Where to hold the "terror trials"?
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 01-30-2010 - 11:19am |
The logistics of holding the trial in NYC could be a nightmare for New Yorkers & it's a sensible move to change it's location. Why all the posturing?
Obama’s NYC terror trial switch: Pragmatism or indecisiveness?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0130/Obama-s-NYC-terror-trial-switch-Pragmatism-or-indecisiveness
The Obama administration says it won’t hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda suspects in Manhattan after all, mainly because of security costs and community backlash. But to some, it's another political misstep.
Atlanta —
The positive symbolism of American-style justice – bringing 9/11 terror suspects back to the scene of the crime – marked the Obama administration’s bold decision last year to try the suspects in lower Manhattan, just five blocks from where the twin towers fell.
But the cost and practical reality of trying accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Al Qaeda lieutenants in New York City proved, in the end, too large a burden. The Obama administration on Friday acknowledged that it has abandoned Lower Manhattan idea and is looking for other sites in New York.
The administration says it’s making a pragmatic move and is sticking by its basic and most important premise: To try the men in a US civilian court instead of in a military tribunal.
But how the seemingly inevitable cost and security scenario escaped the administration in the first place is a key question, and one that gives both supporters and critics a clue into how the president and his cabinet shapes and makes decisions.
Pragmatism – or indecision?
To many, Obama’s decision shows a welcome pragmatism in sharp contrast to President Bush’s stubborn go-it-aloneness, Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn told Bill O’Reilly on Fox News “The Bill O’Reilly Show†Friday night.
Critics call the turnaround a rookie mistake, evidence that the administration is led by ideology and is heeding bad advice. They say the switch is part of a growing list of political missteps as the President’s ambitious progressive agenda runs up against constituent backlash in even liberal enclaves like New York and Massachusetts.
“The seemingly hurry-up decision to move the trial to New York City and the equally abrupt decision to move it away from there smacks of federal officials acting before thinking,†writes Peter Roff of US News & World Report. “It projects indecision, which might be OK when discussing the right way to count the impact the stimulus has had on job creation but is positively irresponsible when it comes to the war on terror.â€
2,000 metal barriers in Lower Manhattan?
Cost became a major factor. Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s estimate of $200 million in yearly costs to the NYPD for dogs, snipers, and overtime began to overwhelm the plans. Many New Yorkers also worried that the city that would once again become an inviting target for another attack.
Moreover, a trial in Manhattan would mean cordoning off heavily-trafficked areas with 2,000 metal barriers, upsetting daily life in Soho, TriBeCa, and Chinatown – areas directly affected by the 9/11 attack itself.
“In my view, trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City presents an avoidable danger, very large costs, and undue burdens on the city,†Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote to Obama.
Supporters say Obama simply did the right thing.
“The White House and the Justice Department are simply being responsible by taking newly-documented concerns into account,†writes the Washington Post’s Eva Rodriguez.
On the other hand, the decision adds to criticism of the president’s governing strategy, and whether he's really in touch with public opinion.
“ had a touch of arrogance, going against the grain, and a bit of the out-of-touch attitude that has plagued the Obama presidency.†writes Luisita Lopez Torregrosa, on the Politics Daily website.
Where to now?
Though officials wouldn't discuss locations under consideration, experts have suggested Governors Island, which is a former military base in New York Harbor (video tour here); the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; or Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, N.Y., the Associated Press reports.
(Me: Eye-roll at the following pic.)




Pages
Again, what was wrong with the idea of a Military Tribunal? Oh yeah...Holder and the Obama administration wanted to give the terrorists a platform. They really wanted to put the Bush administration on trial for all of the "torture".
What a stupid, stupid decision it was to hold these trials in civilian court.
I don't get it, either. What a bunch of whiny crybabies, afraid of their own shadows. It's not like we haven't tried terrorists in our courts before (and not a single one of them walked).
As for wanting military tribunals, Bush and company with their policies of torture kind of screwed that up. There is absolutely nothing wrong with our criminal justice system that it can't handle trying terrorists.
