First reported by Al Jazeera, and now by NPR, Reuters, and other news outlets -- Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects have asked to plead unconditionally guilty, having made the decision the day Barack Obama was elected.
Some say that this is the luck of O'Bama striking once again -- but there are some serious pitfalls ahead.
At least for these five enemy combatants, there can no longer be any argument that could keep them out of our Federal court system. No evidence will be presented, other than their own guilty pleas and statements... then it's off to sentencing and hanging.
But what KSM would have to say in his statement about his capture and treatment, made in open court, would easily indict the Bush administration and members of our armed forces for war crimes.
Can Obama's Justice Department permit such a statement in order to avoid presenting tainted evidence in open court?
How tightly can such a statement be controlled by prosecutors?
And how does this affect the rest of the abductees we are housing at Gitmo, Bagram, and the remaining Black SItes?
UPDATE: Human Rights Watch has weighed in, and it may be impossible for Obama's Justice Dept. to accept these offered guilty pleas!
"What should have been a major victory in holding the 9/11 defendants accountable for terrible crimes has been tainted by torture and an unfair military commissions process," said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "These five men are known to have been mistreated and tortured during their years in CIA custody, including the acknowledged waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed."
[...]
Under the rules of the military commissions, a judge cannot accept a guilty plea unless he determines that the plea is voluntary and free of coercion.
"In light of the men’s severe mistreatment and torture, the judge should require a full and thorough factual inquiry to determine whether or not these pleas are voluntary," Daskal said.