9/11 Defendents To Plead Not Guilty / Use Trial As A Platform To Promote Their Views

[malik flavors]

Source: AP

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

More: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hLzK0

___________________________________


So they were going to plead guilty and ask for the death penalty, and now they want to plead not guilty so they can use the trial as a platform to promote their anti-American views?

As far as politics are concerned this is the dumbest thing the administration could have done. David Axelrod must be pulling his hair out right now.

And the thing is, this will be a headache for Obama before, during, and even after the trial (when it's used in political ads). And that's if everything goes perfectly. Imagine if something were to go horribly wrong? Obama's presidency could be basically ended by this. His party would run away from him, the American people would reject him, and Republicans would have a massive resurrection, and for what? Is this trial really worth putting everything on the line for?

I would like to say this will atleast show the rest of the world how fair and just we Americans are, but the fact that we've made clear that we won't allow the defendents to ever go free or be found innocent of all charges sort of contradicts that.

So what's the point?

If you want to stone me for having a differing opinion go right ahead, but this is my opinion. I've tried to see it in a different way, but when all things are considered I always come back to seeing this a bad decision. I hope the president and the attorney general aren't too proud to call this off so that we can concentrate on what's truly imprtant: health care, education, gay rights, unemployment, immigration, and Afghanistan. This trial isn't worth jeopordizing everything democrats have been fighting for and everything we hope to see president Obama accomplish.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Sometimes, not everything is about politics, but rather about the rule of law....

This is one of those times.

Those who want to call the Obama administration stupid for doing this, get in line.....everybody's got their foot up Obama ass...so yours up there won't make him walk any different.

Either you believe in justice or you don't....
and considering how fucked up Bush's left this mess,
Obama's Justice Department has decided to go this route;
fuck politics.

If this President goes down because he appointed someone who believes that
everyone must see the light of justice no matter how fucked up it was when they were handed this shit,
than that makes me respect Barack Obama that much more, for doing what everyone, everyday, always say he doesn't do; standing strong for his beliefs.

In otherwords, OBama is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.....
and at some point, I really am not going to give a fuck about this country....
because everyone keeps moving the goalpost no matter,
and can always find something to speculate on endlessly about the "What-ifs".

[Garam_Masala]

3. Is there a precedent for enemy cobatants captured abroad tried in civilian court?

Is there a precedent which justifies the trials of the 5 in
American civil court? Or is Obama breaking new ground here?

[GMA]

5. Isn't that one of the questions put to Mr. Holder last week?

If I'm remembering correctly he had no answer and said he'd have to check into it.

[Garam_Masala]

7. I think you are right...may be Holder will do some reasearch..eom

[TomCADem]

22. Enemy Combatant? Wasn't He Captured Deep In Pakistan?

Not in Iraq or Afganistan?

[Garam_Masala]

44. Yes, after he planned 911 from Afghan he had fled to Pakistan

and was hiding in a safe house. You have to keep in mind that Pakistan
is not exactly a war-free zone for US military. Our military has executed
numerous drone attacks in Pakistan. The border region
between Afghanistan and Pakistan is mainly a lawless region not under
control of either governments. Our CIA is convinced the Al Qaeda
leaders are now operating on the Pakistan side of the border. So,
for all practical purposes, Pakistan is a war zone.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. There was no precedent for the whole concept of "enemy combatants"

Before Bushco's GWOT, you were either classified as a criminal or POW and adjudicated accordingly. Bushco's legal division and Cheney/Addington changed all that so that they could effectively "disappear" people and keep them out of the reach of any established rule of law or legal conventions and treat them however they saw fit (i.e. torture). President Obama has done away with the "enemy combatant" designation and is now trying them many of them like our country used to- as CRIMINALS in CRIMINAL Court- like what should have been done from the start. Buscho has f****d up so badly, however, the *pretense* of a trial is as much as the defendants are going to be allowed to receive because there's no way in hell that they are going to be allowed to walk by President Obama, Eric Holder, or anybody else but at least bringing them to trial will be helpful in trying to repair some of the damage to the rule of law done to it via Bushco. We have tried terrorists in open court before- the 1993 WTC bombers, Timothy McVeigh, Zaccarias Moussaui, Richard Reid- to name a few- with nary a peep from Republicans. If we can't handle a fevered rantings of a few Islamic radicals whom helped plan the horrible slaughter of 3000 Americans, then perhaps AQ really HAS won. Geez!!! :eyes:

[Garam_Masala]

62. I got no problem with civil court trial unless

the terrorist make it a circus to expound their twisted views of
jihad and sharia. Also it may expose CIA operations which was not
involved in previous trials you listed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

75. Criminals "grandstand" sometimes

Frankly, I think that such behavior usually makes them look silly and childish. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't get fair trials, however. Also, there are rules under which classified material can be used that preserve the appropriate level of secrecy.

