PDA

View Full Version : Obama White House Says Move the 9/11 Trials Out of New York


petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:42 PM
White House officials have told the Justice Department to consider other venues for the 9/11 terror trial that was to be held in lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The decision came after Mayor Bloomberg and other politicians across the state railed against President Obama's plan to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Manhattan Federal Court.

Attorney General Eric Holder now has to think of other places where the trial could take place, officials said.

It was not immediately clear if the reassessment means the trial will definitely be moved out of the city.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html#ixzz0dxfnVr yK

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:43 PM
This is half a step in the right direction. The other half would be to not have this guy tried in civilian court at all.

ROYC75
01-28-2010, 07:43 PM
Gitmo ? Best place for him.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 07:54 PM
If they want to move it I have no problem with it. They should move it to a military base and still use the civilian system.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 07:59 PM
If they want to move it I have no problem with it. They should move it to a military base and still use the civilian system.

Why should a non-citizen, enemy combatant be given the Rights of Americans?

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 08:01 PM
They should move it to a military base and still use the civilian system.

Why? What purpose would that serve?

He should be tried by military tribunal in such a way he isn't given a podium from which to preach.

Holder is an idiot.

banyon
01-28-2010, 08:03 PM
I think they were going to have serious venue and jury selection problems anyway.

ROYC75
01-28-2010, 08:05 PM
Why? What purpose would that serve?

He should be tried by military tribunal in such a way he isn't given a podium from which to preach.

Holder is an idiot.


BINGO, putting this clown on trail in a civilian court is giving him / them the publicity they want at our expense.

Feed him pork everyday the rest of his life.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:07 PM
Why? What purpose would that serve?

He should be tried by military tribunal in such a way he isn't given a podium from which to preach.

Holder is an idiot.

Actually I have to re-think this. Why not move this trial to somewhere in the middle of Kansas during deer season and then have a hunter "accidently" shoot him on the way to trial? :D

Direckshun
01-28-2010, 08:19 PM
Gotta love it when terrorism works.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:23 PM
Why should a non-citizen, enemy combatant be given the Rights of Americans?

Because the SC said so. SC has already ruled enemy combatants have habeas corpus rights

Second there have been over 100 terrorists tried in civilian court only 2 in military tribunals.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 08:24 PM
I think they were going to have serious venue and jury selection problems anyway.

Where in the US aren't they going to have serious jury selection problems?

Imagine being called in to serve on that jury. How could you ever go into it knowing what it could do to you or your family if for some reason you are forced to rule on beyond a reasonable doubt?

If the goal is to send a message to the rest of the world our system works outlets like Al Jaseera will just twist it into a kangaroo court type conviction.

Holder is an ideologue idiot.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:31 PM
Why? What purpose would that serve?

He should be tried by military tribunal in such a way he isn't given a podium from which to preach.

Holder is an idiot.

Bush tried Zacarias Moussaoui in civilian court in Virginia. The media showed up, he spewed his stupid thoughts and no one gave a shit.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 08:32 PM
Because the SC said so. SC has already ruled enemy combatants have habeas corpus rights

Second there have been over 100 terrorists tried in civilian court only 2 in military tribunals.

I noticed Obama had no opinion on said ruling of that last night. ROFL

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 08:32 PM
Put this boondoggle in Chicago.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 08:39 PM
Bush tried Zacarias Moussaoui in civilian court in Virginia. The media showed up, he spewed his stupid thoughts and no one gave a shit.

Are you talking about the terrorist wannabe that didn't actually kill anyone?

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:42 PM
Are you talking about the terrorist wannabe that didn't actually kill anyone?

Yep.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 08:43 PM
I noticed Obama had no opinion on said ruling of that last night. ROFL

That is because it happened 3 years ago. I posted what Bush said about it last night I think you read it. He wasn't very happy.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 08:52 PM
Yep.

So what purpose does a civilian trial serve?

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 09:02 PM
So what purpose does a civilian trial serve?

