9/11 Terrorists To Be Tried In Military Commissions At Guantanamo Bay

After several years of attempting to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammad into the civilian federal justice system, the Obama Administration and the Department of Justice have decided that it is best to have him tried in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

Mohammed was to have been tried in New York City, but city officials strongly objected to the move and Congress refused to appropriate funds to house Guantanamo inmates on mainland United States and to provide funds for a trial of extraordinary expense.

New York City projected it would cost more than $400 million to provide security for the pre-trial preparation and trial of the suspects in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It would have cost another $206 million annually if the trial ran beyond two years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office estimated.

President Obama announced in March his decision to resume military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay after heavy resistance from both Democrats and Republicans over trying suspects in U.S. courts.

Closing the detainee center at Guantanamo Bay was one of the first orders of business Obama announced more than two years ago when he took office. But Obama has faced months of fierce, bipartisan resistance from Congress on his proposal to try Guantanamo detainees on U.S. soil.

The $725 billion National Defense Authorization Act that Obama signed Jan. 7 explicitly prohibits the use of Defense Department funds to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to the United States or other countries. It also bars Pentagon funds from being used to build facilities in the United States to house detainees, as the president originally suggested.

Part of the problem was that the evidence potentially used against Mohammad and other terrorists would not pass muster in federal court, and that could lead to the perverse situation where the admitted mastermind of the worst terror attack in history could be found not guilty, but which the Administration said would never see the light of day because of his being an ongoing risk to American lives. The tribunal enables the Administration to carry out a trial with due process and legal rights without giving the terrorists the freedom to turn the trial into a political trial and mockery of the legal system.

It also shows that the Administration had to bow to the political and legal realities of prosecuting those responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks when those individuals were not captured in the typical American law enforcement method and where those suspects may (or were) subjected to harsh interrogation methods.

The promise to close Guantanamo Bay's detention facilities also ran to a stumbling block because Congress realized that changing the location where the detainees were being held would not change the fact that these individuals were detained (and will be detained) indefinitely due to their risk to Americans should they be repatriated. Members of Congress didn't want these individuals in their Congressional districts, and they didn't want to authorize the spending of still more money to build detention facilities in the US when there was sufficient facilities in Guantanamo Bay.

Obama Administration About To Flip On NYC 9/11 Trials?

After announcing that the Obama Administration and the Justice Department would try al Qaeda terror master Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a New York City courtroom along with four of his minions, claiming that federal court was the proper venue for such trials, the Administration is leaking that the trial option may be shelved in favor of the tribunal system, which I have repeatedly argued was the proper venue all along.

White House advisers are nearing a recommendation for President Barack Obama to choose a military trial for self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four of his alleged henchman, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The review of where and how to hold a Sept. 11 trial is not over, so no recommendation is yet before the president and Obama has not made a determination of his own, officials said. The review is not likely to be finished this week.

Officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to discuss private deliberations.

The matter is at the White House after Attorney General Eric Holder decided in November to transfer Mohammed and the four other accused terrorists from the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York City for civilian trials. Initially supported by city officials, the idea was later opposed because of costs, security and logistical concerns.

When opposition ballooned further into Congress and an attempted Christmas airline bombing brought massive scrutiny to Obama's terrorism policies, the administration said it would review Holder's trial decision and consider all options for a new location.

In addition to local opposition to a trial, the administration faces pressure on its goal of closing Guantanamo on another front. Republicans in Congress have proposed barring prosecutions of terrorism defendants in federal courts or in reformed military commissions located in the United States.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has proposed legislation that would prevent the Obama administration from putting Mohammed and other terrorists on trial in any American community. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., joined by about half the Senate's Republicans and a few Democrats, has made a similar proposal.

These machinations by the Administration are all about symbolism and catering to the political whims of the left wing of the Democrat party and the ACLU which thinks that the tribunals aren't sufficient for the civil liberties of the terrorists, and which sees the existence of Guanatamo Bay's detention facility as an anathema even though it is a humane detention facility that meets and exceeds the Geneva Convention protocols for such detainees.

The Administration never considered the possibility that the local communities in New York wouldn't want to get inconvenienced again by holding trials that would disrupt the fragile local economy that never fully recovered following the 9/11 attacks due to street closures and security restrictions on traffic and movement. It never considered that providing a federal court trial would only allow the terrorists a public platform from which to lambaste the US government and draw attention away from their heinous deeds to what the US did to them. It never considered the huge security costs that it would impose on the City (and any location holding these trials - even as NYC was the proper forum should that have been the decision).

