused underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, after 50 minutes of interrogation by the FBI...

"Perhaps he should step down," Alexander said on Sunday morning.

"(Holder's) doing a better job of interrogating CIA employees than he is of interrogating terrorists, and he's not making a distinction between enemy combatants and terrorists flying into Detroit trying to blow up planes and American citizens who are committing a crime. He needs to go to Congress and say I made that decision, and here's why. And based on that perhaps he should step down," Alexander explained.

The Obama administration's foremost counterterrorism, defense and intelligence expert -- Senior Adviser David Axelrod -- rejected that contention.

"Over time they have had additional opporutinties [sic] to question; my sense is that he has given very valuable information. ... We have not lost anything by how his case has been handled," Axelrod said.

Axelrod's expertise in counterterror investigations, interrogations, intelligence-gathering, analysis and warfare is well-known's throughout the Beltway.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/201...ert-david.html

New Yorkers unite against hosting 9/11 trials
By Basil Katz
Tue Feb 2, 12:57 pm ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Discordant New Yorkers accustomed to squabbling over the smallest matters of civic interest are suddenly in agreement about the trials of the accused September 11 plotters. Nobody wants them here.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had hoped to orchestrate a grand gesture by trying suspected mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other defendants in federal court in downtown Manhattan.

Symbolically, the civilian trials would be a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers collapsed in 2001 after hijackers crashed airliners into them, and in the same neighborhood where lives were upended by the tragedy and health harmed by breathing in smoke, ash and dust.

But that plan is being challenged by a groundswell of opposition in New York City and from conservative politicians in Washington who want the White House to retreat. The Justice Department conceded last week it was searching for alternative sites.

Alarmed by a security plan that would snarl traffic and disrupt commerce, the largest city in the United States has resorted to a common argument from middle America: Not in my back yard.

"The local community got (the opposition) going. But real estate interests, the local community and elected officials came together at the same time. It's amazing," said Scott Stringer, the Manhattan borough president.

By moving the trials from military to civilian court next to the site of the attacks, the Obama administration has tried to show the U.S. justice system prevailing over al Qaeda threats. The security costs of holding the trials in New York City, though, was pegged at more than $200 million a year.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly unveiled a restrictive security plan in January that shocked residents, business and real estate companies in the surrounding areas, which include tourist attractions such as Wall Street, Chinatown and the Brooklyn Bridge.

"It's one thing to agree in the abstract, it's another to see what it really means. As the police commissioner started showing the security plans, I think people realized it's not just dollars and cents, it's the impact on the community," said Liz Berger, president of the Downtown Alliance business improvement district.

Both the police commissioner and the downtown business interests had access to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who once declared it was fitting that the September 11 suspects face justice in New York, but last week reversed course and said he would rather the trials be held elsewhere.

PUGNACIOUS CITY COMES TOGETHER

This diverse and chaotic city -- one that routinely brands itself as the greatest metropolis in the world -- can be very pugnacious; an oversized billboard or an out-of-place hot dog stand can provoke passionate civic debate. Now it is unified.

"It's a great example of the community coming together. Everyone who could be impacted took a look in an organized manner. That's why the decision makers listened. That's what politics is all about," Berger said.

As New York gradually emerges from the global financial crisis, businesses and residents say the trials are an unfair additional burden.

"While there's part of me as a New Yorker that says 'Bring it on,' you have to be smart sometimes," Stringer said.

Manhattanites who feared turning the heart of downtown into a bunker found allies in the U.S. Senate, where a conservative group of senators plan to introduce legislation on Tuesday that would bar federal funding for prosecuting the September 11 suspects in a civilian court.

As critics of Obama's national security policy, they have pushed for trying them in a military court.

