PDA

View Full Version : The Biggest Insult Since 9/11



Hof
December 7th, 2009, 04:06 PM
This has probably been discussed ad infinitum in some other post, so if it is, excuse me and move me.
Otherwise, I just have to pipe in with my two cents...

...So our Attorney General, Eric Holder, in supporting Boss Obama's decision to move the terrorists from Cuba to New York for their trials, thinks it's a good idea to dump this terrortrash on the streets of Manhattan, right ???

WTF is he-- and his naive boss-- thinking???

They are changing an act of war into a simple criminal conspiracy, turning these bloodthirsty, soulless Morlocks into common criminals, then actually wanting to try them in a courtroom like normal mass murderers. Plus, the decision to try them here is deeply insulting to the 9/11 survivors, the residents of NYC and a huge majority of Americans.
The decision to bring these azzholes to MY country while granting them the same rights that we all were born with is one of the dumbest things any politician has pulled.
It is lame, naive and thoughtless and will, no doubt, make America look really stupid and weak in the eyes of the world.

By giving the terrorists a platform in our Federal Court, they will be able to insult us all over again, inspire any latent jihadists who may be crawling around and give our sworn enemies a reason to have a good laugh at our society.
Plus, there is ALWAYS the chance, however remote, that one-- or all-- could be acquitted. Remember, Kahlid Shiek Mohammed (KSM) WAS waterboarded and was never read his rights when he was captured, which, under our system of laws usually results in mistrial or a dismissal. And how will a "jury of his peers" be assembled??

The trials of the ORIGINAL Trade Center bombers ( Ramzi Yussef and the blind sheik, et al), were the freaking INSPIRATION for 9/11. Having failed to kill large numbers of Americans and bring the WTC down in '93, the nutcase Muslim extremests redoubled their efforts to finish the job. The trials of the 1993 jerks were a strong catylist that propelled KSM--al-qaida's chief operations planner and Osama's good buddy-- to forge ahead with his wierd plan to kill thousands more.

Does the administration think that the very public trials of KSM and his minions won't be planting the seeds for future murders? It could result in a very bloody harvest.
Wait until you see the crowds on the streets of the Muslim world, shrieking "Down With America" as the trials proceed. Wait until some mentally disturbed graduate of the mideast madrassas picks up a bomb and backpacks it into a mall or an office building somewhere, or some wannabe Osama picks up the lance to avenge the treatment of KSM. Someone, to be sure, will be whipped into a jihadist froth and go out and kill Americans, just to get even with us.

New York-- indeed anyplace in the USA-- will be instantly at risk if these trials, expected to last 3-4 years, are allowed to happen on US soil. These slugs are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not criminals, and they should not be allowed to have our Constitution and all the rights that go with it gently wrapped around their ugly shoulders.

They have crawled out of a culture that venerates murder, one that makes the murderers actual HEROES-- as long as their victims are American (or associated with us) !!!
Their followers see them as martyrs, not nutcases, if they die in the act of murder...

A few hours ago I watched the rally held last Saturday in Foley Square on C Span. Hundreds of 9/11 survivors were there and there was a big roster of speakers, but the rally barely sparked a mention in the media. Is the media minimalizing the public response to Holder's dumb pronouncement??
What's up HERE???
I would think that the story of a large group of Americans, protesting our Government's lame decision to try the terrorists on our soil, would have OWNED the headlines--especially in New York. Yet there was barely a mention of it in the NY Times, which publishes only a few miles from Ground Zero and I saw nothing on the national news outlets (except for Fox, I found out), all of whom are based in NY.
I actually had heard NOTHING about the rally over the weekend until I accidently caught it on C Span as I was channel surfing.
After watching it, I sent emails saying essentually the same thing I am writing here to two of my congressmen and one Senator.

Besides, Mr. Holder and President Obama, didn't Kahlid Shiek Mohammed already enter a guilty plea to the military comission in Guantanamo? ( ...he also bragged about slitting Daniel Pearl's throat).
Why bring him before yet another court? Is it to FORCE a mistrial???
Why the hell is he going to be tried again? His guilty plea should be respected and he should be executed. We can learn nothing more from him, so he is useless as an information asset, and by his actions he has certainly forfeited his right to walk the earth .
Maybe his lawyers will plead insanity, since it IS the action of a crazy person to plot the deaths of thousands of people, then actually carry it out.

I'm angry, nearly as angry as I was on 9/12/2001.

