Trump Abandons Idea of Sending Terrorism Suspect to Guantánamo
WASHINGTON — President Trump on Thursday backed off his threat to send the suspect in this week’s New York terrorist attack to the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but once again called for the man to be executed, a public intervention in the case that could come back to haunt prosecutors in any future trial.
In response to questions from reporters, Mr. Trump on Wednesday had said he would be open to transferring Sayfullo Saipov, the immigrant from Uzbekistan charged with plowing a pickup truck into passers-by in Manhattan, from the civilian justice system to the military system at Guantánamo. “Send him to Gitmo, I would certainly consider that, yes,” he said.
But after his offhand and unscripted remark, aides sought to walk back the idea, saying it was merely notional. And the president was evidently briefed or saw something on television afterward about how the civilian courts have been more effective at convicting terrorism suspects than the troubled military tribunal system installed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Would love to send the NYC terrorist to Guantanamo but statistically that process takes much longer than going through the Federal system...
7:50 AM - Nov 2, 2017
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
...There is also something appropriate about keeping him in the home of the horrible crime he committed. Should move fast. DEATH PENALTY!
7:54 AM - Nov 2, 2017
The argument that Mr. Saipov should be tried in the same place where the terrorist attack that killed eight was committed mirrored the contention that President Barack Obama’s administration made when it sought to put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, on trial in a civilian court in New York. But an uproar among city officials and business leaders at the time forced Mr. Obama’s Justice Department to abandon the plan and keep Mr. Mohammed at Guantánamo.
Mr. Trump’s call for capital punishment for Mr. Saipov, however, introduced a surprise complication that may burden prosecutors and help defense attorneys. Mr. Trump first broached the subject in a Twitter message posted shortly before midnight on Wednesday evening.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!
11:43 PM - Nov 1, 2017
Presidents are typically advised never to publicly weigh in on pending criminal cases. Such comments can be used by defense attorneys to argue that their clients cannot get a fair trial — especially when the head of the executive branch that will prosecute a case advocates the ultimate punishment before a judge has heard a single shred of evidence at trial.
But Mr. Trump is not one for cautious detachment, and he has disregarded such advice before. Just this week, a military judge said he would consider similar comments by Mr. Trump as evidence in favor of a lighter sentence for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who pleaded guilty to desertion and endangering fellow troops by walking away from his post in Afghanistan, where he was later captured and held prisoner by the Taliban for five years.
Other presidents have been criticized for offering public verdicts about pending criminal cases. In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon declared that Charles Manson “was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason” in the middle of his trial in the killings of the actress Sharon Tate and others.
By the end of the day, the Manson team’s lawyers had moved for a mistrial, citing the president’s remarks, and Nixon issued what his press secretary called a “clarification” taking them back.
“The last thing I would do is prejudice the legal rights of any person, in any circumstances,” Nixon said. The defendant later held up in court a newspaper with the headline “Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares.” But the judge allowed the trial to proceed, ultimately ending with a conviction.
In 2005, President George W. Bush expressed his confidence that Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the former Republican majority leader, would be acquitted, weeks before his trial on money laundering charges was to open. “I hope that he will, ’cause I like him, and plus, when he’s over there, we get our votes through the House,” Mr. Bush told a television interviewer.
His successor, Mr. Obama, forecast an execution for Mr. Mohammed, the Sept. 11 detainee. Defending the later-aborted decision to try Mr. Mohammed in civilian court rather than a military tribunal, Mr. Obama said critics would not find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”
The impact of such comments is more pronounced in military justice cases since the president is commander in chief of the judges and juries that determine guilt or innocence and hand down sentences.
Responding to a wave of sexual harassment allegations in the military, Mr. Obama declared in 2013 that troops who commit sexual assault should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged.” In this instance, he was not commenting on a particular defendant, but attorneys nonetheless argued that it constituted “unlawful command influence.”
