Should the alleged 9/11 terrorists be tried in NYC?

[Bonn1997]

Should the alleged 9/11 terrorists be tried in NYC just a few blocks from the 9/11 attacks?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Yes, what you said - and perhaps we will really find out what happened that day

[ChickMagic]

2. I voted yes

Plus, it's the law of the land.

[Bonn1997]

3. What do you mean by "law of the land"? A change of venue is allowed if jurrors in one location are

potentially partial.

[ChickMagic]

4. Sure, change of venue can be ordered

but it still has to be fairly close to the scene of the crime.
I trust in my fellow Americans to be an impartial jury. From
what I've seen, they take their duty very, very seriously.
Who in this country wasn't affected by this crime?

[Bonn1997]

9. Everyone was affected but surely the people a few blocks away were more affected. I assume

they lived in more constant fear than people in small suburb of Wyoming, for example. I'm playing Devil's advocate. I hadn't really made my mind up on the issue and wanted to see what others thought. Based on the poll results so far, my thoughts are probably quite far-fetched!

[ChickMagic]

18. I understand, however, the Constitution is quite clear

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
****
That said, he could be moved to Virginia if the defense so chooses and the judge agrees.

[Bonn1997]

19. "That said, he could be moved to Virginia..." That was my entire point! The trial could be moved and

I'm asking about whether it should be. I don't get why people think they need to explain the constitution to me when nothing I said contradicted the constitution.

[ChickMagic]

22. I'm sorry if I offended you

I didn't mean to. I had been arguing with hubby about this
very topic and it spilled over to you. I apologize. :hug:

[Bonn1997]

23. No problem. Lots of people kept saying the same thing to me. I guess I could have made the initial

poll clearer by mentioning the idea of a change of venue. Oh well. I appreciate how you replied just now though. The standard on message boards seems to be for insults to escalate in reply after reply until the moderator deletes messages and locks threads!

[ChickMagic]

24. I don't believe in behaving that way

If I've done something wrong, I'll admit it and apologize to the
offended party (unless it's a Pube). I think even message boards
should be civil.

Have one on me: :toast:

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Has it been judicially determined that flying airplanes into buildings was an "act of war"?

And judicially determined that terrorists can be equated with a sovereign nation instead of a collection of disenfranchised citizens from several countries?

[old mark]

6. Yes - no place better. nt

[aquart]

7. The "impartial" argument is crap.

I find that people who weren't here are much more heated and emotional about it. It's all theatre to them. We're much more matter of fact about it.

[ThomWV]

8. Anyone remember the Constitution?

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Bonn1997]

10. See reply #3

[rgbecker]

12. Thank you for that!

6 going on 7 years since "Arrest" in March 2003. Speedy enough?
We will see how the rest plays out.

[chollybocker]

15. True.

(I also find it interesting that the word "speedy" is enshrined in the Constitution!)

[JuniperLea]

14. Best reason ever...

Well done.

[Taverner]

11. Although make sure in the majority opinion, it is stated that this should set no precedent

Otherwise, this will have a way of biting your ass...



One quick note though : Bush v Gore was stated to not set a precedent...

[JuniperLea]

13. Yes, but not for that reason...

The world needs to see the court proceedings.

[blue sky at night]

16. it is the law........

[Bonn1997]

17. See reply #3

[Echo In Light]

20. Yes, but not for the OP's stated purpose

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. no...we were not attacked by a country...but it was an act of war

not a crime...

sP