9/11 Suspects to be tried in a NY court.

[RandoM51]

I think having a trial instead of a military tribunal is probably a good idea, but I'm not so hot on the idea of having it in New York.

What do you think?

[Generation ABXY]

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it (I haven't weighed all the pros and cons yet), but I'd be a little wary of holding it in New York, too. I'm sure they'll probably have trouble no matter where they go, but that just seems like it may be asking for its own brand of it...

[Dorkandproudofit]

10 to 1 people start busting into the courtroom to beat the snot out of, and possibly lynch, the suspects.

Who's in?

[Ink Asylum]

What's going to happen? He's going to be under heavier security than any other defendant in American history, I bet.

I live in NYC and I'm not worried. The way some people talk you'd think this guy's a super villain, and he's going to bust out of the courtroom, kidnap Mary Jane, and fight Spider Man atop the Empire State Building.

[Generation ABXY]

I think you're misreading the concern here, Ink. While I don't know how likely either scenario is, I forsee two unwelcome possibilities from this (and many more welcome ones, of course): One, someone tries to assassinate him and ends up making him another great martyr for the cause, or, two, his presence in New York makes the city a target again.

Again, I don't know how likely either is, but they're certainly more probable than his escape and, um, battle with Spider-Man.

[DoctorFinger]

I'm more upset about KSM getting a trial in a civilian court (rather than the military tribunals Congress set up) than the fact the trial will be in NYC. We're better equipped to handle this sort of circus than anywhere else in the US, but it should still be a military trial, not a civilian one.

[Ink Asylum]

I think you're misreading the concern here, Ink. While I don't know how likely either scenario is, I forsee two unwelcome possibilities from this (and many more welcome ones, of course): One, someone tries to assassinate him and ends up making him another great martyr for the cause, or, two, his presence in New York makes the city a target again.

Once again, both of those are extremely unlikely dramatic scenarios. No one's going to have the chance to assassinate him even if someone were planning to. He's not going to be giving public press conferences or waving from a motorcade. And why would him being here mean NYC is more a target for terrorism than we already are? NYC and DC remain top targets and KSM being here doesn't increase that one bit.

[Narradisall]

How they picking the Jury on this one? Since I can't imagine there is a soul in NYC that will give them a fair trial.

It's more than I think they deserve, but lets face it. They are not likely to see a fair trial in the US. I suppose it makes no difference as he plans to plead guilty on all counts...

[Dukefrukem]

It's an awful idea having it NYC.

[Ink Asylum]

It's an awful idea having it NYC.

Why? It's an excellent idea. You attacked us here, we'll try you here. You killed our citizens here, we'll bring you to justice here. We can handle whatever "danger" results.

[National Kato]

Sen. Jack Reed from this weekend's FOX New Sunday:REED: Well, as you pointed out, in 2006, Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker, under the Bush administration was tried in a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.Mayor Giuliani was one who testified in the penalty phase and he, as you indicated, claimed this was a symbol of American justice, as he said in 1993.

But this was not 1993. This was 2006. The alternative existed for a military tribunal then. The Bush administration decided to make the case in federal court. They succeeded. A hundred and ninety or so terrorists have been convicted in federal courts, only a handful -- less than 10 -- in tribunals.

There are 200 individuals serving time in federal facilities now for their terrorist crimes. So what was a statesmanlike decision by the Bush administration can’t be a political decision by this administration.About 190 versus less than 10. Seems like if we want these jokers brought to justice, a trial is the way to go.

[Ink Asylum]

Giuliani a raging partisan hypocrite? Be still my beating heart.

[Dukefrukem]

Why? It's an excellent idea. You attacked us here, we'll try you here. You killed our citizens here, we'll bring you to justice here. We can handle whatever "danger" results.

NYers don't want to deal with this. They don't want to deal with the traffic, the security, the memories. This could go on for "years". They don't want to relive the pain and agony, let alone the family of the victims. They should try them in a field in Kansas somewhere.

[Ink Asylum]

Really? Has there been a poll?

I'm a NYer and I'll put up with the occasional traffic snarl to see this guy brought to justice blocks from where his crime was committed. I deal with increased security on a daily basis; I won't even notice some slight increase in police.

Relive the pain and agony? As if we don't every time we look at our skyline? Every year when we have a memorial and turn on the giant twin spotlights? Walk past what remains a huge hole in the ground?