The US government had already established the tribunal system to handle these kinds of cases, with consultation and input from all three branches of government - court cases litigating various matters, negotiations on the authority and scope of tribunals, etc. The tribunals were the proper forum.

Yet, the Administration realized that not all of the Gitmo detainees could be tried in federal court so they acknowledged that nearly 50 of the detainees would go through the tribunal system and several would go into federal courts. Still others would never see the light of day regardless of the findings - and that included Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in statements made by the President and AG Eric Holder.

After months of hand wringing and shoddy legal thinking on the part of the Administration, we're heading back to where we started - tribunals for one of the 9/11 terror masters. It comes as little surprise that the ACLU is against a switch back to tribunals, even though the Administration noted that they would be used in some cases regardless of the related legal fallout of detainees suing that they were denied trials by being placed in tribunals.

The Administration claims that they have the authority to make such decisions, and I don't disagree. I just think that they've made a mess of the whole issue and should have left the tribunals as the proper forum for those detainees captured overseas who were not Mirandized and arrested on US soil under US law enforcement standards.

AG Holder Thinks Zazi Case Could Lead To Successful KSM Case?

Leave it to Attorney General Eric Holder to make a completely asinine analogy between the plea deal between Najibullah Zazi and federal prosecutors and the ability of the federal government to attempt to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) in federal court.

"This demonstrates that our federal civilian criminal justice system has the ability to incapacitate terrorists, has the ability to gain intelligence from those terrorists and is a valuable tool in our fight against terrorism," Holder said at news conference after Zazi's guilty plea.

Holder has faced Republican fire for dealing with the underwear bomber airliner plot as a civilian case and for his decision, now being reconsidered, to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four henchmen in lower Manhattan.

A resolution of where to try Mohammed is expected "relatively soon," Holder said. But a Manhattan trial - strongly opposed by New York officials - remains in play, he added.

Under pressure from congressional critics, the Justice Department is also considering sending Mohammed to trial before a military tribunal.

Holder is hoping that because Zazi entered a plea deal in a federal court case that it will somehow influence the outcome on whether and where to hold the KSM trial (or tribunal).

The problem for Holder is that these are two completely different situations with two completely different levels of evidence gathered that lead to two completely different outcomes.

Zazi was captured in the US for crimes committed in the US, including plotting to use WMD, conspiracy to commit mass murder, and working for al Qaeda. He was taken into custody by the NYPD and the Joint Terrorism Task Force that includes the CIA and FBI. Zazi was provided full rights under the law, including rights provided under Miranda.

KSM was captured in Pakistan and held incommunicado for years before being brought to Guantanamo Bay. Harsh interrogation methods were used. Miranda was not a consideration.

Investigators developed evidence and prosecuted the Zazi case as a law enforcement matter from the outset. Zazi entered into a plea deal, perhaps because he didn't want to see his mother deported even though Zazi claimed that he was attacking the US because of the way the US was treating Afghans. There is no such lever to procure a deal from KSM, and any KSM trial is apt to become a forum for him and his cohorts to spread their propaganda and hate against the US.

Holder and the Justice Department took KSM from the tribunal system where KSM confessed to all manner of terror-related crimes in 2007, including admitting to his role in the 9/11 attacks. KSM's lawyers even sent a note to the military judge in December 2008 of their intention to enter guilty pleas. With that backdrop, Holder sought to push the case into federal court, even though the evidenicary hurdles are far higher than they would have been in the tribunal system that the Obama Administration hopes to use in cases where they do not feel that the US has sufficient evidence to convict in federal court. Holder's decision to bifurcate treatment of detainees was a huge mistake, and his latest press conference reinforces the fact that he's engaging in damage control over this wholly unforced error.

Obama Administration Continues Walking Back From 9/11 Trials Decision

After saying that the Obama Administration would try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a federal courtroom in Lower Manhattan, Eric Holder is now backtracking and leaving the door open to other options, which presumably means tribunals.

"At the end of the day, wherever this case is tried, in whatever forum, what we have to ensure is that it's done as transparently as possible and with adherence to all the rules," Holder told The Washington Post in an interview published in Friday's editions. "If we do that, I'm not sure the location or even the forum is as important as what the world sees in that proceeding."

Opposition from New York officials has forced the Obama administration to reconsider plans to put Mohammed on trial in federal court in lower Manhattan, near where the World Trade Center was felled.