[panader0]

2. I disagree

I think it's a good move to have it more public.

[Cha]

6. I agree. +1

[GMA]

4. Thanks for having the guts to say this.

Like you, I've gone back and forth, but warning flags went up when I heard the President said, "when they're found guilty and face the death penalty." Better minds than mine have made a good case for trying these men in court, but I don't see the upside.

[Garam_Masala]

8. If the 5 on trial use this trial to expound on their cause

and make a mockery of the trial, it will look very bad for
Atty Gen Holder and also his boss, the president.

[spanone]

47. no it won't. no judge will allow them to make a mockery of anything.

[Garam_Masala]

72. The trial of the 20th hijacker was a different story

Can't recall his name but he is the who missed a flight or something on 911.
He made quite a few speeches exhorting jihad and sharia in court.

[sudopod]

61. Just because they're presumed innocent under the law

doesn't mean we can't point out the obvious. :p

[dionysus]

9. and if they were tried by military tribunal, you'd probably be screaming how facist it is.

:shrug:

[Imajika]

10. It's a really bad move...

First, as best I can tell there is no precedent for this. It just isn't necessary.

Second, these guys would probably have just pled guilty in a military tribunal and it would be over. Now they are going to use the opportunity in a civilian court to drag this thing out for months and months and turn it into a circus.

I mean, if Obama had decided not to use military tribunals at all, I could see it as a principled stand, but he IS going to use military tribunals for some of the alleged terrorists.

This is a gigantic lose-lose for the President. There really is just nothing good that I can see coming out of this. Even if the idea, as some Republicans claim, is to use this as a backdoor way to put the Bush administrations methods on trial, it's STILL a bad way to do it.

And with the way the administration has been declaring the outcome before the trial even started, it just eliminates the only other good thing that could come out of this which would have been to show the world that we care about true justice and don't run Kangaroo Courts.

Just a bad decision anyway I look at it.

[notesdev]

11. If you want to turn NY Republican

this is the way to do it.

Does Obama not understand how angry 9/11 made New Yorkers, and how it hasn't faded away there like in many other places? Does he understand that the hole in the ground is still there and a million plus people walk past it every day?

[Imajika]

13. Patterson knows that...

so he smartly opposed this idea.

He knows the public is going to really hate this once these trials are turned into giant circuses. Hell, the polls might already show the NY public opposing this.

[prolesunited]

14. Last time I looked, the justice system was not run

on the basis of public opinion polls.

Lots of trials -- O.J., Micheal Jackson, Oprah -- are media circuses. Does that mean we don't have such trials?

[Imajika]

18. Last I looked, we've never tried

foreign enemy combatants caught on enemy soil in a regular civilian court trials either. This has simply never been done from the best I can tell. And considering they WILL be using military tribunals on others caught in similar fashion, it means this was OPTIONAL.

We don't need a media circus if one isn't necessary. Nothing we can do about things like the OJ and MJ trials, in this case though we could have just used the military tribunals and avoided it.

This isn't going to be good for President Obama. It was a bad decision in my opinion.

[prolesunited]

25. Well, apparently, the president decided not to follow your advice

[Imajika]

28. Yes, he made a mistake..

..that was my point.

[jonnyblitz]

26. I would tend to agree EXCEPT why did the president declare

a guilty outcome ? that was a STUPID thing for him to do.

[Arkana]

17. NY isn't going Republican and anyone who thinks it will is an idiot.

[notesdev]

42. You've never lived in NY, have you?

It wasn't all that long ago when we had Sen. Alphonse D'Amato and Governor George Pataki. New York City itself hasn't elected a Democrat as mayor since David Dinkins - we're coming close to two full decades already without a Democrat mayor.

Right across the river, the formerly solid-blue New Jersey just ejected its incumbent Democratic governor in favor of an unimpressive Republican. IIRC Nassau County just went back to Republican as well.

I don't think you fully appreciate how strong the "throw the bums out" sentiment is.

[FrenchieCat]

46. Let them throw those out who agree that

justice needs to see the light of day in reference to the attack that none are going to forget, no matter whether there is a trial or not.

If they are that scared and afraid, then so be it. It will tell us more about New Yorkers, and perhaps they aren't as "tough" as they have been portrayed of being.

