Another fine mess!

it never ceases to amaze me. We have some people serving in our government who just don't give the impression that they actually paid attention in class during law school. Case in point today: The President of the United States, and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, both have opined today that there will be convictions and executions in the 9/11 cases. Way to go and prejudice the jury pool! Headlines are all over the internet are screaming things such as "Obama, Holder predict conviction in 9/11 case"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_sept11_trial
And "Obama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executed" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/

Here's a part of the interview: "In an interview with NBC News, Obama said those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it 'offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.'
Obama quickly added that he did not mean to suggest he was prejudging the outcome of Mohammed's trial. 'I'm not going to be in that courtroom,' he said. 'That's the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.' " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/ Too late, now, but it looks like you already prejudged and announced it, thereby tainting the jury pool.

Now, personally, I believe that these defendants, committed an act of war on the United States, and should be tried in military tribunals. But, the President and his AG, in their infinite legal wisdom, decided they should be tried in our criminal courts, where, in the United States, there is a presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the Government. Even if they both missed that specific day of law school class on the presumption of innocence, how could they watch TV and not learn that simple precept? Okay, I'll admit, I may have an edge over these two as I actually did attend that class at law school (and, indeed graduated from law school), so maybe I am a bit too hard on them. Just joshing, there, no, I am not being too hard. Once again, we have what appears to be a rush to judgment (anyone remember how the President defended his buddy, the Harvard Law professor, before he knew all the facts? See my prior blog about this - Friday, July 24, 2009.). Now we have him convicting and executing the so-called mastermind, but months go by and he is unable to make a decision about Afghanistan and the general's request for troops.

Frankly, if I were a defense attorney for these defendants, I'd be doing a happy dance today. The jury pool from the whole country has now been tainted (come on, you cannot use your position as President of the United States to discuss convictions in trials that haven't even started and expect not to have your followers march in step with you on this issue too. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE!). Additionally, if these defendants are convicted, and if they are placed on death row, the President and his AG have just wrapped up a lovely holiday present for their attorneys with multiple grounds for appeals.

Kudos, guys. Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into.