Honestly mostly because PR and it is a slam dunk case, and this is how we do things in the US. I understand the extremely high costs of doing it in NY but then move it to a military base and have civilian rules.

So why not a civilian trial?

banyon
01-28-2010, 09:07 PM
So what purpose does a civilian trial serve?

It does prevent the defendants from being able to claim that they were "soldiers of Allah" and that's why they are being tried by the enemies soldiers.

It helps to portray them as the cowards they are. Terrorists who murder innocents.

But I'm still against it.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 09:11 PM
Honestly mostly because PR and it is a slam dunk case, and this is how we do things in the US. I understand the extremely high costs of doing it in NY but then move it to a military base and have civilian rules.

So why not a civilian trial?

Your first sentence. The case is already settled. Al Jazeera will make it clear to the rest of the world it was a kangaroo court so your PR angle isn't worth shit. If anything they'll be able to mock our justice system as a farce.

There is absolutely no reason to do it.

Saul Good
01-28-2010, 09:12 PM
It does prevent the defendants from being able to claim that they were "soldiers of Allah" and that's why they are being tried by the enemies soldiers.

It helps to portray them as the cowards they are. Terrorists who murder innocents.

But I'm still against it.

You've probably said why many times before, but why are you against it. I can't really work up a strong opinion either way. When in doubt, I'll just disagree with Obama, though.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 09:14 PM
It does prevent the defendants from being able to claim that they were "soldiers of Allah" and that's why they are being tried by the enemies soldiers.

It helps to portray them as the cowards they are. Terrorists who murder innocents.

But I'm still against it.

They'll never be cowards to those we're trying to impress with our justice system.

Seriously, just send them to me and by morning they'll be buried in a slough. And I'd have no problem doing it.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 09:17 PM
Your first sentence. The case is already settled. Al Jazeera will make it clear to the rest of the world it was a kangaroo court so your PR angle isn't worth shit. If anything they'll be able to mock our justice system as a farce.

There is absolutely no reason to do it.

I think that is a valid point but this goes farther than Al Jazeera. Alot of Europeans and allies don't like how we have handled things and view the tribunal system as a rigged system.

Anyway I just read tonight they are still going to try them in civilian court but probably move it up north at the Air Force Base.

banyon
01-28-2010, 09:17 PM
You've probably said why many times before, but why are you against it. I can't really work up a strong opinion either way. When in doubt, I'll just disagree with Obama, though.

I'm against it for precedential reasons, it's something we don't need to make a habit of.

In fact there was already a precedent and that was Nuremburg. That, along with the factors cited by the critics of the burdens outweigh the PR value of a civilian trial IMO.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 09:20 PM
I'm against it for precedential reasons, it's something we don't need to make a habit of.

In fact there was already a precedent and that was Nuremburg. That, along with the factors cited by the critics of the burdens outweigh the PR value of a civilian trial IMO.

Wasn't Nueremburg AFTER the war?

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 09:21 PM
I'm against it for precedential reasons, it's something we don't need to make a habit of.

In fact there was already a precedent and that was Nuremburg. That, along with the factors cited by the critics of the burdens outweigh the PR value of a civilian trial IMO.

The precedent has already been set though. Bush tried a ton of terrorists in civilian court and they have only successfully tried 2 cases in tribunals. 2 cases in 9 years isn't really inspiring.

The problem as I see it was they should have never brought them back to Gitmo or anywhere near the US. They should have just kept them over there and dealt with them. Once they brought them to US soil made the whole thing complicated.

mlyonsd
01-28-2010, 10:13 PM
They should have just kept them over there and dealt with them. Once they brought them to US soil made the whole thing complicated.

Uhhhh, that's why Gitmo exists. So they don't get on US soil.

dirk digler
01-28-2010, 10:33 PM
Uhhhh, that's why Gitmo exists. So they don't get on US soil.

I thought it was considered US soil but apparently it is not.

petegz28
01-28-2010, 10:37 PM
Gitmo is considered US soil IIRC

Then argument over. Leave his ass there.