I thought it was supposed to be cathartic to see someone who wronged you brought to justice. I'm sure plenty of victims families will be glad to watch the trial commence and will want to be sitting in the front row when he's put to death.

[Dukefrukem]

Really? Has there been a poll?

I'm a NYer and I'll put up with the occasional traffic snarl to see this guy brought to justice blocks from where his crime was committed. I deal with increased security on a daily basis; I won't even notice some slight increase in police.

Relive the pain and agony? As if we don't every time we look at our skyline? Every year when we have a memorial and turn on the giant twin spotlights? Walk past what remains a huge hole in the ground?

I thought it was supposed to be cathartic to see someone who wronged you brought to justice. I'm sure plenty of victims families will be glad to watch the trial commence and will want to be sitting in the front row when he's put to death.

You're a NYCer? or a NYer?

[Zero]

You're a NYCer? or a NYer?

It's pretty obvious from his post.

[Ink Asylum]

You're a NYCer? or a NYer?

NYCer. Live in Queens, work in Manhattan.

Also, if he is tried in NYC (which probably won't happen for another couple years), the courthouse they're thinking about has a high security police station next door. Typically, defendants will be kept there and brought into the courthouse via a passageway. So it's not like every day will see some police motorcade driving downtown with angry protestors throwing rocks and messing up traffic. Little chance for a daring Al Qaeda high speed ambush with RPGs and roadside bombs ala The Dark Knight.

[Spockrocket]

I fail to see why anyone objects to it taking place in New York. Security certainly shouldn't be an issue; as Ink pointed out; this is one of the most heavily guarded criminals ever, and it's about time real justice was served. Given that the attacks took place in NYC, why shouldn't the offender be tried in NYC? I'll admit that the jury is not going to be fair at all, but would any jury in the United States be fair to this guy? I doubt it. So let's go ahead and have it in NYC. Can't wait for it to get started.

[diablopath]

I just hope they don't put him to death.

I'd much rather see the man spend many years of great health locked away in solitary confinement.

[Generation ABXY]

I imagine there's probably no chance in hell it'll ever happen, but I wonder what the reaction would be if KSM was found not guilty...

[Shieldmaiden]

Why? It's an excellent idea. You attacked us here, we'll try you here. You killed our citizens here, we'll bring you to justice here. We can handle whatever "danger" results.

My feelings on the matter is that it's too personal in New York. Too great a chance of justice being replaced with revenge.

[civil]

NYCer. Live in Queens, work in Manhattan.
Hey, Queens! If the gf and I wind up moving to NYC that's most likely where we'll wind up.

Er, back to the bad guys, sorry to derail.

[Ink Asylum]

Hey, Queens! If the gf and I wind up moving to NYC that's most likely where we'll wind up.

Queens is a good place to live these days if you don't mind riding the subway. You can live close to the main lines with cheaper rent and more room than Manhattan or Brooklyn.

You'd better move here quickly, though, before KSM breaks out of prison and takes the city hostage, or something.

[Generation ABXY]

You hear that? He wants you dead, civil.

Also, where are you getting that, Ink? I know I haven't seen anyone suggest he'll escape (not here nor anywhere else).

[Ink Asylum]

It's hyperbolic. Kind of like when I joked that he'd be fighting Spider-Man. No one's predicting that either.

[civil]

Queens is a good place to live these days if you don't mind riding the subway. You can live close to the main lines with cheaper rent and more room than Manhattan or Brooklyn.

You'd better move here quickly, though, before KSM breaks out of prison and takes the city hostage, or something.
If we do so, it'll be next year, summer probably. There are many hurdles we've got to go through but that's where we both want to move to.

You hear that? He wants you dead, civil.
Nah. I'm actually hoping things go terribly wrong so I can get cheaper rent.

[Slack3r78]

Heh, there's actually been something of a discussion going on this on my Facebook wall.

As I said there, Glenn Greenwald more or less covers my thoughts on this:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/14/terrorism

[Dorkandproudofit]

It's hyperbolic. Kind of like when I joked that he'd be fighting Spider-Man. No one's predicting that either.

Waitaminnut...

Ink lives in Queens, NY....

Is a total geek...

Cracks jokes often...


HOLY SHIT! INK IS SPIDER-MAN!!!!! :eek:

[Ultima Thulian]

I don't care about it being NYC. I do share the good doctor's concern though. I can understand why they'd want to try him in a civillian court, but it's a risky move.