"It was a snowball gaining a lot of support," said Steve Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York. "This will have dramatic repercussions wherever it may take place. You need to listen to the local community and not just decide out of an office at the White House."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/..._newyork/print

WH may switch to military trials for 9/11 suspects
Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – Fri Mar 5, 5:24 pm ET


WASHINGTON – Looking to breathe life into President Barack Obama's stalled pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, White House advisers are inching toward recommending military trials for alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused henchmen.

Attorney General Eric Holder's original plan to try them in a civilian court in New York City met with criticism so fierce that it threatened to derail Obama's promise to shut the U.S. military's Cuban prison.

As difficult as the politics are concerning how and where to try the most notorious terror suspect in U.S. custody, that's only one step toward the even more fraught and complicated goal of closing Guantanamo where Mohammed and nearly 200 other terror detainees remain.

Closing Guantanamo was a signature promise of Obama's presidency, and it is still unkept well past his original deadline of January. Failing to keep it would have huge implications for the president, both with his base of supporters in the Democratic Party and in his efforts to remake America's image around the globe.

Holder decided in November to transfer Mohammed and four other accused Sept. 11 terrorists from Guantanamo to New York City for civilian trials. City officials initially embraced the idea.

But they later reversed themselves, citing the enormous costs, security and logistics of hosting a 9/11 trial — making things awkward for the Obama administration. And then the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing altered the political dynamic further, as Republicans focused anew on Obama's terrorism policies in general, including the trials.

The drumbeat of policy criticism, combined with the increasingly loud outcry from New York, made it nearly impossible for the White House to hold on to Holder's decision without review. That review is not finished, so no new recommendation is yet before the president. A decision is not expected for weeks, said a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss private deliberations.

But the recommendation almost certainly will be for a switch to a military process for the five accused men, said administration officials.

The reason for the probable reversal is simple: The more the trial controversy spun out of control, the harder it was becoming to make progress on other, already difficult issues crucial to closing Guantanamo, such as securing funding from Congress for the closure, arranging a replacement facility in the United States and planning other trials.

White House officials now see the Mohammed trial decision as the key to unlocking those logjams.

Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have proposed a ban on trying terrorism defendants in any American community.

The administration believes a civilian trial is doable, even preferable, as a demonstration of U.S. commitment to rule of law. Officials have cited the numerous terrorism trials held previously in U.S. criminal courts. They also argue that decisions on how to prosecute defendants are not for lawmakers to make.

But the White House also wants to move on.

As the Obama administration has been forced to defend its terrorism policies, the White House has taken control of the decision-making process on major terror trials and in negotiations with key lawmakers, all with greatly reduced input from the Justice Department.

In political terms, that could suggest Obama and his top aides have lost confidence in Holder for not having generated enough political support with local officials before making his decision to try Mohammed in New York. But privately White House aides blame New York officials' reversal and the heightened security fears that followed the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

If Obama does settles on a military commission for Mohammed and the others, he will face criticism from liberal Democrats. This was evident Friday even based on the hint of such a decision.

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero. "Even with recent improvements, the military commissions system is incapable of handling complicated terrorism cases and achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure and fearmongering."

Donna O'Connor, a spokesperson for September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, a national organization of more than 200 relatives of victims of the 9/11 attacks, also bemoaned the potential choice. "Civilian trials in federal courts have resulted in hundreds of successful terrorism prosecutions whereas military commissions are an illegitimate system that undermine the rule of law," she said.

New Yorkers cheered, however.

"It makes absolutely no sense to hold a multiyear, almost billion-dollar trial in a community that had already grappled with Sept. 11 and is the financial capital of our country," said Julie Menin, who is chair of Community Board 1 in Lower Manhattan.

Regardless of reactions, the White House hopes the eventual decision will accomplish one important objective: moving beyond one controversy so Obama can tackle others.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100305/...1heXN3aXRjaHQ-

Originally Posted by RJ

The fact that the article is ending up with the extensive quote from ACLU hack is really exposing its author Jennifer Loven. Obviously ACLU opinion is much more important to her than US congress opinion, or American people opinion, or anybody else opinion.