((There is absolutely nothing wrong with our criminal justice system that it can't handle trying terrorists.))
Yes, but who is going to foot the enormous bill? Especially when it would only cost $1.98 in the military tribunal. Who is going to pay for their extremely expensive defense attorney? U.S. Taxpayers? What an insult!
There is absolutely no reason this cannot be done in the military courts. The ONLY reason Obama and company wants to do it in civilian courts is to give terrorists a platform and to put Bush on trial. Whether or not Bush used enhanced interrogation on these murderers has nothing to do with anything.
Oh when will Obama and company every learn???? He continues to make bad decision after bad decision further dividing this country.
Oh, by the way, has he closed GITMO yet? ;-)
$ 1.98??? That's a joke, right?
We've already had terrorist trials in a civil court. There have been four here.
<< The ONLY reason Obama and company wants to do it in civilian courts is to give terrorists a platform and to put Bush on trial. >>
Got a link for that?
Don't you remember that the Supreme Court ruled against the Bush military tribunals and the reasons why they did so?
What a stupid, stupid decision it was to hold these trials in civilian court.>
What is stupid is the assertion that either Obama or Holder want to give terrorists a platform. That assertion sounds like Republican boilerplate. As a general rule, (suspected) murderers are tried in a court of law. Unless either the prosecution or defense recommends a change of venue, then the (suspected) murderer is usually tried in the same district where s/he committed the crime. I am not sure why a trial is considered a "platform" anyway. What do people think happens in a trial? What doesn't happen is that a suspected criminal is given a platform to promote his/her ideas. Generally questions are asked and answered. Generally the defender and prosecutor then ask a jury to consider the evidence and vote for an acquittal or conviction. Anybody who tells others that criminal trials are "platforms," has more interest in trying to make a political point than in telling it as it is.
What an insult it is to have somebody say that people should not get a trial because it would cost money. Of course it costs money. It costs money when a petty criminal who shoplifts from Macy's is tried in court. So what? Should there be no justice, because it would be cheaper than a trial?
((What an insult it is to have somebody say that people should not get a trial because it would cost money.))
American citizens...yes. They deserve a trial in our courts. I wouldn't dignify those barbarian terrorists as "people". They are animals who want nothing more than to kill every man, woman, and child in America. They do NOT deserve the same rights as American citizens. I certainly don't think that any American taxpayer should have to foot the bill for their trial just because Obama is too stubborn to hold a regular military tribunal. He made an extremely foolish decision and we will all have to pay the price for it.
This will cost upwards of a billion dollars! What a waste. But then again, Obama and his circus are really good at wasting our hard earned money.
((Should there be no justice, because it would be cheaper than a trial?))
Are you trying to say that there would not be justice in a military tribunal?
((Has it occurred to people that some of us want justice?))
Justice? Justice for whom? The terrorists? Or the people who were brutally murdered on 9/11? Most Americans want justice for the people murdered....most Americans don't give a darn about the terrorists.
((This b.s. with Republicans fearing a trial just makes no sense.))
You could not be more wrong on this. Republicans don't "fear" a trial at all. They don't think the terrorists should be entitled to one in civilian courts. I feel sorry for the people of New York. They have been through enough. They don't need the security nightmare that will come with this trial. They certainly shouldn't be made to pay for it either.
I would LOVE to know if the defense lawyers for these barbarians will do this pro bono. I am sure they won't. They will charge us taxpayers ridiculous sums of money...and they will get rich, rich, rich defending those animals.
Again, what a stupid, stupid decision made by Eric Holder. Just asinine.
((Isn't the overall goal to defend our country and defend our Constitution?))
What? Did you forget that these monsters are NOT American citizens. They are NOT entitled to the same rights that we are. MOST Americans don't think they should be entitled to the same rights as us as guaranteed by the Constitution. They are enemy combatants. NOT citizens. I realize that those on the far left want to grant them these rights....but they are not entitled to them and most people think they should not get them.
((Maybe some politicians with courage and principles will fill the slots and do the right thing.))
That's what I am hoping will happen this year and in 2012.
Pages