If anyone who reads this harbors the same feelings about this as I do, please, write your congresspeople. Tell them how amazingly DUMB Obama and Holder are; tell them to immediately reverse this idea and to hold these trials in Cuba. It probably won't do any good since the die has been cast, but make your opinion known.

NEVER FORGET !!!

ablarc
December 7th, 2009, 04:26 PM
^ Well, if the trials are properly fixed in advance, does it make any difference if they're held in Cuba or the U.S.?

infoshare
December 7th, 2009, 05:06 PM
This has probably been discussed ad infinitum in some other post, so if it is, excuse me and move me.
Otherwise, I just have to pipe in with my two cents...



Not that I know of: seem like a good topic for discussion.
And believe me, I here you. Its’ all so foolish words fail me:
thank you for saying some of what I would like to say myself on the matter.

This thread could probably be put to good use by also using it to make public J. Nadlers’ obvious support for idea of giving these men a civilian trial in the first place; they are war criminals (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5if-ZzlhBYrn9E3EAnAKmDSeCJR9g), that is what is at issue - having the trial here in New York City is just a matter of adding insult to injury.

I am reminded that at one point in recent history when a single cartoonist (http://www.google.com/search?q=Boss+Tweed+cartoons&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=9nwdS_XLBdHU8QbMvtTWAw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=16&ved=0CDEQ5wIwDw) was instrumental in ending the political career of one of New York’s most notoriously corrupt Mayors: Boss Tweed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed)

Maybe a wny thread would have could have similar results with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_8th_congressional_district) CHARACTER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_8th_congressional_district

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5if-ZzlhBYrn9E3EAnAKmDSeCJR9g

lofter1
December 7th, 2009, 05:08 PM
First, Guantanamo is not Cuba, it is territory of the USA, kept, controlled and maintained for over 100 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantánamo_Bay). People say they don't want these terrorists to step on American soil. But that's where they are now.

Perhaps from the distance of Florida the decision to try them in the Federal Court at Foley Square looks like an incursion into NYC. The trials will not be televised. The security will be tight. We can handle it.

Alonzo-ny
December 7th, 2009, 05:15 PM
What is the correct democratic and lawful way to prosecute? If that means they go to NY then it would be wrong for them not to.

Fabrizio
December 7th, 2009, 05:17 PM
Am I dumb to bring up the Nuremberg Trials? I don't understand exactly what is the problem of trying them in NYC. Why Cuba?

(Cuba? I'm not understanding something here.)

Daquan13
December 7th, 2009, 05:24 PM
Maybe it's to make the 09-11 relatives happy to hear that scum like that is being tried where the most devistating of the attacks had occured - in NYC?

Alonzo-ny
December 7th, 2009, 05:57 PM
Aren't people usually tried in the place they committed the crimes?

ablarc
December 7th, 2009, 06:00 PM
^ Not always. Change of venue is invoked if it's felt the defendant can't get a fair trial locally.

Alonzo-ny
December 7th, 2009, 06:01 PM
That could be a pressing concern in this case. Who in the world doesn't already have an opinion on this crime. However I don't believe that is the problem Hof has.

Hof
December 7th, 2009, 07:06 PM
Lofter--

The US LEASES the land that Guantanimo occupies. It is NOT an American possession or territory. The soil is 100% Cuban.The State Dept has been sending Cuba a check for the property annually and Castro has refused to cash them,so they all are sitting in a drawer somewhere in Havana, getting yellow with age.

Guantanimo is as much American property as a leased apartment is personal property.

Because it is NOT American territory, the usual laws that we all live by don't matter. It's laws are enforced through the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not the civil compacts that we understand. When Bush elected to send enemy combatants there it was a stroke of genius. Detainees are not granted habeus corpus, do not have speedy trials and literally have no rights, at least none that we are used to.
Plus, being where it is, there is zero chance that there will be demonstrations or angry crowds during the trials, and unless the military allows it, there would be little media coverage.

Jasonik
December 7th, 2009, 07:45 PM
The case against military tribunals
By Andrew P. Napolitano |November 29, 2009 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-napolitano29-2009nov29,0,6594004.story)

It's a violation of the Constitution to use the panels without a declaration of war -- and just calling it a 'war' on terror doesn't count.