Dear Jennifer, so much journalistic impartiality is stunning! And how do you know that "White House advisers are nearing a recommendation". Are you servicing WH as a trial balloon launcher?

Your title "AP White House Correspondent" title should have ", communist" at the end.

Originally Posted by TB

America needs to be rebuilt!! We must start @ the Top !! Plan A !!
Legal definition of Natural born Citizen , this is the U.S. Supreme court ruling late 1700's early 1800's and still is to this day " A child born on U.S. Soil to parents not owing foreign alliegence to any other country " OBAMA does not qualify , therefore he is not Legally the President !!! Rebuild America !! Bring OBAMA to stand trial for TREASON against the U.S.A. then we start elsewhere in the Government !!!!!

Originally Posted by kat

They deserve the death penalty. Because of these terrorist, we lost 20,000 + civilians, on top of soldiers who gave their lives, let us not forget them. People say we shouldn't be in Iraq, but here we are debating to take the lives of terrorist when they didn't hesitate. Make a stand, follow through with your plans. Take from them what they took from us, it's not an eye for an eye. It's about giving relief to those who lost loved ones, standing firm your pride in your country, showing how important our people are. To let these men live, to let them walk, is disrespect to any soldier, any American who has lost there lives. Don't let our fallen soldiers die in vain.

Originally Posted by Diana C

I will believe when I see it happening because so far all I have seen it nothing but lies coming out of this WH bunch of idiots.

Originally Posted by Guest

I suppose a flip-flop that ends up in the right place is better than the continued pig-headed foolishness that this administration generally exhibits. Now, let's HOPE for some reversals on the push to a federal takeover of health care, "spread the wealth around" fiscal policies, socialist agenda, "America is the bad guy" approach to foreign policy, being "agnostic on new taxes for middle class", and other dumb policy directions by this president. The electorate will, unfortunately, have to wait 2 1/2 more years to reverse the grave mistake it made November of 2008. Meanwhile, the education of Barak continues.

Originally Posted by Daniel P

Back peddle back peddle..can OBAMA make any right decisions the first time.....

how many people has he fired from the white house once their past was uncovered? He stuck by them all in the beginning..how many tax cheats does he have? How many times has he smoozed overseas to get nothing in return? Did the olympics come to America?

Does ANYONE in the world take this guy seriously?

Holder: Osama bin Laden will never face US trial
Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Holder sternly rejected criticism from GOP members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, who contend it is too dangerous to put terror suspects on trial in federal civilian courts as Holder has proposed.

The attorney general said it infuriates him to hear conservative critics complain that terrorists would get too many rights in the court system.

Terrorists in court "have the same rights that Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer," the attorney general said. "It doesn't mean that they're going to be coddled, it doesn't mean that they're going to be treated with kid gloves."

The comparison to convicted killer Manson angered Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who said it showed the Obama administration doesn't understand the American public's desire to treat terrorists as wartime enemies, not criminal defendants. "My constituents and I just have a deep-seated and profound philosophical difference with the Obama administration," Culberson said.

Holder, his voice rising, charged that Culberson's arguments ignored basic facts about the law and the fight against terrorists. "Let's deal with reality," Holder said. "The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom."

Pressed further on that point, Holder said: "The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can't be captured by us."

Much of the hearing centered around the Obama administration's stalled plan to put the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on trial. Last year, Holder announced the trial would take place in federal civilian court in New York City, not far from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

In the face of resistance from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other local politicians, that plan was shelved and the White House is now considering putting KSM and four alleged co-conspirators into a military commission trial.

Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., bemoaned what he called a "cowardly" desire to avoid a civilian terror trial in a major city.

If a terrorist had killed thousands of Philadelphians, Fattah said, "we would expect him to come to Philadelphia" to face trial "if he would live long enough."

"It doesn't befit a great nation to hesitate or equivocate on the question of following our own laws," he said.