As the Widow of one of those who died at 9/11 said.....she welcome finally seeing justice be done with her very own eyes.

Even after witnessing the horrors of 9/11 that included me helplessly watching the murder of my husband on live television, I still believe that we are a civilized nation of laws. And like the Nuremberg trials that brought the murderers of millions to justice, now more than ever, Americans need to trust our own judicial system to fully and openly prosecute the mass murderers of 9/11 while the rest of the world bears witness.

Because while the terrorists were successful in bringing down the Twin Towers and hijacking airplanes on 9/11, our Constitution should never be hijacked or brought down as a result of anything--let alone the potential adversity faced in prosecuting modern day monsters like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Indeed, in the fight against Islamist extremism, we should never bow to the terrorists by compromising, manipulating, re-writing or flat-out ignoring the core, bedrock principles of our Constitution that speak to the very heart of who we are as a nation--a democracy.

Yet, quite alarmingly, Republicans seem to be exhibiting just this sort of crisis of confidence in our Constitution's ability to prosecute these horrible men. Republicans argue that men like KSM are war criminals who can only be convicted in military commissions where they won't receive the protections of our laws. Republicans seem to lack a certain faith in our Constitution's ability and adaptability in meting out the demands of modern day justice.

So the once-brazen, chest-thumping Republicans who preemptively started a war in Iraq, claimed mission accomplished, and ordained that they wanted Osama Bin Laden's head on a platter, are now off crying in a corner lost in their own feigned anger and fear. Complaining that it will be too dangerous. Worried that it will make New York City a target.

First, I've got news for anyone who didn't already know this: New York has been, is, and will always be a terrorist target. That's why many of us wanted millions spent on hardening domestic soft targets like NYC (and mass transportation systems, chemical plants, nuclear plants, borders, etc). But after 9/11, the Bush Administration chose instead to spend billions on starting a war in Iraq.

Indeed, in the quantitative analysis of what truly makes us a terrorist target, holding a trial in the Southern District of New York does not top the list. The war in Iraq wins that contest hands down. And the Bush Administration's illegal torture policies come in at a close second. These are the things that have fomented the most hatred towards Americans and placed us at the highest risk from terrorist attack.

To be clear, the only danger posed by prosecuting men like KSM in an open court in New York is the red alert it poses to the Republican Party's faltering reputation in fighting their "war on terror."

And that is the real reason why Republicans are supporting the use of military
commissions instead of Article III courts. Because military commissions are held in secret. Republicans want the dirty, damning truth about their failed torture policies to remain hidden away from public view. And they'll use every lame excuse in the book to get their way.

God forbid, the truth came out about torture. Imagine the worst--that KSM, one of the world's most heinous terrorists, is set free after the evidence needed to convict him is thrown out because it was illegally obtained through torture. Imagine further that KSM's torture bore no fruit at all--in other words, it provided no information that prevented any attacks or saved any lives. In essence, KSM's torture proved useless and counter-productive. Talk about a public relations nightmare for the party who once with grand cowboy swagger announced that they'd bring 'em all to justice.

But will KSM ever walk free? Absolutely not. First, haven't we all seen enough Law & Order re-runs to know that prosecutors don't proceed with cases unless they know they've got the goods to convict? Not to mention that KSM also made a self-admission about planning the 9/11 attacks on al-Jazeera long before he was captured and tortured by our government. So I'm confident that even taking into account all the mishandling and mistakes made by the Bush Administration, KSM will not be set free.

However, remain cognizant that were such an acquittal even remotely possible, it would not be due to any shortcomings of our nation's 200-year-old, well-established legal process. Nor would it be a result of some wily terrorist making a "mockery of our rule of law." Rather, responsibility for such a ghastly acquittal would fall squarely on the shoulders of Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Alberto Gonzales--those who in a panic after 9/11, breathlessly ordered the illegal use of torture because they didn't know what else to do. And that, folks, is the big dark dirty secret that Republicans don't want any of us to find out.

But, the prosecutors in the Southern District of NY do know what their doing--especially when it comes to winning terrorist convictions. Moreover, long established safeguards will be in place to protect sources, methods and any other classified information from leaking to the public. In fact, because we are a democracy, KSM will be given a fair trial, in an open courtroom facing certain and swift justice just steps from Ground Zero. And once convicted, he will receive the maximum penalty--death.