In the uproar caused by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the alleged planners of the 9/11 attacks are to be tried in U.S. District Court in New York City, and the suspects in the attack on the U.S. destroyer Cole will go on trial before military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the public discourse has lost sight of the fundamental principles that guide the government when it makes such decisions. Unfortunately, the government has lost sight of the principles as well.

When President George W. Bush spoke to Congress shortly after 9/11, he did not ask for a declaration of war. Instead, Republican leaders offered and Congress enacted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force. The authorization was open-ended as to its targets and its conclusion, and basically told the president and his successors that they could pursue whomever they wanted, wherever their pursuits took them, so long as they believed that the people they pursued had engaged in acts of terrorism against the United States. Thus was born the "war" on terror.

Tellingly, and perhaps because we did not know at the time precisely who had planned the 9/11 attacks, Congress did not declare war. But the use of the word "war" persisted nonetheless. Even after he learned what countries had sponsored terrorism against us and our allies with governmental assistance, Bush did not seek a declaration of war against them. Since 9/11, American agents have captured and seized nearly 800 people from all over the globe in connection with the attacks, and now five have been charged with planning them.

Virtually all of those seized who survived interrogation have been held at Guantanamo Bay. Bush initially ordered that no law or treaty applied to these detainees and that no judge could hear their cases, and thus he could detain whoever he decided was too risky to release and whoever he was satisfied had participated in terrorist attacks against the U.S. He made these extra-constitutional claims based, he said, on the inherent powers of the commander in chief in wartime. But in the Supreme Court, he lost all five substantive challenges to his authority brought by detainees. As a result, some detainees had to be freed, and he and Congress eventually settled for trying some before military tribunals under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and subsequent legislation.

The casual use of the word "war" has lead to a mentality among the public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war -- and thus trigger the panoply of the government's military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war.

The last time the government used a military tribunal in this country to try foreigners who violated the rules of war involved Nazi saboteurs during World War II. They came ashore in Amagansett, N.Y., and Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., and donned civilian clothes, with plans to blow up strategic U.S. targets. They were tried before a military tribunal, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt based his order to do so on the existence of a formal congressional declaration of war against Germany.

In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court case that eventually upheld the military trial of these Germans -- after they had been tried and after six of the eight defendants had been executed -- the court declared that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government's use of the tools of war. The federal government adhered to this principle of law from World War II until Bush's understanding of the Constitution animated government policy.

The recent decision to try some of the Guantanamo detainees in federal District Court and some in military courts in Cuba is without a legal or constitutional bright line. All those still detained since 9/11 should be tried in federal courts because without a declaration of war, the Constitution demands no less.

That the target of the Cole attackers was military property manned by the Navy offers no constitutional reason for a military trial. In the 1960s, when Army draft offices and college ROTC facilities were attacked and bombed, those charged were quite properly tried in federal courts. And when Timothy McVeigh blew up a federal courthouse in Oklahoma City; and Omar Abdel Rahman attempted in 1993 to blow up the World Trade Center, which housed many federal offices; and when Zacarias Moussaoui was accused in the 9/11 attacks,all were tried in federal courts. The "American Taliban," John Walker Lindh, and the notorious would-be shoe bomber, Richard Reid, were tried in federal courts. Even the "Ft. Dix Six," five of whom were convicted in a plot to invade a U.S. Army post in New Jersey, were tried in federal court. And the sun still rose on the mornings after their convictions.

The framers of the Constitution feared letting the president alone decide with whom we are at war, and thus permitting him to trigger for his own purposes the military tools reserved for wartime. They also feared allowing the government to take life, liberty or property from any person without the intercession of a civilian jury to check the government's appetite and to compel transparency and fairness by forcing the government to prove its case to 12 ordinary citizens. Thus, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires due process, includes the essential component of a jury trial. And the 6th Amendment requires that when the government pursues any person in court, it must do so in the venue where the person is alleged to have caused harm.

Numerous Supreme Court cases have ruled that any person in conflict with the government can invoke due process -- be that person a citizen or an immigrant, someone born here, legally here, illegally here or whose suspect behavior did not even occur here.

Think about it: If the president could declare war on any person or entity or group simply by calling his pursuit of them a "war," there would be no limit to the government's ability to use the tools of war to achieve its ends. We have a "war" on drugs; can drug dealers be tried before military tribunals? We have a "war" on the Mafia; can mobsters be sent to Gitmo and tried there? The Obama administration has arguably declared "war" on Fox News. Are Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and I and my other colleagues in danger of losing our constitutional rights to a government hostile to our opinions?