In other testimony:

• Holder defended the interrogation of the suspect in the attempted Christmas bombing of an airliner at it approached Detroit. He said the questioning produced very valuable intelligence and disputed the notion that reading the suspect his Miranda rights prevented further intelligence-gathering. The suspect resumed cooperating later, officials have said.

Holder's remarks led to an angry exchange with Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who claimed "there was an opportunity that was missed and we will never get it back again."

Holder shot back: "That is simply not true."

• The attorney general also acknowledged an ongoing probe into whether defense teams representing Guantanamo Bay detainees may have wrongly obtained photographs of CIA interrogators — pictures that could, some fear, endanger those interrogators.

• Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., offered support for Holder's now-dormant plan to try the Sept. 11 suspects in New York. But Serrano himself acknowledged he was the only elected New York official who still supported the idea. "I thought it was very dramatic to say I'm not afraid of you'" to the terrorists, Serrano said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/...xkZXJvc2FtYWI-

What planet is Holder on anyway?

Its like saying that we will assasinate him. Of course we want to capture him and get info.He could get wounded and picked up. This guy Holder is an idiot.

They also said the other terrorists will be convicted before they have been tried...

Too bad. Killing him only makes him a martyr, but a trial will humiliate and discredit him among the terrorists...

Human rights are universal, independent of who you are. unless human rights are guaranteed for everyone there is a chance of giving the government the tool to terrorize a group within the population. Germany has been there, Russia has been there.....I don't want the USA to go down the same road.

Bin Laden threatens US over alleged 9/11 plotter
Sarah El Deeb, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 44 mins ago

CAIRO – Osama bin Laden threatened in a new message released Thursday to kill any Americans al-Qaida captures if the U.S. executes the self-professed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks or other al-Qaida suspects.

In the 74-second audiotape aired on Al-Jazeera television, the al-Qaida leader explicitly mentions Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was captured in Pakistan in 2003. He is the most senior al-Qaida operative in U.S. custody and is currently detained at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In 2008, the U.S. charged Mohammed with murder and war crimes in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. Pentagon officials have said they will seek the death penalty for him. Four of his fellow plotters are also in custody.

"The White House has expressed its desire to execute them. The day America makes that decision will be the day it has issued a death sentence for any one of you that is taken captive," Bin Laden said, addressing Americans.

After his March 2003 capture in Pakistan, Mohammed described himself as the architect of numerous terrorism plots and even claimed that "with my blessed right hand," he had decapitated Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Pearl was found beheaded in Pakistan in 2002.

Mohammed, appearing in June 2008 for the first time since his capture five years earlier, said he would welcome becoming a "martyr" after a judge warned him that he faces the death penalty for his confessed role as mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"Yes, this is what I wish, to be a martyr for a long time," he declared.

The U.S. is still considering whether to put Mohammed and the four fellow plotters on military tribunal. The Obama administration is also looking into recommendations for civilian trials, and is expected to announce a decision soon.

Al-Qaida is not known to be holding any Americans captive now. But the Haqqani group — the Pakistan-based Taliban faction closest to al-Qaida — is holding American soldier Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl who was captured in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009. It released a video of him in December.

Bin Laden also said President Barack Obama is following in the footsteps of his predecessor George W. Bush by escalating the war in Afghanistan, being "unjust" to al-Qaida prisoners and supporting Israel in its occupation of Palestinian land.

"The politicians of the White House were and still are wronging us, especially by supporting Israel and occupying our land in Palestine. They think that America, behind oceans, is safe from the wrath of the oppressed, until the reaction was loud and strong in your homeland," he said of the Sept. 11 attacks. "Equal treatment is only fair. War is a back-and-forth."

Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the rugged, lawless border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The prospect of giving Mohammed and the four fellow plotters a civilian trial in New York City has led to protests by residents and relatives of Sept. 11 victims who fear that such a move could again make the city a terrorism target and that they should instead face a military trial.