Such influence refers to actions by commanders that could be seen as an attempt to sway a court-martial. Defense lawyers in multiple cases cited Mr. Obama’s words. In one case in South Carolina, a judge noted the command influence issue in dismissing sexual assault charges against an Army officer. In another in Hawaii, a Navy judge decided that two defendants could not be punitively discharged because of the president’s comments.
Mr. Trump has more than once offered strong words about people suspected of major crimes. He called the man who opened fire on a concert in Las Vegas last month a “very sick man” and “a very demented person,” but since the man was killed, there will be no trial to influence. On Wednesday, he called Mr. Saipov “this animal.”
Mr. Trump was unflinchingly vocal about Sergeant Bergdahl as a candidate, calling him a “dirty rotten traitor” who should be executed. A military judge in February called the comments “disturbing and disappointing,” but decided since they were made when Mr. Trump was a private citizen, not the president, they did not constitute undue command influence.
Mr. Trump was more restrained when asked about Sergeant Bergdahl’s case last month, but not so much that it did not come up in court. “I can’t comment on Bowe Bergdahl,” Mr. Trump told reporters in the Rose Garden. “But I think people have heard my comments in the past.”
After concerns were raised about the “but” in his comment, the White House sought to mitigate any possible damage with a statement. “The president expects all military personnel who are involved in any way in the military justice process to exercise their independent professional judgment, consistent with applicable laws and regulations,” the statement said.
Col. Jeffery R. Nance, the Army judge presiding over the case, rejected a request that he dismiss the case or limit the potential sentence because of Mr. Trump’s remarks, saying he had not been influenced. But he indicated that he would weigh the president’s comments before determining punishment. “I will consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence,” he said.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Trump once again proves why he isn't fit to be president.
Why is that? What do you want to hapoen to that slimeball?
Shut his fucking mouth and let this play out like every other terrorist case.....he'll have a much better chance of getting the death penalty if left to the federal courts then a military one!
Agreed Willjay. The Twitter-in-Chief needs to be quiet about this so that his attorneys can't use the presidents words against the court. If the others would bother to read the article through they might see what I'm talking about, they can claim no fair trial in the U.S. court system because of Trump's big mouth. I want to see him get what is coming to him, not get off on a technicality.
Unfortunately when Trump runs his mouth some people do listen and, it ends up in the news. Charles Manson held up a paper during his trial that had a headline that read, "Nixon says Manson Guilty." It almost got him a mistrial.
Which slimeball, Trump or the ISIS guy?
Your comment, as usual, makes no sense. What should we do to this killer, who has already confessed and is proud of what he has done??
Is a trial even necessary? Perhaps by a tribunal of judges, but not a jury.
Since Trump is the Commander-in-Chief and, the head of the Executive Branch he has influence over the courts that this idiot will be tried in, his comments would or, could influence the courts, the idiots attorneys, (I mean the attacker here, not Trump, even though they are both idiots), could use that to declare a mistrial or worse, get him off, even if he confessed.
Are you serious?! Military Tribunals have a lousy success rate at getting death penalty offenses ESPECIALLY regarding terrorism! No leave it to a jury and fry his ass!
Why not send them to Gitmo? These dinks think that they are carrying on the war on US soil so lets send them with the rest of those apprehended in combat.
Because the odds of him getting the death penalty is less than if he is tried in a federal court that's why?
THAT'S RIGHT!!!! I forgot the liberals want to try POW's as if they broke US Civil law instead of enemy combatants.
Dude are you serious?! Since 2001 only 7 people have been convicted of terrorist acts by military TRIBUNALS! SEVEN! Whereas 403 were convicted in federal courts!
So in other words it seem liberals want these animals to be punished more than conservatives!
And living it up on our money. Fuck that. I won't lose any sleep if this guy never sees the outside of that hospital. You are also forgetting that Gitmo isn't run under US Civil law. There is a whole different set of rules for places like that. And they AREN'T in the US Civil or Judicial system.