I trust not. And my trust is based on the oath that everyone who works in the government takes to uphold the Constitution. But I am not naive. Only unflinching public fidelity to the Constitution will preserve the freedoms of us all.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book is "Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History."

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

*****

The administration guts its own argument for 9/11 trials
BY GLENN GREENWALD | THURSDAY, NOV 19, 2009 05:20 PST (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/19/obama/index.html)

(updated below - Update II)


"What I'm absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism" -- Barack Obama, yesterday (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29661.html).

"Holder said five other Guantanamo detainees would be tried by military tribunals. The five include Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, who is accused of masterminding the 2000 attack on the USS Cole warship in Yemen; and Canadian Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan" -- NPR, yesterday (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120530053&ft=1&f=1001).

"'Administration officials say they expect that as many as 40 of the 215 detainees at Guantanamo will be tried in federal court or military commissions . . . . and about 75 more have been deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be prosecuted because of evidentiary issues and limits on the use of classified material' . . . If true, that means that there are 75 so-called 'Fifth Category' detainees who might be subject to indefinite detention without trial" -- The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, yesterday, quoting The Washington Post (http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/as_many_as_75_detainees_could_remain_in_limbo.php) .

* * * * *

Can anyone reconcile Obama's homage to "our legal traditions" and his professed faith in jury trials in the New York federal courts with the reality of what his administration is doing: i.e., denying trials to a large number of detainees, either by putting them before military commissions or simply indefinitely imprisoning them without any process at all (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24detain.html?hp)?

During his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/us/19detain.html?hpw), Eric Holder struggled all day to justify his decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial because he has no coherent principle to invoke. He can't possibly defend the sanctity of jury trials in our political system -- the most potent argument justifying what he did -- since he's the same person who is simultaneously denying trials to Guantanamo detainees by sending them to military commissions and even explicitly promising that some of them will be held without charges of any kind.

Once you endorse the notion that the Government has the right to imprison people not captured on any battlefield without giving them trials -- as the Obama administration is doing explicitly and implicitly -- what convincing rationale can anyone offer to justify giving Mohammed and other 9/11 defendants a real trial in New York? If you're taking the position that military commissions and even indefinite detention are perfectly legitimate tools to imprison people -- as Holder has done -- then what is the answer to the Right's objections that Mohammed himself belongs in a military commission? If the administration believes Omar Khadr belongs in a military commission, and if they believe others can be held indefinitely without any charges, why isn't that true of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? By denying jury trials to a large number of detainees, Obama officials have completely gutted their own case for why they did the right thing in giving Mohammed a trial in New York.

Even worse, Holder was reduced to admitting (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/18/HP/R/26128/Senate+Judiciary+Cmte+Hearing+on+DOJ+Oversight+wit h+AG+Holder.aspx) -- even boasting -- that this concocted multi-tiered justice system (trials for some, commissions for others, indefinite detention for the rest) enables the Government to pick and choose what level of due process someone gets based on the Government's assessment as to where and how they're most likely to get a conviction:

Courts and commissions are both essential tools in our fight against terrorism . . . On the same day I sent these five defendants to federal court, I referred five others to be tried in military commissions. I am a prosecutor, and as a prosecutor, my top priority was simply to select the venue where the government will have the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case with the best law. . . . At the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is a federal court.
Does that remotely sound like a "justice system"? If you're accused of being a Terrorist, there's not one set procedure used to determine your guilt; instead, the Government has a roving bazaar of various processes which it, in its sole discretion, picks for you based on ensuring that it will win. Even worse, Holder repeatedly assured Senators that the administration would continue to imprison 9/11 defendants even in the very unlikely case that they were acquitted, citing what they previously suggested (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/07/08/obama/index.html) was their Orwellian authority of so-called "post-acquittal detention powers." Is there any better definition of a "show trial" than one in which the defendant has no chance of ever being released even if acquitted, because the Government will simply thereafter assert the power to hold him indefinitely without charges?

I understand that sending even a limited number of Terrorism suspects to federal court is politically difficult and controversial, as the last couple of days have demonstrated. But by refusing to embrace and defend the core principle of justice at stake here -- that a distinguishing feature of our political system is that we don't imprison or kill people without charging them with a crime and proving their guilt in a real court, and that military commissions and indefinite detention are un-American (which Democrats argued under Bush (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/15/military_commissions/)) -- the Obama administration has made it far more difficult for it to defend what it is doing, as well as for those who want to defend their decision to give trials to 9/11 defendants.