Earlier this month, South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said that if Obama agrees to try the five in military tribunals, he will press fellow Republicans to vote to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Graham told CBS television's "Face the Nation" March 7 that reversing Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to try the suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City would be seen as an act of leadership by the public. The White House is reviewing Holder's plan and no new recommendation has been presented to the president. A decision is not expected for several weeks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/...5sYWRlbnRocmU-

The Gitmo circus
By Michelle Malkin • May 7, 2012
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/05/07/the-gitmo-circus/

An exclusive performance of Gitmo Jihad Theater opened over the weekend. What happened underscores why these military tribunals never, ever belonged in the civilian court system that Obama/Holder had pushed for (until running into the common-sense public opposition buzzsaw).

The jihadists’ mockery of America — and more notably, the jihadists’ lawyers’ mockery — outraged 9/11 families: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/06...ng-1682598921/

Lee Hanson became deeply angry as the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and co-defendants tried to undermine their arraignment on 3,000 counts of murder at a military court in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Hanson’s son, daughter-in-law and 2-year-old granddaughter, the youngest 9/11 victim, were killed in the terror attacks over a decade ago. All were aboard United Flight 175, the second plane to crash into the twin towers.

“They praise Allah. I say, `Damn you!”‘ said the silver-haired retiree from Eaton, Conn.

When it comes to justice, “it seems like it’s an afterthought,” said his wife, Eunice Hanson.

Moans, sighs and exclamations erupted Saturday as Hanson and other relatives of Sept. 11 victims watched the closed-circuit TV feed of the court hearing from a movie theater at Fort Hamilton in New York City. It was one of four U.S. military bases where the arraignment was broadcast live for victims’ family members, survivors and emergency personnel who responded to the attacks.

“It’s actually a joke, it feels ridiculous,” said Jim Riches, whose firefighter son, Jimmy, died at the World Trade Center. “It looks like it’s going to be a very long trial.”

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other defendants were arraigned on charges that include terrorism and murder, the first time in more than three years that they appeared in public. During the hearing, they generally refused to cooperate. At one point, one detainee leafed through a copy of The Economist magazine, then passed it to another. At other times, the defendants knelt in prayer.

One of the defense attorneys insisted on sharia law for all women in the courtroom: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...aring-to-wear/

The defense attorney who wore a traditional Islamic outfit during the rowdy arraignment of the accused Sept. 11 terrorists is defending her courtroom appeal that other women in the room wear more “appropriate” clothing to the proceedings — out of respect for her client’s Muslim beliefs.

Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, attended the arraignment Saturday dressed in a hijab, apparently because her client insisted on it. She further requested that the court order other women to follow that example so that the defendants do not have to avert their eyes “for fear of committing a sin under their faith.”

At a press conference Sunday at Guantanamo Bay, Bormann said she dresses in a hijab at “all times” when she meets with her client “out of respect” for his beliefs. Asked why she requested other women do the same, Bormann said, “When you’re on trial for your life, you need to be focused.”

Bormann, who is not Muslim, claimed the issue came up several years ago, when a paralegal wore “very short skirts” and it became a distraction for the defendants. She said that on Saturday, “somebody” was also dressed “in a way that was not in keeping with my client’s religious beliefs.”

“If because of someone’s religious beliefs, they can’t focus when somebody in the courtroom is dressed in a particular way, I feel it is incumbent upon myself as a counsel to point that out and ask for some consideration from the prosecution,” she said. “Suffice to say it was distracting to members of the accused.”

Milblogger Jonn Lilyea live-blogged Saturday’s proceedings. http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=29820

A taste:

11:39am: Ok, burka woman is back and she’s asking that all women in the courtroom be forced by the court to “dress appropriately” so the defendants won’t commit sins. She even got chuckles from the media-types here at Fort Meade and exclamations from the women in this room of “Oh, my God”.