When that happens, 8 years after 9/11, justice will have finally prevailed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/justice-american-style_b_359794.html

I say more power to her and shame on those who are so frightened of terrorists, even when they are in shackles, that they'd prefer to bipass what our nation is supposed to stand for.

[notesdev]

48. The defense plans to admit the charges

and use the trial as a platform to espouse their philosophy.

Guilt, therefore, is not in dispute.

It's not about being frightened, it's about getting a stick poked in your eye. This is going to be extremely unpopular in New York. If you think it's about fear, you don't know New Yorkers at all.

[FrenchieCat]

51. I already know what their philosophy is. Don't you?

New Yorkers got much more than a "stick" poked in their eye on 9/11.
And this trial will have more meaning than a stick ever had.
I'm surprised that you speak for all New Yorkers.

Poll: In New York, Opposition To Terror Trial Is Old, White, And Republican

Buried in the internals of the new Marist poll of New York City residents is a striking finding: Opposition to trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators in a New York court is almost entirely driven by old, white, and Republican voters.

The poll finds that overall, 45% of New Yorkers think the trial is a good idea, versus 41% who think it’s a bad idea.

When the numbers are broken down by age, the only group against the trial is made up of those over 65, by 46%-41%. The other age groups are in favor of it.

When the numbers are broken down by race, the only group against the trial is made up of whites, by 49%-41%. Blacks and Latinos both favor it, Latinos overwhelmingly so.

And when the poll is broken down by party, Republicans are overwhelmingly against the trial, 68%-23%. Dems and “non-enrolled” both favor it.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/poll-in-new-york-opposition-to-terror-trial-is-old-white-and-republican/

Sixty percent of those questioned in the CNN poll agreed that Sheikh Mohammed should be brought to the United States to stand trial, while 37 percent opposed the move.

There was overwhelming support for Holder's announcement that prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Sheikh Mohammed.

Seventy-eight percent of those polled said they thought he should be executed if found guilty, almost a quarter of whom said they didn't normally support capital punishment.

More than a third of the 1,014 Americans questioned by CNN in the weekend poll, 34 percent, said they didn't think Sheikh Mohammed would receive a fair trial if brought to a US civilian court.

Friday's announcement, key to Obama's attempts to try and shutter Guantanamo Bay by January, was blasted by families of the victims of the September 11 attacks and the president's political opponents.

Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani said it was as an "unnecessary risk" to New York's security that would give an "unnecessary advantage" to the accused.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iFZSscAXXx150dnNtPXwXm8SfL6A

[Arkana]

49. And yet NY hasn't voted R since Raygun's blowout in 1984.

[tledford]

74. "[...] without a Democrat mayor."

It's *Democratic,* troll. What is with this "Democrat mayor" shit? You on the Faux sn00ze payroll?

[MadMaddie]

12. So what!! Let's look at some felons who were prosecuted

and convicted in the US.

1. Timothy McVeigh and Nichols (interesting no one seemed worried about his platform)
2. Zacarias Moussaoui

91% of the terrorism cases have been won by the DOJ
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN7N169281


How are the military tribunals working out? How many have they prosecuted? How many have the let go? That's right 0, nada, zilch!!
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0528-13.htm
<snip>
Since 9-11 the ad hoc system created by the United States has failed to complete even one trial and has resolved only one case. By any measure, the current systems of military commissions and administrative detention at Guantanamo have failed when compared with the record of the criminal justice system
<snip>

I find it interesting that all of a sudden the very justice system that * and his cronies were exporting to Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer good enough to prosecute the terrorist.

By elevating these terrorist to star boogie man status (and that is exactly what the right has done)Osama Bin Laden has fulfilled his every wish. Americans should be more afraid of the criminals roaming our streets, these terrorist are no more dangerous than the gangs that are in the US. The terrorist got lucky on 9/11 because they found they had an administration that was so caught up in pushing their far right wing agenda that they ignored all of the warning signs that were handed to them on a silver platter by the Clinton Administration.

By not closing Gitmo and by not prosecuting these terrorist this will hang around the administration like an albatross.

Please answer me this? Does the US have a superior legal system or not?

What is your solution? Gitmo and the tribunals have not prosecuted anyone. They have only succeeded in torturing and murdering suspects. If you go to the Hague they may not convict because of the torture. So logically what's left? That's the quandary that the Obama administration had to deal with.

[firedupdem]

16. +1...agree 100% n/t

[MadMaddie]

19. Thanks Firedupdem!

:hi:

[Arkana]

20. But but but don't you SEE???? Republicans will COMPLAIN!!!

We can't make the Republicans mad!!!!