To see how that works, here is part of the exchange I had on MSNBC this week (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#33964654) with George Pataki, while debating trials for 9/11 defendants:

MR. GREENWALD: If you look at how the British treated the people who did the London subway bombings, the Spanish who treated the people who did the Madrid subway bombings -- even India just put on trial the sole surviving terrorist who perpetrated the Mumbai massacre last year. Even Indonesia gave trials in their real cities to the people who blew up the nightclubs in Bali.

It's only the American conservatives who are feeding the terrorist agenda by saying that we're too scared to hold trials --

MR. RATIGAN: Hold on, Glenn.

MR. PATAKI: Can I respond to that, Dylan? Only the -- only the -- only the American conservatives? Then tell me why Obama and Holder are using military tribunals against those who blow up Americans in acts of war overseas? They're just picking these particular terrorists for trial in New York because they blew up civilians in New York. So what their logic is, "Kill thousands of civilians and you can get a civilian trial; kill one or two overseas, and we're going to use military tribunals."

That makes no sense.
For those wanting to defend the administration, what's the answer to that? The same thing happened when Rep. Nadler, as part of the same segment, tried to defend the Obama administration's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in New York:

REP. NADLER: I think that our tradition is that people accused of heinous crimes get trials, and they get trials in the area in which the crime is committed, which is right here. And I think it's exactly the right thing to do. . . .That's the way it ought to be, and we ought to show the world that we adhere to our traditions of justice and that these terrorists are not going to cause us to abandon the law.

MR. PATAKI: ... We are going to use military tribunals. They're saying they're perfectly fine for some terrorists, but these terrorists they're going to try here. What's the justification for that, Jerry?

REP. NADLER: Well, I -- well, I don't think there is any justification.

MR. PATAKI: I don't either.
The administration should have the courage of its convictions and defend jury trials as a linchpin of American justice, which would entail giving them to all Terrorism suspects not captured on any battlefield. But by refusing to do so -- by exhibiting the very cowardice of which Holder accused Republicans, i.e. denying Terrorism suspects a trial -- the administration has no cogent argument to make in its own defense. It's just another case of the administration wanting to bask in the rhetorical glory of "the rule of law" while simultaneously trampling on it for petty political convenience.



UPDATE: The blogger Patterico -- who, notably, is a prosectuor himself and thus inclined to be empathetic with prosecutorial goals -- nonetheless compiles additional evidence to criticize Holder's decision as follows (http://patterico.com/2009/11/19/ksm-show-trial-watch-the-evidence-mounts/):

You can see that what we have is an administration that is choosing where to try the detainees, not based on some principle or neutral protocol (as they claim), but based on where they can win. They’re rigging the game.

And if they lose, they won’t let him go anyway.

This is just further evidence that the KSM trial will be a show trial.
It's worth reading the arguments from a prosecutor (http://patterico.com/2009/11/19/ksm-show-trial-watch-the-evidence-mounts/) about why the administration's conduct is such a breach of basic justice, even as they cynically wrap themselves in the rhetoric of the sanctity of jury trials and the rule of law.



UPDATE II: For a crystal clear refutation of the claim that it's normal to use military commissions for the crimes at issue here, see this comment (http://letters.salon.com/6658d541a01688192443edf4d36cf09f/author/index283.html) from the always-enlightening Pow Wow, which is based on this equally enlightening interview (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/17/david-frakt-on-material-support-charges-and-military-commissions/) by Marcy Wheeler of Lt. Col (and now-Law Professor) David Frakt, highlighting the numerous myths on which the case for military commissions is predicated.

lofter1
December 7th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Just try telling the US that the lease is up and we no longer control that land. Per the agreement it's ours forever. We can't have our cake (handy site to stash prisoners) and eat it too (no hearings, no trials).

The Supreme court has ruled that trials are needed, that they can't be held in limbo forever. So far the US has failed to comply with that.

Why should anyone be afraid of demonstrations in the vicinity of the Courthouse?

And does anyone really believe that any of the accused will ever walk freely on the streets of NYC?

ablarc
December 7th, 2009, 08:51 PM
^ And the solution is ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

ZippyTheChimp
December 8th, 2009, 12:19 AM
They are changing an act of war into a simple criminal conspiracy, turning these bloodthirsty, soulless Morlocks into common criminalsSo felony homicide is trivial?