City and state officials and many congressional Republicans argue that the high-security trial would put New Yorkers at risk of further attacks, cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in security expenses and take a staggering toll on nearby businesses.

Holder still maintains that a civilian trial would be the best option for the case and "best for our overall fight against al-Qaida."

This was a wholly unforced error on the Administration's part and a federal trial was a bad idea, coupled with heavy handed statements by the President and AG Holder, both of whom said that Mohammad would never be set free regardless of the outcome of a federal trial. Those prejudicial statements and the mindblowing costs for putting on the trial combined with massive outrage from New Yorkers who would have been inconvenienced by the trial have led to the continuing backtracking by the Administration.

It's absolutely nonsensical that civilian trials are the best option in the case of these particular terrorists who were picked up overseas based on classified information and assistance from foreign governments that do not share in American notions of criminal procedure. The US created a tribunal process - and the matter was litigated, legislated and implemented by the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary - to adjudicate terrorist detainees without pushing the matter into federal courts where federal rules on evidence and procedure would grant terrorists rights that not even soldiers in uniform could hope to obtain should they be captured by US forces in wartime.

Obama Walking Back From Holding KSM Terror Trial In NYC

President Obama is now directing the Justice Department to consider other venues besides the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan following an outcry from the local community.This wouldn't affect the Administration's choice to try these terrorists in federal court but only where the trials would be held.

The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would "prefer that they did it elsewhere" and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.

"It would be an inconvenience at the least, and probably that's too mild a word for people that live in the neighborhood and businesses in the neighborhood," Bloomberg told reporters.

"There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City."

State and city leaders have increasingly railed against a plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in Manhattan federal court since Holder proposed it last month.

Sen. Chuck Schumer said he was "pleased" by the decision and said the White House also told him Thursday night it backs a possible move.

Earlier in the day, Schumer spoke "with high-level members of the administration and urged them to find alternatives," said the senator's spokesman, Josh Vlasto.

The order to consider new venues does not change the White House's position that Mohammed should be tried in civilian court.

That the trial was expected to run $200 million a year in security costs to handle the trial might have had something to do with the move.

Mayor Bloomberg's opposition to having the trial here is seen as a big reason for the about-face from the White House and was boosted by NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and meetings with local business leaders who would have been adversely affected by the security protocols that would have been put in place to secure the detention facilities and courthouse - no go zones and limited access that would have seriously harmed Chinatown businesses and those around Lower Manhattan.

Still, I'm not sure how the costs would be any cheaper elsewhere in the NY metro region, though it would be less disruptive if held in someplace like a military installation like West Point or on Governor's Island.

All these problems could have been avoided by the decision to utilize military tribunals, which the Administration intends to use in the handling of 50 other detainees that are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hope, Change, and More of the Same

For all of President Obama's statements in support of closing Guantanamo Bay's detention facility and ending the indefinite detention of those at the facility, his Justice Department task force looking into doing just that found that of the nearly 200 detainees remaining there, 50 should go on being detained indefinitely without any trial/tribunal access.

But the efforts of the task force, which this week completed its case-by-case review of the detainees still being held at Guantanamo Bay, allows the Obama administration to claim at least a small measure of progress toward closing the facility.

"We're still moving forward and in a much more deliberate and less haphazard manner than was the case before," said an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the recommendations have not been made public. "All policies encounter reality, and it's painful, but this one holds up better than most."

The task force has recommended that Guantanamo Bay detainees be divided into three main groups: about 35 who should be prosecuted in federal or military courts; at least 110 who can be released, either immediately or eventually; and the nearly 50 who must be detained without trial.

Administration officials argue that detaining terrorism suspects under Congress's authorization of the use of force against al-Qaeda and the Taliban is legal and that each detainee has the right to challenge his incarceration in habeas corpus proceedings in federal court.

How exactly is that any different than what President Bush had been doing all along. Bear in mind that the Guantanamo Bay had held more than 500 detainees at one point and the number had been whittled down under Bush and then further by Obama.

Obama has come along and called for trials instead of tribunals for some of the terrorists held there, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, even though the Administration will use tribunals for other terrorists. Moreover, the Administration (both AG Holder and the President) have said that Mohammad would never be released from detention, even if the federal court trial finds him not guilty, so the President's problem with his friends on the Left and the civil libertarians who had been agitating for GitMo's closure.