[Kdillard]

55. + 100 You are absolutely correct.

[HopeOverFear]

15. You're only concerned with appearances. You're not concerned with following the rule of law.

n/m

[Imajika]

21. You realize ofcourse..

..that the Obama administration WILL still be using military tribunals right? At least 5 so far including Omar Khadr (the Canadian) will be tried in Military Tribunals.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule of law. This was an optional policy decision. They chose civilian trials in NY for some of them. I think it was a really bad decision.

[FrenchieCat]

36. You realize of course...

that there is a distinction that they are making in determining who will be tried where, right?

I"m sure you know this, since you have such a strong opinion about the entire move.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. So?

So did John Gotti.

[ellie]

24. These people need to have their day in court

I don't see how trying defendants in a court of law will jeopardize everything the democrats have been fighting for. They can do more than two things at once.

[malik flavors]

29. It jeopardizes everything because of the possibility something goes horribly wrong.

[msanthrope]

59. The lack of faith in our constitutional system is, IMHO unpatriotic.

And I don't make that charge lightly.

[MadMaddie]

60. It's always the multi-tasking that gets the Repugs....

[boppers]

27. Law > Politics

Simple as that.

[malik flavors]

30. They're trying others in the military tribunals, aren't they? This isn't about law.

[Imajika]

31. I'm not sure how some people aren't understanding this...

It is NOT about the rule of law. The procedure that has ALWAYS been used for these type of cases is the military tribunal. In fact, the Obama administration will still be using military tribunals in other cases.

This was an option. They do not need to transfer these people to NY and try them in civilian courts. I still can't figure out why they would do this. There is no advantage that I can see, and from the polls I've seen the public is already against it. Once these trials become unnecessary circuses, the public is probably going to hold a very dim view of this policy decision.

I see no upside at all for the Obama administration. No upside in NY, no upside nationally, and finally, no upside Internationally either once Obama and other administration officials went around declaring they'd be found guilty before the trials had even started.

[FrenchieCat]

Do you know why they are trying other in military tribunals?

Here's an interesting pretty balanced take on this conversation we are currently having....


Nov 13 2009, 1:05 pm by Marc Ambinder
A Political Decision This Ain't

Here's what the Attorney General isn't doing. He's not following public opinion, which generally opposes conducting any sort of 9/11 terrorist trial in the United States. He's not following perceived political wisdom, in that the administration is not providing cover for Democrats who are afraid of Republican remonstrations on terrorism. He is not appeasing special interest groups, the bulk of whom -- the ACLU being an example -- oppose quite vociferously the prospect of any new military commissions.

If this is politics, it's really dumb politics. And that's why it's probably not politics. Occam's razor applies. Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism. They want to change the narrative from a "strength/weakness" metaphor to an "example/rule of law" metaphor. This sounds a little PoMo, but it's the mark of a president who, on this issue in particular, does not believe that the old ways of thinking make America any safer. Certainly, they don't contribute to a national security politics of consensus.


This will be a hard sell. The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.

Now -- there is a conspiracy theory out there that Holder decided to try the 9/11 five in Article III trials because he wants to find a way to get all the bad stuff the Bush administration did out into the open without being blamed for doing so. The idea is that federal trials will inherently lead to the compromise of classified information. On its face, it's sort of absurd -- the motive, that is. But the risk of disclosing sensitive methods and sources is real, albeit one that the interagency process has focused on and found manageable; the CIA's general counsel said yesterday that the agency is working quite closely on ways to protect its sources and methods in upcoming federal trial. Those promulgating this conspiracy certainly do not have much faith in the experienced terrorism prosecutors from the Southern District of New York or the Eastern District of Virginia, or the federal judges who will administer the trials, or even the jurors who will decide them.

What distinguishes the 9/11 five from the five defendants who'll stay in the military commission system? The location of their terrorism. Plots that culminate inside the U.S. will be disposed of, it seems, using regular methods. Plots that culminate outside the U.S., like, say, in Yemen or in war zones -- will be treated differently. One of the five non-9/11 defendants whose disposition was announced today, Ahmed Haza al-Darbi, does not stand accused of plotting to kill or capture U.S. soldiers: he's on trial for trying to bomb oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/heres_what_the_attorney_general.php

[Imajika]

33. Thanks for posting this...

..it is a very good article and a constructive addition to this discussion.

"Obama and Holder are sincerely -- perhaps naively, but that's something we won't know for a while -- attempting to change the way the American people and the world think about counterterrorism."