Plus, the decision to try them here is deeply insulting to the 9/11 survivors, the residents of NYC and a huge majority of Americans.The residents of New York are mostly ambivalent. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aR9LJXR3RXG0) Ana a few hundred at a protest is hardly anything in NYC.


It is lame, naive and thoughtless and will, no doubt, make America look really stupid and weak in the eyes of the world.I think just the opposite.


The trials of the ORIGINAL Trade Center bombers ( Ramzi Yussef and the blind sheik, et al), were the freaking INSPIRATION for 9/11.So what was the inspiration for the '93 bombings?


These slugs are ENEMY COMBATANTS, not criminals,
Yoy don't have a grasp of the issues. (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091116_postsept_11_legal_dilemma)


and they should not be allowed to have our Constitution and all the rights that go with it gently wrapped around their ugly shoulders.The Constitution is intended to be something we use.

Codex
December 8th, 2009, 05:37 AM
They should be tried, however I don't see the point of bringing Manhattan to a standstill with massive police convoys. Why not just try them in a civil court on a Military base or in a specially built court within a high security prison.

Terrorist cases in Britain are increasingly tried outside of central London, with a new High Security Court Complex at Woolwich right beside the High Security Belmarsh prison. Kingston Upon Thames Crown Court is also being increasingly used for such high profile cases, rather than having to bring Central London to a standstill

Jasonik
December 8th, 2009, 06:58 AM
The residents of New York are mostly ambivalent (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aR9LJXR3RXG0). Ana a few hundred at a protest is hardly anything in NYC.

As Glenn Greenwald notes (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/25/bolton/index.html):
"During the 2004 election, New Yorkers voted for the candidate who wanted to treat Terrorism like a law enforcement problem over the pseudo-tough-guy 'war president' by a margin of 80-20 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2004&fips=36)."

ZippyTheChimp
December 8th, 2009, 09:27 AM
They should be tried, however I don't see the point of bringing Manhattan to a standstill with massive police convoys. Why not just try them in a civil court on a Military base or in a specially One of the reasons NYC was chosen is that the US District Court for Southern District of New York has experience (Eastern District of Virginia will co-prosecute).

There won't be any police convoys or traffic gridlock. Defendants will be held at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, a holding jail for federal prisoners on trial. It's behind St Andrews church, and has a windowless footbridge to the US Courthouse and a tunnel to the newer court building. You'll never see the defendants.

The residents of Chatham Towers have a legitimate gripe, but that's more about security barricades and the presence of media in the neighborhood.

The rest of the complaints, most notably from outside New York, are jingoistic rhetoric about sacred US soil and "elevating" the status of the defendants.

That's a matter of opinion, and mine is that treating them as common criminals lowers their status. An enemy-combatant actually has an elevated status over a civilian; he has a license to kill within the framework of a war.

Jasonik
December 8th, 2009, 10:16 AM
...treating them as common criminals lowers their status. An enemy-combatant actually has an elevated status over a civilian; he has a license to kill within the framework of a war.

Bush contended as Obama appears to, that saying "Bring it on!" and calling it a "War on Terror" create the legal framework of a war. A framework maybe, but a legal framework?

At any rate, 9/11 preceded the GWOT so federal court is the place.

Codex
December 9th, 2009, 07:31 AM
The trouble with the term enemy combatant is that it's contrary to the Geneva Convention, either these prisoners have the rights of Prisoners of War or they don't. The term enemy combatant is a term Bush made up and not one recognised by the rest of the world.

I don't see anything wrong with trying the defendents in New York, my only concern was that the city would be disrupted, although now that is has been explained that this will not be the case, then I don't see any problem.

London used to have convoys of armoured vehicles and armed police lining the route between the Old Bailey and high security remand prisons in such cases, however the Old Bailey has now been replaced in respect of many High Profile Terrorist Cases by Woolwich Crown Court which is right beside Belmarsh High Security Prison in south east London.