9/11 Trial Security In NYC Might Top $200 Million A Year

Only days ago, the NYPD and Commissioner Ray Kelly said that the costs for a 9/11 trial at the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan would run $75 million. Today, the Daily News reports that the costs are nearly triple that estimate - $200 million.

The NYPD's newly revised projection is almost triple the estimate of $75 million in November, after Attorney General Eric Holder announced he would move the prisoners from Guantanamo to Manhattan for trial.

The legal process is expected to play out over more than a year.

At a news conference Monday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded the federal government pay every penny of the security costs.

"Some New Yorkers think the trials are a good idea. Some New Yorkers think the trials are a bad idea," Schumer said. "One idea all New Yorkers agree on is that New York taxpayers should not have to pay a dime for these trials."

Federal marshals will handle security at the courthouse. The NYPD and other law enforcement agencies will be assigned to protect the surrounding area.

Schumer warned the security cost of the trials would be in the "hundreds of millions," but he declined to give an exact figure.

Those are costs that the City is incapable of paying due to its fiscal situation, and Sen. Schumer has called on the federal government to reimburse the City for the additional security. That's the bare minimum, and it again raises questions over why this was necessary when the Obama Administration notes that they're more than willing to use tribunals for cases where the likelihood of conviction isn't assured given the evidence (the quantity and manner in which it was collected). The Administration has also hinted that should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad or his fellow terrorists be found not guilty, the Administration would still find a way to detain them indefinitely.

Illinois Prison To Become New Gitmo

The Obama Administration is close to announcing that an Illinois prison is about to become the new Guantanamo Bay detention facility for terrorists. All that this does is move detainees from one US installation located in Guantanamo Bay Cuba to Illinois and an underutilized prison located in President Barack Obama's home state. It does not eliminate the problems with actually detaining these terrorists indefinitely as is the case with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who will nonetheless stand trial in New York.

Taking an important step on the thorny path to closing the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the White House plans to announce Tuesday that the government will acquire an underutilized state prison in rural Illinois to be the new home for a limited number of terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo.

Administration officials as well as Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn will make an official announcement at the White House.

Officials from both the White House and Durbin's office confirmed that President Barack Obama had directed the government to acquire Thomson Correctional Center in Thomson, Ill., a sleepy town near the Mississippi River about 150 miles from Chicago. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting Tuesday's announcement.

A Durbin aide said the facility would house federal inmates and no more than 100 detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

The facility in Thomson had emerged as a clear front-runner after Illinois officials, led by Durbin, enthusiastically embraced the idea of turning a near-dormant prison over to federal officials.

The White House has been coy about its selection process, but on Friday a draft memo leaked to a conservative Web site that seemed to indicate officials were homing in on Thomson.

The Thomson Correctional Center was one of several potential sites evaluated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to potentially house detainees from the Navy-run prison at Guantanamo Bay. Officials with other prisons, including Marion, Ill., Hardin, Mont., and Florence, Colo., have said they would welcome the jobs that would be created by the new inmates.

Closing Guantanamo is a top priority for Obama, and he signed an executive order hours into his presidency directing that the process of closing the prison begin. Obama has said he wants terrorism suspects transferred to American soil so they can be tried for their suspected crimes.

The logistics of this remains to be worked out, but it is merely a charade to claim that the President is upholding his promise to close Guantanamo Bay.

Obama Administration Considering Trying Another Gitmo Detainee In New York

The Obama Administration is contemplating having another Guantanamo Bay detainee tried in federal court in New York City, person named Majid Khan, who is claimed to have met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in Pakistan.

A person familiar with the discussions about Khan says the Justice Department is weighing whether to put him on trial in federal court in Brooklyn, but the person says no final decision has been made. The person, who requested anonymity, was not authorized to discuss the deliberations.

This guy wouldn't be tried in the Southern District (Manhattan) where Khalid Sheihk Mohammad and four others are to be tried, but in the Eastern District, which is located in Brooklyn.

It's a rather puzzling choice of venue. I await a cogent explanation for why EDNY was the better option than the SDNY. Of course, my preference remains that all the detainees be tried in military tribunals, which is the preferred option for those detainees for whom little evidence that would be admissible in federal court has been adduced.

It also ignores the fact that the Obama Administration admits that there are some detainees, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who will never be released regardless of the court's verdict.