[Sl1pstream]

I live in NYC and I'm not worried. The way some people talk you'd think this guy's a super villain, and he's going to bust out of the courtroom, kidnap Mary Jane, and fight Spider Man atop the Empire State Building.

That'd be pretty awesome actually, especially if you can fit Captain America in there somewhere.

[johnperkins21]

I'm more upset about KSM getting a trial in a civilian court (rather than the military tribunals Congress set up) than the fact the trial will be in NYC. We're better equipped to handle this sort of circus than anywhere else in the US, but it should still be a military trial, not a civilian one.

Why? It wasn't a war crime. Unless you consider the war on terror an actual war, which is profoundly ridiculous. Timothy McVeigh was tried in federal court. Isn't it basically the same thing?

[Slack3r78]

Why? It wasn't a war crime. Unless you consider the war on terror an actual war, which is profoundly ridiculous. Timothy McVeigh was tried in federal court. Isn't it basically the same thing?

Ramzi Yousef, et al, were tried for the 1993 WTC bombing in civilian court in NYC. Just about any precedent you can find is trying terrorists in civilian court, for that matter.

[johnperkins21]

Ramzi Yousef, et al, were tried for the 1993 WTC bombing in civilian court in NYC. Just about any precedent you can find is trying terrorists in civilian court, for that matter.

That's what I thought, which is why I don't see where the big outrage is coming from for trying these guys in Federal Court as opposed to military tribunals.

[ShivaX]

That's what I thought, which is why I don't see where the big outrage is coming from for trying these guys in Federal Court as opposed to military tribunals.

I imagine theres a few camps on that:

1) People who don't want them to get a fair trail and think a tribunal is a guaranteed conviction whereas a civvie court they might get off.

2) People who fear some Magneto scenario. These guys will break out with their super-powers or something or a private army will rush in and rescue them like its some shitty action movie.

3) People who just want to criticize the Obama administration. If Bush had done it they'd praise it, but since Obama is doing it its the Worst Idea Ever and a threat to us all or whatever. They've already done it on countless other issues (decrying the actions of Obama while they're on record for praising Bush for doing the exact same thing) so its not like its a new thing.

[johnperkins21]

I imagine theres a few camps on that:

1) People who don't want them to get a fair trail and think a tribunal is a guaranteed conviction whereas a civvie court they might get off.

2) People who fear some Magneto scenario. These guys will break out with their super-powers or something or a private army will rush in and rescue them like its some shitty action movie.

3) People who just want to criticize the Obama administration. If Bush had done it they'd praise it, but since Obama is doing it its the Worst Idea Ever and a threat to us all or whatever. They've already done it on countless other issues (decrying the actions of Obama while they're on record for praising Bush for doing the exact same thing) so its not like its a new thing.

If anyone thinks these guys are going to get a fair trial, I've a CD Key for Modern Warfare 2 to sell them.

I'd say it's all #3. Fox News has basically destroyed American politics. There is no more room for reasonable debate, just partisan bullshit. It's quite sad.

[Shrinn]

As good or bad as Fox News is, they serve a specific mind set of the people. I don't think they're brainwashing anyone, just speaking to those who have ideas that resonate with those that Fox says. They're that way because some people want it.

[DoctorFinger]

Why? It wasn't a war crime. Unless you consider the war on terror an actual war, which is profoundly ridiculous. Timothy McVeigh was tried in federal court. Isn't it basically the same thing?McVeigh committed the act on American soil. KSM plotted the attack from foreign soil, was captured on foreign soil and couched the attack as an overt act of war by a foreign power (al Qaeda) against the US. Pearl Harbor was an attack on American soil, but it was treated rightly as an act of war, not as a matter for civilian courts. And yes, I do consider 9/11 (and the Cole bombing, the Khobar Towers, among other attacks) to be part of a war.
But beyond the justifications, there's the practical matter. KSM wasn't Mirandized, he wasn't given the rights awarded to the accused in the US. There is also a lot of sensitive info which the defendant has to be given in a civilian trial which in a military setting would only be available to his military attorney. The man who prosecuted Omar Abdel Rahman (the Blind Sheik) for the first WTC attack says that a ton of valuable intel went back to al Qaeda as a result of that trial, and the same would happen in this case.