11:45 am: KSM’s attorney is asking for a list of names of the people who are sitting on the prosecutor’s side of the room because “if there are some shadowy people” it would upset his client.

12:00; Walid Salih just interrupted the proceedings yammering something about how the Americans are just intent on killing the defendants like we did Qaddafi. So the judge told him to behave and, surprisingly, he did.

Wait! Burka woman is back. Stand by. She says she’s a lawyer and she’s presented her quals to the court. I’m guessing she’s Cheryl Bormann, counsel for Walid Salih.

12:25 PM; Yeah, all of the lawyers are introducing themselves to Judge Pohl and their qualifications so they can root out any “shadowy figures”. Just so you know each of the five defendants have two military and a civilian lawyer – so that’s fifteen people right there introducing themselves to the judge. So this is just useless time wasting bull**** by the defense team.

…4:42 PM: I just talked with a family member of a victim who said “The terrorists are better behaved than their lawyers” He went on to say this illustrates why they fought so hard to keep the trial out of the federal courts because of the circus the lawyers have made out of it so for. One of our handlers said that the main reason the lawyers are showboating is for the media coverage. I told him that might work against them because the media in this room is losing interest. Like I said in the comments, about half of them have left because they were worn down by the bull****. My sense is that the media will be less interested if this is the boring crap the media will have to sit through at the trial. But, then I’m no journalist, or a lawyer for that matter, so what do I know?

Remember: These murderous jihadists are proven stunt men when it comes to attempting to manipulate global public opinion.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/04/25...tmo-revisited/

CIA reportedly thwarted new al-Qaida underwear bomb plot
By Olivier Knox ~ White House Correspondent | The Ticket – 13 hrs ago

The CIA thwarted a suicide plot by al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen to bring down a U.S.-bound airliner near last week's one-year anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death with an upgraded "underwear bomb," the Associated Press reported Monday. The White House quickly released a statement insisting "the device did not pose a threat to the public."

"We had no specific, credible information about active terrorist plots timed to coincide with the anniversary and reiterate that this device never represented a threat to the public," a senior Obama aide told Yahoo News Monday on condition of anonymity.

The AP, citing unnamed U.S. officials, said the CIA seized the explosive, an improved version of the weapon used in the failed Christmas 2009 plan to bring down a commercial airplane over Detroit.

The device did not contain metal, making it likely that it could have eluded detection by traditional airport security. But it was unclear whether controversial new full-body scanners would have located it. The FBI is examining the bomb to see whether it would have been detected and whether it was powerful enough to bring down an airplane, the AP reported. The agency said the CIA seized the bomb before the bomber, whose fate was unclear, had chosen a target or bought a plane ticket.

President Barack Obama first learned about the plot in April from his top counter-terrorism adviser at the White House, John Brennan, and was kept up-to-date as efforts to foil it unfolded, according to Deputy NSC Spokesperson Caitlin Hayden.

"While the President was assured that the device did not pose a threat to the public, he directed the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement and intelligence agencies to take whatever steps necessary to guard against this type of attack," Hayden said in a statement.

"The disruption of this IED plot underscores the necessity of remaining vigilant against terrorism here and abroad. The President thanks all intelligence and counterterrorism professionals involved for their outstanding work and for serving with the extraordinary skill and commitment that their enormous responsibilities demand," she said.

The AP reported that the CIA acted even as the White House sought to reassure Americans as the one-year anniversary of the bin Laden raid loomed. "We have no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al Qaeda, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the anniversary of bin Laden's death," Obama spokesman Jay Carney told reporters April 26.

The FBI labeled the bomb an "improvised explosive device" — a term often associated with roadside bombs used to attack American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan — and said it was "conducting technical and forensics analysis on it."

"The device is very similar to IEDs that have been used previously by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in attempted terrorist attacks, including against aircraft and for targeted assassinations," the FBI said in a statement, referring to the arm of the terrorist network in Yemen.