A Critique of the Administration's Decision To Prosecute KSM In Federal Court

The decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and his fellow terrorists in federal court was a political decision pure and simple. It was an attempt to rebuke the Bush Administration to engage in tribunals, even though quite a few of the detainees will still get tribunals and not trials. It creates significant problems and legal headaches particularly with the prosecution and handling of detainees who do not get access to federal court.

Andy McCarthy dissects Holder's testimony, and shows the Administration's efforts to hold a trial are dubious and worrisome. In addition, here are a few more reasons why the Administration is wrongly bifurcating the trial of detainees in either tribunals or federal court depending on the evidence against the detainees.

Eric Holder's conduct.
Attorney General Eric Holder's law firm played a role in delaying the operation military tribunals and have represented a bunch of the Gitmo detainees. Some of those lawyers at Covington and Burling are now at the DOJ advising on these very matters.

Legitimacy of Tribunals Versus Federal Court
So, if we're at war with these terrorists and a military tribunal was set up by Congress with the President's approval, why take these detainees out of military hands to put them into civilian courts? The military courts are better prepared to deal with national security matters, and in civilian courts, the detainees can act as their own attorneys and demand and gain access to sensitive information, which includes lists of unindicted coconspirators and others who might later become targets or result in shifting of assets with the assistance of others (such as the case of Lynne Stewart aiding and abetting Abdel Rahman contact his minions overseas in violation of federal law and agreements with prosecutors).

The tribunals have been tested by the courts and Congress and President Bush amended their operation to conform to US Supreme Court rulings; they were set to proceed and yet the Obama Administration finds them inadequate for dealing with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad even as he's more than willing to bring others into the tribuanls.

Protocols Determining Who Gets Tribunal
Here's the standards put forth by the Department of Justice in determining who gets trial in federal court and who gets a tribunal. The presumption is that a detainee gets federal court access, rather than a tribunal.

I find the splitting the difference - that Obama and Holder chose to hold some in tribunals and others in federal district court to be the most troubling aspect of this whole mess. It's one that can't be blamed on anyone but Obama and Holder.

Tribunals are a lawful and recognized court of law for purposes of dealing with these detainees - as per the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. All have had input into their formation and operation. Multiple lawsuits and adjudications attest to that very fact, along with the Congressional record and laws enacting and amending the operation of the tribunals.

The Administration could have chosen to put all in federal court, but didn't.

Apparently the reason some get tribunals and others don't is based on whether they can get convictions in federal court. If they can, they go to federal court.

Again, if that's the case, why not try all in tribunals where the evidence is better safeguarded?

Differential Treatment.
If the tribunals were okay for some but not others, a lawyer representing a detainee who is forced into tribunals will claim that some right of theirs was violated because they didn't get a trial. That issue will have to work its way through the courts until it is decided by the Supreme Court, and thereafter the court/tribunal procedure will be adjusted accordingly.

Don't think that the defense teams aren't already working on just that scenario.

Just because the military and DOJ engaged in negotiation doesn't mean that the detainee has to sit back and accept a tribunal when they're seeing other detainees go into civil court. They too will claim access to the courts. It will further delay the operation of the tribunals (which may have been the point all along).

It reinforces my point; the tribunals should have been the only venue for the detainees, but this Administration sought to bring some them into federal court.

Additional Arguments Favoring Federal District Court Trial Fall Short.
Arguments that this prosecution of KSM is somehow similar to the prosecution of the 1993 WTC bombers ignores several key differences: 1) the terrorists in 1993 were captured by the FBI on US soil; 2) the Clinton Administration handled matters as a law enforcement matter; and 3) the US was not at war with al Qaeda (al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1998 and the US invaded Afghanistan in October 2001). The detainees being tried include those captured overseas and who have declared war against the United States, not mere common criminals.

National security issues are not protected nearly as well in federal court as they are in the tribunal system; and it's not just classified information that one has to be concerned with but lists of unindicted coconspirators and other information that might prove useful to al Qaeda.

Arguing that a tribunal can act as a backstop to a federal court decision (where a tribunal hears charges that were not included in the federal court indictments) that results in an acquittal or hung jury also falls short since the tribunal clearly was the more appropriate venue from the outset.

Appropriate Venue.
So, while I completely disagree with the Administration's decision to try some detainees in federal court and others in tribunals, the decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is an appropriate venue. Of all the jurisdictions in the US, the SDNY is the best venue because it has dealt with the most terror prosecutions and has the institutional experience with the trials and the issues involved when dealing with domestic terror law enforcement operations.