See, this is basically where I am with this. I think it is naive and no real upside at all. I don't see that this will in any way change the way the American people think about counterterrorism. I actually think this will just end up being a hideously unpopular move that will become even more unpopular as these trials move forward.

[FrenchieCat]

35. You have the right to think of it in the negative......

Just like I have the right to see this as an improvement
in that I believe we are being treated like grown ups.

At this point, considering how many feet are up in Pres. Obama's ass,
I'm starting to not care if he gets a 2nd term....
because I'm starting to realize that whatever he does,
there are those who can read the worse into it.....
and those are the ones who normally can't just say what they think and then sit back,
and observe and see what unfolds with an open mind.....
instead, they have to keep telling us their same opinion over, and over again....
as though if they say it enough times, folks who have thought deep and long about this,
will suddenly change their mind and retreat to announce...."Our Bad".

Personally, I'm glad to see Obama do something that isn't what everyone expects,
and that goes opposite to the conventional wisdom that we should all be scared to
death about every fucking thing we are told to be afraid of.....
and if through this sordid trial, funky shit comes out about BushCo.....
then so be fucking it. I can take that side of naivete....
but so, can you?

[Imajika]

41. We are certainly all entitled to our opinion...

I agree with Obama much if not most of the time. On this issue though, I just can't agree that it was a good decision.

"I'm starting to not care if he gets a 2nd term...."

See, I care very much about his getting a 2nd term. I am concerned that decisions like this have no real positives and can only hurt us politically going forward.

As I said, if the Obama administration was making a principled stand and declared they weren't going to use military tribunals at all, I might come to a different conclusion. In that case I would probably still disagree with the decision but might be more persuaded that it had some real potential upside. As of now though, using some combination of civilian and military trials just doesn't seem to me to make anyone happy and therefore will end up a political liability.

[boppers]

34. They're trying people based on their crimes.

9/11 was a crime committed in the US, not a battlefield.

Imagine how horrific it would be if our government was just "claiming" people were dangerous, and arresting them and sending them to secret tribunals, no public trials, for supposed "crimes".

Oh wait, that's actually happened in the US, and it was wrong. When other nations do it, we consider it immoral.

[malik flavors]

37. Whether it was a crime or an act of war is really still up in the air.

If it's viewed by the world as an act of war (which it widely is), other countries won't in anyway hold it against us for trying them in military tribunals, especially when they've said they would like to plead guilty and be sentenced to death.

I don't think that taints our image in anyway.

And is it not wrong for Holder to say that there's zero chance any of these men will be allowed to go free? So what's the point of the trial then?

[boppers]

38. Non-nations cannot commit acts of war.

What's the point of a trial?

Well, how about the fact that it's fucking unconstitutional to not have due process, and that the rights in the constitution outline basic human rights, not just rights for people we think we like?

[malik flavors]

40. How have we given them their rights when we've already determined that they're guilty?

Non-nations cannot commit acts of war? Then what was the civil war? What about religious wars?

If it wasn't an act of war, why are we at war right now? Who are we at war with?

[boppers]

50. Calling them guilty is wrong without a trial, IMNSHO.

As far as who we're "at war with", we aren't at war with nations, or people... we're at war with an idea, which is why the fighting cannot be ever won, only lost.

We lost in Iraq, we lost in Afghanistan, because we can take over counties, change governments, but that won't change "terrorism". The sooner we realize this, the sooner we'll stop wasting lives.

[malik flavors]

52. Haha, I agree with you 100%

But you're thinking in the abstract. If I were to ask Gen. McChystal who we're at war with, I think he'd answer quite differently than you just did.

We're at war with an ideology, but we're also at war with the people that are believers in that ideology. Perhaps our way of fighting this war is incorrect, but we are still at war with physical beings, and that obviously can't be denied.

If we are at war with terrorism, then we must be at war with terrorist.

[FrenchieCat]

53. It was called "The War on Terror"...not "the War on Terrorism and Terrorists",

and indeed it is a war against an ideology....

An ideology is usually an idea followed by people, but not all who may believe in the ideology,
will carry out the acts that are considered crimes.......
Otherwise, we might as well be the Crime Thought police,
which is exactly how Bush saw it.

You cannot kill an idea or put an idea behind bars.

Those who committed crimes that occured in New York are being tried in a Civilian court in order for New Yorkers to see justice rendered, whether that is what they wanted or not. New Yorkers aren't going to forget these crimes, and perhaps having a public trial will bring forth closure, finally after 8 very long years.