High levels of Security are evident whenever such cases are heard at the Old Bailey in Central London

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/Bedlam1000/60.jpg?t=1260363629

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/Bedlam1000/54.jpg?t=1260363862

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/Bedlam1000/53.jpg?t=1260363698

One extremely cold and grim faced looking police woman looks on as a Prison Convoy nears the back entrance to the Central Criminal Courts in London (Old Bailey)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2044/2217740394_d4010b6b4c_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2309/2216993635_45c08ba159_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2322/2217741390_3818b89efb_b.jpg


HMP Belmarsh in South East London (Woolwich Crown Court is the building of two halves just outside the prison walls - bottom right)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/3469141980_19559be595_b.jpg


HMP Belmarsh is home to Abu Hamza al-Masri, who hopefully should soon be extradited from the UK across to the US to face trial.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/28/article-0-01ADC2B700000578-993_233x423_popup.jpg

Daquan13
December 9th, 2009, 05:57 PM
It has been said on the news that until and unless Osama Binladen is captured or killed, then, and only then will the al Quaeda network be dismantled and shut down. Link below;

www.thehill.com (http://www.thehill.com)

Go to Blogs, or type Osama Binladen in the search box. When page downloads, click on 2nd story.

ZippyTheChimp
December 9th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Did the "news" say why they thought that would happen?

DQ, you need to start posting links to sources, not just that it was on the news.

Daquan13
December 9th, 2009, 06:26 PM
Start posting links? Are you saying that this is a blanket statement? Because it isn't.

I thought that was only for starting a thread on something learned on the news and posting a link with it to the story, which I've been doing.

Everyone watches the new, I would tend to think. Don't know how this could be missed by anyone. It's not false info by no means. I wouldn't post anything that I don't know about or anything that has no basis in fact.

infoshare
December 9th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Everyone watches the new, I would think. Don't know how this could be missed by anyone. It's not false info by no means. I wouldn't post anything that I don't know about or anything that has no basis in fact.

O.K but try something like posting some interesting link to content, and make a brief comment, and best yet would be some graphic images.

Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu) for a good news source for investigating just what it will take to put an end to that and other similar networks: warning BeBe claims the root cause goes way back to the Helenization of the Persian empire. (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857094.html)

Basically: that was when the rise of the ‘Great Satan’
began.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0857094.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu

ZippyTheChimp
December 9th, 2009, 07:33 PM
I wouldn't post anything that I don't know about or anything that has no basis in fact.Not saying you're making it up; just give us some more meat to chew on.

BrooklynRider
December 9th, 2009, 07:39 PM
Considering thatthisc ountry never legally "declared war" on any nation since World War II, it is absurd to argue that they ought to be tried as "enemy combatants" or in a "military tribunal". Calling something the "iraq War", "Afghanistan War", or "War on Terror" does not, in fact, make it a war.

No one has been convicted and no one has heard or seen any evidence. The benefit of a public trial is that this will put the government's case and government's evidence into the public record. I'd rather have this than endless "What Really Happened..." videos and books going on for eternity.

As for NYC, we were already attacked once and we survived. The fear mongering is getting kind of shrill.

Jasonik
December 10th, 2009, 12:39 AM
The benefit of a public trial is that this will put the government's case and government's evidence into the public record.

If that it were so...

There is a real concern that civilian courts may be infected with noxious precedents regarding secret evidence and other affronts to due process.

Listen to this interview with Petra Bartosiewicz (http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/12/03/petra-bartosiewicz-2/) for some of the concerns.

infoshare
December 10th, 2009, 10:46 AM
There is a real concern that civilian courts may be infected with noxious precedents regarding secret evidence and other affronts to due process.



Just tapped into that link you provided: nice tidbit -thanks.

Daquan13
December 10th, 2009, 03:01 PM
Zippy, here's your meat to chew on; Enjoy! :p

www.thehill.com (http://www.thehill.com)

Go to Blogs to read story. or type Osama Binladen's name in the search bar.

When page downloads, click on 2nd story. I posted the link in my post above, also.

Infoshare, I've used both Wikipedia and the Hill as links from time to time. Those seem to be the most repliable sources for things. Everyone else plays games, and my WOT account blocks the pages elsewhere because the webites are bogus and untrustworthy.

Ninjahedge
December 11th, 2009, 11:47 AM
Daq, that does not help. You might as well have said "go to CNN.com and find it yourself".

Doing the search you said (Osama), the second story was this:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/70781-gates-no-good-intelligence-on-bin-ladens-whereabouts-in-years-

The "second" article on the blog page was on The Hills Blog Briefing Room:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71819-poll-finds-support-for-cap-and-trade

You have to go there, get the page reference, copy the address, and POST IT or your general link does no good.

Nobody is saying you are wrong in what you are saying (yet), but w/o some backing, saying you read it means nothing....