The NYPD is the largest law enforcement agency in the nation and has significant experience in dealing with high profile security matters and New York City will be a top target for al Qaeda regardless of any trial or tribunal because of what the City and the nation represent. A trial under any circumstances will not change al Qaeda's mind one iota about their decision to engage in jihad against the US and the West.

There are three other possible venues; the Western District of Pennsylvania, the DC Federal District Court, and the Northern District of Virginia, but each doesn't have the institutional experience handling these kinds of trials nor the full complement of law enforcement that can be dedicated to security.

President Obama's Statements.
While some may argue that the detainees will not get a fair trial in New York City, one has to wonder how prejudicial statements by none other than President Obama could be construed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's defense team. After all, the President said that he fully expects Mohammad to be convicted and sentenced to death.

Obama: Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Will Be Executed. Again, just a wee bit prejudicial and putting the cart before the horse? Where are the civil libertarians to get their knickers in a twist about a sitting President declaring the outcome before we've even settled into the jury selection and pre trial motion phase?

Does anyone else have a problem with that?

You should.

I want 'em found guilty and convicted based on whatever evidence is presented in the forum at hand. I want the sentencing to be appropriately handled by that same jury.

Yet, a constitutional law scholar such as President Obama is releasing statements that are deeply prejudicial? Even the President realized that his statements would be a problem and attempted to walk them back, but the damage is done since he put them out there.

Additional Political Considerations.
The problem is that the tribunals were excoriated and denounced roundly by the Left so Obama is pushing ahead with the trials, and some will get tribunals that may end up with still more lawsuits that affect their operation - up to and including invalidating the tribunals altogether because of the disparate treatment of some detainees.

That may have been the goal all along; knowing that political necessity required pushing detainees into the federal court system all while the reality is that many of the detainees could never be released and/or evidence against the detainees was insufficient to meet federal court standards.

Moreover, Obama and Holder admit that some detainees will never see the inside of a courtroom under either tribunal or trial because of evidenciary issues and that regardless of outcome, some will never be released (including KSM).

Preparing for the NY Terror Trials

Lower Manhattan around Foley Square is going to be turned into an armed camp, complete with snipers and heavily armed police and other law enforcement agencies. There will be street closures and detours and lots of inconveniences at a minimum as the US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four of his fellow al Qaeda terrorists will be put on trial in Southern District of New York.

Security will be at an all-time high for the trial of five accused 9/11 terrorists - just a few blocks and eight years away from the lost twin towers of the World Trade Center.

Rooftop snipers, armored vehicles and lock-down zones around the Pearl Street courthouse are part of the plan to insure safety during the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his cohorts.

"It's highly appropriate that those accused in the deaths of nearly 3,000 human beings in New York City be tried here, and the NYPD is prepared for the security required," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly vowed.

The men are in the Guantanamo Bay terror prison and likely won't be brought here for weeks, but New York's law enforcement leaders are busy planning to keep things safe and secure.

The U.S. marshals will handle courthouse security, and their main mission is to protect those on trial. The job for the FBI and the NYPD is protecting the public from anyone hoping to disrupt the trial or gain international recognition by trying to free the defendants.

I argued yesterday that it was needlessly unnecessary for these terrorists to get access to US federal courts, when military tribunals would be just as efficient and effective in handling these cases, but the Administration decided that a circus atmosphere would be more appropriate. That's exactly what will happen; the terrorists will use the open court as a platform to spread their message of hate. The terrorists and their lawyers will try and paint the US government, particularly the Bush Administration as the evil doers - engaging in torture and other restrictions on the rights of the accused, when the trial should focus on the fact that Mohammed admitted to plotting the 9/11 terror attacks that killed more than 3,000 people.

Medicare Fraud Bust Nets $371 Million

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Attorney General Eric Holder charged 145 people in defrauding Medicare to the tune of $371 million by filing false claims.

Using about a dozen agents in targeted cities, including Miami, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, has recovered $371 million in false Medicare claims and charged 145 people across the country in just two months.

More than 200 agents worked on Wednesday's $16 million bust that included 12 search warrants at health care businesses and homes across the Houston area.

Federal authorities say those businesses were giving patients "arthritis kits," which were nothing more than expensive orthotics that included knee and shoulder braces. Patients told authorities they were unnecessary and many never used them. But health care clinic owners billed between $3,000 to $4,000 for each kit.