Those Terrorists who committed crimes elsewhere will be tried in Military court, because what they did, did not result in dead civilians on our shores. That's the distinction that Holder is making, and I believe that it is grounded in logic.....and considering that Bush made the shit up as he went along, I'm glad that the Obama administration is putting out their own way of looking at it, as opposed to adopting Bushism as conventional wisdom. It is refreshing and a big change. Good of them of taking a chance in order to try and right actions that went way wrong; right.

[boppers]

58. McChrystal might not disagree with me, actually.

Good article on him, and his perspective: http://www.newsweek.com/id/216237/

He recognizes that stabilizing the country is the goal, there is no monolithic "enemy" to eliminate, so much as a people to win. Highlights from the article:
1. Minimizing civilian impacts.
2. Not ever shooting unless necessary.
3. Befriending the population, and living with them, under their laws.

It's a good read, I can see why he's in the position he has.

[notesdev]

64. As an enemy prisoner

he should be having a military and not a civilian trial. He's not a civilian, and he's not an American. He's an enemy POW. Nuremburg is the established model.

[vadawg]

68. wait until one of them walks on a technicality, it wouldnt be the first time a case that looks a

slam dunk goes down the swanie, if it happens then there will be a landslide change in the politics of the US.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[PopSixSquish]

39. Oh, For the Love of God - Military Tribunals Are Now a Good Thing?

I could swear that I read thread upon thread over the past several years from DUers rending their garments over the fact that the Bush Administration was using military tribunals for terrorists. A military tribunal is for jurisdiction over persons who are held in military custody and stand accused of being enemies in a conflict in which the military is engaged and who are combatants who have violated a law of war.

These persons were not captured during war as defined by our Constitution - ie Congress did not vote to declare war on Afghanistan. They should be tried in Federal Court for murder and conspiracy just as Timothy McVeigh was tried for same. BTW, McVeigh was only convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of 11 federal officers and not the other citizens of Oklahoma who died in the bombing since that was a state matter.

By law, the states of New York, New Jersey, Virginia and any other whose citizens died in 9/11 could seek to try these persons for the murder of their citizens or conspiracy to murder their citizens.

I should think it would be pretty obvious that any of these persons do not think highly of United States foreign policy and as such would air their grievances as grounds for a justification defense which would be an affirmative defense. The burden of proof in such a defense is on the defendant, not the prosecution as the defendant seeks to establish that they were caused to act in such a manner by circumstances.

No one should be surprised that these persons will plead "not guilty" and try to give the United States a "black-eye". Defense attorneys almost always attack the victim or witnesses in a case.

Federal Court is much different than state courts and the rules of evidence and testimony are much stricter. Television cameras are not allowed. Any judge in this case will impose a gag order on all participants.

The Attorney General and not President Obama made the decision in this case and it was the right one. Anyone who allows the news media and the Republicans and fear-mongerers take their focus away from the fact that we are a nation of laws and as such, must abide by those laws regardless of the inconvenience or the perceived "PR nightmare" is a fool...

[malik flavors]

43. So the Japanese that bombed Pearl Harbor should have been tried in civilain court?

Since we hadn't yet declared war?

If there was another attack on our soil by memebers of Al-Qaeda would you be open to trying them in miliary tribunals?

Are you certain that everyone at Guantanimo that will be tried in a military tribunal commited their crimes after we declared war?

Timothy McVeigh was an American citizen and wasn't part of any larger organization from a foreign land.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Japan is a country.......

And yes, if members of Al-Gaeda attacked us on our soil, and were caught, then yes,
they should be tried in civilian courts, just like what will be happening in New York shortly.

I'm tired of being frightened into a stupid stupor. New Yorkers were attacked in New York,
and not having a trial is not going to make them forget that it happened.

[PopSixSquish]

56. The Japanese Military Under Orders of the Japanese Emperor

attacked our military at Pearl Harbor and the Japanese would have delivered their declaration of war and cessation of diplomatic ties to our State Department before hostilities began except for the fact that the comminique from Tokyo was top secret and therefore could not be translated and typed by normal employees. The Japanese ambassador was therefore late to the State Department and the attack had already happened.

But the Japanese had declared war on the United States and therefore any Japanese who had been captured would have been tried in a military tribunal should it have been determined that they violated the rules of war. An attack by one military on that of another, horrific as it may have been did not violate the rules of war.