Dude! Stop equating what you did over in Afghanistan and what's happening right now in the US with what's happening now! Like it or not until they can link him directly with ISIS or any other terrorist organization.....your thirst for revenge and not justice isn't going to happen, and you can thank conservatives for that one, they're the ones that created the Patriot Act that lays this out!
Now go tell Trump to shut his mouth so we can get this guy tried, convicted, and executed.
Sending him to Gitmo isn't the answer, very few of the people held at Gitmo are given the death penalty, read the article through, try to understand, in a military tribunal the death penalty is rare, in federal court or, even in the state system it is more likely.
A military tribunal is where they should be tried. They aren't US Citizens (at least the 3 I sent there from Afghanistan) and should not be treated as US citizens in Federal Court.
We aren't speaking about the three you sent from Afghanistan, we are speaking about the ONE that committed a crime and, terrorism in New York the other day, that is U.S. soil. If he is tried in a U.S. court he is more likely to get the death penalty but, if Trump keeps tweeting and, talking about this asshole getting the death penalty or, going to Gitmo, the idiots lawyers can claim he can't get a fair trial in ANY U.S. court.
This one is! Let's try to not make it about you and start thinking logically
I am thinking logically. This man is an enemy combatant. Send him where he needs to be sent.
That's not logic, that's emotion, logic entails facts and the fact is he doesn't meet the federal criteria to be labeled an enemy combatant!
Really? Can you tell me what terrorist organization he can be directly linked to?
Yeah, a federal prison then to the gas chamber once he's found guilty!
I have no problem with that. I am available if they need someone to push the button.
I have no problem with it either but, here's the problem, the Twitter-in Chief may end up, with his big mouth getting him off on a technicality.
Not one chance in a trillion of that happening. I will let you tell me why.
From the article:
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
NYC terrorist was happy as he asked to hang ISIS flag in his hospital room. He killed 8 people, badly injured 12. SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!
11:43 PM - Nov 1, 2017
Presidents are typically advised never to publicly weigh in on pending criminal cases. Such comments can be used by defense attorneys to argue that their clients cannot get a fair trial — especially when the head of the executive branch that will prosecute a case advocates the ultimate punishment before a judge has heard a single shred of evidence at trial.
The first part is Trumps tweet, the second part is what could result from such tweets and, comments from the POTUS.
Exactly! At the very least that would be justification for him getting a life sentence. That was one of the argument Zacarias Moussaoui used and probably accounted for him getting a life sentence instead of the death penalty
Any defense lawyer worth his salt.
You mean like saying one of the participants in an incident look like waht his son would look like or saying the police acted stupidly when an investigation is still on going. How about a president saying that a police shooting is still under investigation that it "stains the heart of black children.”. You mean weighing in like that ?
You mean the president isnt allowed to have his own opinions and to make them known. Also show me in the law where it says that what his opinion is has any bearung on a criminal case.
It doesn't. Liberals, as a class, are not very bright, and tend to be highly uninformed.
And, when this idiots attorney's come out and, say that he can't get a fair trial in the U.S. and, ask for it to be taken to the Hague, what then? Trump runs his mouth and, if you had bothered to read the article and, understand it you would know that it isn't "Libruls" that are saying this, it isn't "Libruls" that will be arguing in court that this idiots right are voided here for a fair trial, it will be attorneys who are looking at the FACT that the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. has put his two cents in and, has biased any court in the U.S. against their client.
So you want to be just as disingenuous when it comes to Trump too?
So if it doesn't then why are jurors sequesters and not allowed to have any media information? Why aren't they allowed to discuss the trial? Why do you think requests for a change of venue or jurisdictions are approved by the courts?
Looks like common sense and logic has been replaced with blind partisanship and baseless agenda proliferation.
Read this, it's from the article, apparently you missed it.
In 1970, President Richard M. Nixon declared that Charles Manson “was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason” in the middle of his trial in the killings of the actress Sharon Tate and others.