The Department of Homeland Security also weighed in, saying it had "no specific, credible information regarding an active terrorist plot against the U.S. at this time, although we continue to monitor efforts by al-Qa'ida and its affiliates to carry out terrorist attacks, both in the Homeland and abroad."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/c...215455451.html

.
Whoever Leaked the Underwear Bomber Story Ought to Be Nervous
By John Hudson | The Atlantic Wire – 5 hrs ago.

The heat is on a U.S. official responsible for leaking details of al Qaeda's disrupted bomb plot to the Associated Press.

On the Sunday talk shows, high-ranking officials in both chambers of Congress across both parties called for investigations and the prosecution of the man or woman who leaked details about the infiltration of al Qaeda's Yemen branch. Unlike previous situations, where government crackdowns on leakers has been criticized, this is appears to be a fairly clear-cut case of improper leaking.

The mission, which resulted in the recovery of a sophisticated underwear bomb, was leaked to the AP before it was completed, according to members of Congress sitting on intelligence committees. Because successfully infiltrating al Qaeda is so rare, leaks can be especially damaging for undercover agents who risked their lives to gain the enemy's trust. It was a case powerful members of Congress were making loud and clear yesterday.

Senator Dianne Feinstein. On Fox News Sunday, the California Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee called for a prosecution of the leaker. “This leak was serious,” she said. “It certainly jeopardizes our ability to relate to other countries and for other countries to help us, and it gives a tip off [to al Qaeda in Yemen] to be more careful about who they use as their couriers, as their bombers.” Feinstein said the leak "did endanger sources and methods, and the leak I think has to be prosecuted.”

Sen. Joe Lieberman and Rep. Peter King. Appearing together on CNN's State of the Union, the two hawkish lawmakers called the leak a criminal act. "This really is criminal in the literal sense of the word to leak out this type of sensitive, classified information on really almost unparalleled penetration of the enemy,” said King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. While Lieberman went into detail about the rarity of the CIA infiltration, King echoed Feinstein's claim that the mission was truncated by the leak. “[It] caused the operation to be cut short before it could get all the information that could have been gotten,” he said.

Rep. Mike Rogers. The most serious allegations came from Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on CBS's Face the Nation. Going a step further, Rogers insinuated that the leaks came from the White House, in order to generate positive press for the Obama administration. "We do know that the CIA was trying to stop the story. And we know that there was a scheduled White House - or at least planned press conference on the particular event, and those two disparate positions leads one to believe that ... someone was at odds about how much they should or shouldn't talk about it," Rogers said. Making it clear this was about the presidential elections, he added "This is not anything that should be used for a headline. Our national security should be exempt from any November at any time in any year."

Whether or not the leaker can be identified is yet to be seen. A Sunday editorial in The New York Post laments that the the internal review ordered by director of National Intelligence James Clapper will not include the White House or the National Security Council, "so there’s a good chance the leakers won’t face a bit of heat," the paper writes. It may be possible that a congressional investigation could have more luck identifying the leaker but how invasive that investigation will be is not yet known. “We will make a determination -- either a full-blown committee investigation or we’ll refer it to criminal charges to the FBI,” Rogers said on CBS.

http://news.yahoo.com/whoever-leaked...133753499.html

comments

The reporter and whom ever leaked the story from the source should be tried for treason. The US does not need people like that undermining the gov't whether it is Democrat or Republican. Our soldiers lives are at stake and everyone needs to stand behind them and see to it they are protected at all cost. No story is worth Military or civilian lives!

..

ironic that it's Dianne Feinstein is calling for the prosecution of the leaker. anybody remember the night stalker? In 1985, at a press conference, Feinstein revealed details about the hunt for serial killer Richard Ramírez, and in so doing angered detectives by giving away details of his crimes

..

I wonder what this 'commentator's' opinion is of Pfc. Manning?