Al-Qaeda is not a country and therefore should another attack occur, anyone caught should be tried in a civilian court for murder and conspiracy. And once again, Congress never voted to declare war on Afghanistan or Pakistan where Al-Qaeda operates. Al-Qaeda also operates in Somalia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Each of these are sovereign countries and not groups. You cannot declare war on a group, therefore, anyone at Guantanamo committed their crimes before we declared war since we have never declared war.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that military tribunals used to try civilians in any jurisdiction where the civil courts were functioning were unconstitutional, with its decision in Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866). Unless something has happened in the past 20 minutes, the civilian courts in this country both federal and state are functioning.

I used Timothy McVeigh as an example of how one would be charged and tried in federal court. But just for you, the following citizens of foreign countries have been tried and convicted in Federal Court for acts of terrorism and are currently incarcerated at ADX Florence in Colorado:

Wadih el-Hage - Conspirator in the 1998 United States embassy bombings, citizen of Lebanon
Zacarias Moussaoui - Conspirator in the September 11, 2001 attacks, citizen of Morocco and France
Ramzi Yousef - 1993 World Trade Center bombing, citizen of Kuwait
Mahmud Abouhalima - 1993 World Trade Center, citizen of Egypt

[optimator]

54. unalienable rights

a fair trial is a natural right of all human beings.
ALL.

[JimGinPA]

63. LOL - I Thought This OP Had Been Tombstoned...

It hadn't posted its usual "Obama-bashing" articles for weeks so I just assumed...

[Ichingcarpenter]

71. Michelle Malkin has the same talking point going

has the same talking point going in her column today as does World Nut Daily.

I'd give the links but I don't think that is necessary.


His link to the 'news' story is also unavailable and no longer there so I was unable to to see who wrote his opinion piece at AP and track down the author.

[discopants]

65. what is the law that requires all of their testimony open to the media?

Anyone know?

If they rant, what is required to be immediately put into public domain? Is the media required to have access at all times? Do transcripts get released immediately?

Because FoxNews will immediately use anything it can to damage this administration, distort it, twist it, exploit it... as long as they can harm Obama and our national security at the same time...
Our own "media" are more to fear than what ever ideological blabbering comes from the defendants at trial. Rove and Fox will be certain that al Qaeda gets inflamed.

[BlooInBloo]

66. Well there you go. Clearly America can't possibly survive this trial...

and must move with all speed to give up on its ideals of fair trials and justice.

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

67. The American people had an option to pick Romney, Giuliani, or McCain

All of whom promised to build 10 more Guantanamos. Instead they picked Obama who promised to restore the rule of law. Obama is making a good faith effort to fulfill a campaign promise and generally that is good politics.

The fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a critic of American foreign policy isn't exactly news and if any Republican really has the nerve to use the trial footage on television then the Democrats should respond by simply asking "If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's views are so damaging to America then why are the Republicans spending money to put his face on television?"

[CTLawGuy]

69. they can only talk about foreign policy

if foreign policy is relevant to a legally sufficient defense or if it is relevant to refute an element of the crime with which they are charged.

Methinks they won't be talking much about foreign policy.

That said, I'm no expert on the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

[rasputin1952]

70. Of course they are...

that is the logical thing to do from their POV. Our system of Justice allows for such things, but it is a double edged sword, especially in a case like this. A smart defense atty would not allow them to take the stand, but if they insist, there is little they can do to prevent it.

This is another reason why, if convicted, they should face life in prison w/o parole. If they are sentenced to death, they become the martyrs they want to be. If they are in prison for life, they are seen as failures and a pariah for their cause. The "blind sheik and the others are prime examples of how to do this, they have lost all credibility within their circles, they are seen as failures and are shunned by the very "allies" they would like to have on their side.

Another aspect of this situation is that there will be info form these individuals forthcoming, much of which will be complete BS, but other items may have a basis in truth. We can assess the situation and see if investigations against some in the former administration's way they dealt with the situation.

All things considered, NY'ers are not prone to fooling around with these people; I think a jury will listen to everything and render a verdict based on fact. If we are going to try these individuals, we need to do it according to law and not emotion. During WWII, several saboteurs were tried after landing on Long Island. They were convicted and sentenced to death. We have precedent, let's stick to it, except for the death part, and let this proceed without all of the RW wailing and gnashing of teeth. Good lord, cant' they do anything other than try to scare the crap out of people?

[Patriot 76]

73. Imagine if something were to go horribly wrong?

So your take is if a terrorist attack occurs regarding this trial in New York, it will be Obama's fault and it will be the ruin of the Democratic Party as we know it.

A bit to negative.

You should have went with the story about how New Yorkers are furious about the trial being held because of the extra traffic.