By the end of the day, the Manson team’s lawyers had moved for a mistrial, citing the president’s remarks, and Nixon issued what his press secretary called a “clarification” taking them back.
“The last thing I would do is prejudice the legal rights of any person, in any circumstances,” Nixon said. The defendant later held up in court a newspaper with the headline “Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares.”
Manson's lawyer offered this up as proof that his client couldn't get a fair trial, he almost got a mistrial because of it.
There is no law but a LAWYER can definitely use his opinion to make their case that a jury was poisoned by the words of the President of the United States! As a matter of fact one of the questions asked when picking a jury is have you heard anything about the case. Now what a potential juror said he heard the POTUS say that the defendant is scum and deserves the death penalty, as a defense attorney are you going to keep that jury thinking that it will have no bearing on your case?
What you and GMR are failing to take into account is the plain and simple fact that the guy has made a full confession, is glad for what he did, and pissed because he T-boned a bus and couldn't keep going on to the Brooklyn Bridge and continue with even more carnage. I don't give a flying fuck whether Mr. Trump had an opinion or not. The bastard is guilty and proud of it. Even wants an ISIS flag in his hospital room. And as a side note, show me one damned person in the US who hasn't heard of this tragedy and doesn't know it was him with the publicity surrounding it...............unless you want a jury of all Amish (nothing against Amish I grew up with some going to the same school I did. They just don't do electronics.......not sure if they read newspapers or not). Using your "criteria" and that of the court system, maybe we should just let the guy go cuz finding anyone who doesn't have some knowledge of this will be like finding THE perfect grain of sand on a California beach.
soapbox away...........
It doesn't matter if he confessed! Zacarias Moussaui is a perfect example! He initially confessed, then plead not guilty, then plead guilty, but in doing so convinced the judge to take the death penalty off the table because he claimed that he would not be able to get a fair trial due to opinions of public figures! So we have one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks with a life sentence instead of being on death row!......so don't tell me about missing simple facts!
And if he escapes the death penalty because a judge agrees that the POTUS opinion poisoned the jury pool? You gonna blame liberals who has basically told Trump to shut the fuck up and let them convict this murderer?
Says the person who wrote this word salad......
If you think for a minute this sorry bastard is going to plead not guilty, you may be right. The only thing you need to take into consideration is the fact that he DID follow an ISIS "roadmap" to commit the crime. The fucking lawyers are in it for themselves and MAY convince him to plead not guilty (the goddamned lack of ethics in lawyers KILLS me) but as I see it, any dumb ass that gets out of a rental truck with a damned paint ball gun and pellet gun was LOOKING to get killed by police after his "deed" and be a martyr. I don't know what the Islamic bullshit dictates for failure to be killed after/during an attack but if the prick sees an opportunity to live, and his lawyers convince him he may be able to pull a Bergdahl (sp) and spend his life alive and in prison, I hope the judge in the sentencing stage takes a clue from Mr. Trump and condemns him to Gitmo...........or actually the death penalty. I know liberals don't think that capital punishment accomplishes anything and in this case you may be right. If indeed he IS an ISIS follower, living would be his own worst enemy.
So NOW you are for the death penalty? The way convictions have gone lately, won't be likely anyway.
and there is the dressing for the word salad............enjoy.......and fucking THINK!!!
Anyone who wants swift justice for this guy should be outraged at the Ignoramus-in-Chief for shooting off his stupid mouth.
Exactly
See 4.3.1 above. It makes, or should, little difference
"Presidents are typically advised never to publicly weigh in on pending criminal cases. Such comments can be used by defense attorneys to argue that their clients cannot get a fair trial — especially when the head of the executive branch that will prosecute a case advocates the ultimate punishment before a judge has heard a single shred of evidence at trial."
Trump didn't do shit to hurt a trail in this matter. It was plastered all over the TV before Trump spoke or tweeted about anything.