Houston's other scam involved billing Medicare for thousands of dollars worth of liquid food like Ensure for patients who can't eat solid food. Authorities said clinic owners never distributed the food to patients. In some cases, clinic owners billed patients who were dead when they allegedly received the items.

The suspects arrested Wednesday in Houston will make court appearances Thursday morning. Suspects in Boston, New York and Louisiana will have first appearances later today.

The first task force started in 2007 in Miami, a city authorities say alone is responsible for more than $3 billion a year in Medicare fraud. Clinic owners there would bill Medicare dozens of times for the same wheelchair, while never giving the medical equipment to patients.

The problems have become more complex since then.

Suspects have moved into more sophisticated scams including home health care, physical therapy and infusion drugs. They've even started tapping into Medicaid Advantage, which allows the elderly and disabled to get benefits through private health insurers. The plans receive a government subsidy and generally offer more benefits than traditional Medicare.

The $371 million is just from two months worth of claims. You want to reign in costs? Cut the fraud. I suspect that this is all for show though in order to get the comprehensive health care bill passed, even though it does nothing to avoid the massive fraud we're seeing in Medicare and Medicaid.

This Is What Got Democrats In A Tizzy?

Pardon me while I stop laughing at all those who breathlessly wondered when US Attorney General Eric Holder would start filing indictments against Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

Apparently the super secret program that the Vice President kept from Congressional leaders was nothing other than a plan to capture and kill top al Qaeda leaders.

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn’t clear, and the CIA won’t comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn’t become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn’t clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

So why exactly did CIA Director Panetta stop this program? What exactly was he uncomfortable about? More to the point, why was this program not fully operational when Panetta ended it? Could it be that this program was ended because it wasn't an efficient use of CIA limited resources at a time when other efforts, such as UAV airstrikes, have been shown to be quite effective?

The takeaway from this is that the Bush Administration was contemplating a secret initiative that would have worked towards a goal of eliminating top al Qaeda terrorists like Zawahiri and bin Laden. Seeing how a President's foremost goal is to provide and maintain the security of the United States, eliminating the terrorists responsible for the grievous loss of life on 9/11 would be a priority.

Democrats will claim that this proposal somehow broke the law because Congressional leaders were not kept apprised of the CIA proposal, but given how this plan fizzled out before it got to the operational stage, and was superseded by other programs like the UAV airstrikes that have killed dozens of al Qaeda and Taliban thugs, including several high profile targets, this is much ado about nothing. It's part of an ongoing attempt by Democrats to politicize and criminalize policy differences.

Do You Feel Safer?

US Attorney General Eric Holder now says that some of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay may be released into the United States proper.

Mr. Holder, in a briefing with reporters, said administration officials are still reviewing individual cases of the approximately 250 detainees to determine which will be put on trial and which may be released to comply with plans to close the detention facility by next year.

Six weeks into his tenure, Mr. Holder is still trying to assemble much of the Justice senior leadership, with several nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. He said he has reviewed the department's handling of white-collar criminal cases in response to the financial crisis and is considering ways to increase coordination on financial fraud among federal prosecutors and state officials. He said he is trying to increase the budget dedicated to white-collar crime, while maintaining funding for national security.

European justice ministers met with Mr. Holder earlier this week and pressed for details on how many Guantanamo prisoners the U.S. planned to release domestically, as part of any agreement for allies to accept detainees. Mr. Holder said U.S. officials would work to respond to the questions European officials have over U.S. Guantanamo plans.

For "people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country," Mr. Holder said. "That process is ongoing and we've not made any determinations or made any requests of anybody at this point."

Among the detainees whose fate remains undetermined are 17 ethnic Uighurs, from the Central Asian region of China, who have been ordered released by a judge. The U.S. has refused to turn the men over to China, which considers them part of an separatist group.

So, in order to get Europeans to take in detainees, the US has to take in some as well. It's a quid pro quo that does grave injustice to the security of both Europeans and Americans. There's a reason that many of those held in Gitmo are there - they were captured on battlefields while engaging in combat against the US. They are not merely prisoners of war, but enemy combatants (a term that Holder and President Obama have written out of existence, regardless of the specific meaning that it implies because such individuals do not get protection under the Geneva Convention although the US did and does comply with providing such individuals with that protection).

What could possibly go wrong with releasing terrorists held at Gitmo? Well, given that more than a few have rejoined the jihad and some have even taken up leadership positions in al Qaeda, I'd say quite a bit.