Robert Gibbs Presumes Guilt

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In an American civilian court, defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To ensure a fair trial, the jury must know nothing about a case ahead of time so that the presumption of innocence can be maintained until the arguments are given in the court of law.

Apparently, Robert Gibbs does not understand this.

Robert Gibbs: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to meet justice and he's going to meet his maker. . . He will be brought to justice, and he's likely to be executed for the heinous crimes that he committed in killing -- in masterminding the killing of -- 3,000 Americans."

The spokesperson for the President of the United States (and this is not the first time) has condemned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed prior to his court case, and did so for all of the nation to hear.

Of course I agree that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should meet with an early death - but by eliminating the opportunity for that to happen in a military tribunal, and by giving him the "right to remain silent," and a presumption of innocence (of which both civilian courts and military tribunals share, with slight variations of application), by placing him into the civilian court system, there are certain rules of the court that must be followed.

Robert Gibbs' statements are grounds for the case to be thrown out, and for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to walk away as a free man on a technicality. Gibbs has already tried, convicted and executed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, prior to the trial - and in American Courts, you cannot do that. And this is the fourth or fifth time this administration has done this, pronouncing the guilt and the penalty.

If they don't move this trial back to a military tribunal, if this case does in fact take place in a civilian court, the case will be thrown out.

One may argue that no judge wishes to be on record of releasing this guy, but any possible jury has been tainted by Gibbs' statements, and Obama himself has said similar statements as well. The judge would have no choice but to uphold the law, and dismiss the case.

The Democrats dared bestow constitutional rights on a terrorist - therefore they must follow the rules of the court. In a civilian court there is a presumption of innocence, and if that presumption is betrayed, the case must be thrown out.

Like it or not, that is the law.

I am curious what Obama's, and Gibbs', reaction is going to be when Muhammed walks. Will they be outraged? Will they be shocked? Will they be willing to admit they screwed up?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Gibbs ‘Tries, Convicts And Executes’ KSM - Sweetness and Light