Two other points. If KSM somehow merits a civilian trial, why not all of the other al Qaeda honchos we have in custody for planning the attack? We have something like 40 al Qaeda heads in custody, but only 5 of them are getting civilian trials. Why not all of them? Congress created these military tribunals for just such a reason, why not use them for their intended purpose?

[Slack3r78]

KSM plotted the attack from foreign soil, was captured on foreign soil and couched the attack as an overt act of war by a foreign power (al Qaeda) against the US.
Doesn't matter with conspiracy charges.

KSM wasn't Mirandized
So? It just means the statements he made after arrest would be inadmissible.

Two other points. If KSM somehow merits a civilian trial, why not all of the other al Qaeda honchos we have in custody for planning the attack?
They should be. That's exactly what a lot of people have been arguing for years now.

We have something like 40 al Qaeda heads in custody, but only 5 of them are getting civilian trials. Why not all of them? Congress created these military tribunals for just such a reason, why not use them for their intended purpose?
Because setting them up in the first place was an attempt to make an end run around the law. I think we're better than that, frankly.

EDIT:

RE: Conspiracy - seriously click any of the names on this list:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

They're almost all wanted on conspiracy charges. It doesn't matter that they're outside the US or that the conspiracy planning took place outside the US.

EDIT II:

A good example of this is Ali Atwa:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teratwa.htm

He's wanted on charges related to the hijacking of TWA 847 in 1985, which neither originated from or was destined for the United States. His participation took place entirely outside of the United States. He's still wanted on Federal charges, not some dreamed up tribunal.

[DoctorFinger]

Again, why didn't we put the Nazis or the heads of the Japanese military on trial in Hawaii for the attacks on Pearl Harbor? Because it was an act of war, which is what I consider the 9/11 attacks to be. It wasn't just an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, and therefore not something the civilian courts should get involved in.

[Slack3r78]

Again, why didn't we put the Nazis or the heads of the Japanese military on trial in Hawaii for the attacks on Pearl Harbor? Because it was an act of war, which is what I consider the 9/11 attacks to be. It wasn't just an act of terrorism, it was an act of war, and therefore not something the civilian courts should get involved in.
Because terrorist groups are not sovereign states. That's a huge difference right off the bat.

In fact, the entire legal basis for holding these people outside of the requirements of the Geneva Convention is because they aren't members of signatory states.

[Ink Asylum]

Whether or not you think it was an act of war greatly influences how you view these things, of course.

I don't think it was an act of war. Al Qaeda's forces number in the hundreds, possibly a couple thousand at best. Can a couple hundred people with no permanent state really declare war on a country? If everyone registered on COG, from all over the world, started suicide bombing Canadian buildings are we at war with them? I think that's stretching the definition. We'd be terrorists committing criminal acts.

[DoctorFinger]

al Qaeda (and for that matter Hizballah in Lebanon) is the 21st century equivalent of the Barbary Pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs); and the US declared war on them back in the 18th century for much the same reasons we're fighting al Qaeda now. They weren't a sovereign nation, but we declared war on a sovereign nation to stop them.

It's the same with KSM. We went to war with Afghanistan to stop the attacks, even though the government of Afghanistan wasn't technically responsible for the strike. But they were intentionally harboring the entity which did perpetrate the attacks - much the same way the North African nations harbored the Barbary pirates - and KSM is a captive of that war.

[Generation ABXY]

1) People who don't want them to get a fair trail and think a tribunal is a guaranteed conviction whereas a civvie court they might get off.

Given Holder's comments, assuming what I heard was accurate, I am curious why they'd even bother to give them a fair trial.

2) People who fear some Magneto scenario. These guys will break out with their super-powers or something or a private army will rush in and rescue them like its some shitty action movie.

Or, as has been said, someone might try to pop the guy. (You guys are being hyperbolic, but on the wrong tangent.) Personally, if he's found guilty, I’d much rather see the guy sit in a cell for the rest of his life instead of getting killed - whether by the death penalty or not.

But, hey, if New York wants to do it, have at.

[DoctorFinger]

Like I said before, if he's going to get a civilian trial, NYC is the best equipped city to handle it. If Magneto and Doctor Doom do team up to invade his trial, we have enough superheroes to stop them, cold.

[MagGnome]

If we do so, it'll be next year, summer probably. There are many hurdles we've got to go through but that's where we both want to move to.

Great! Then I'll have a place to crash in NYC! :D


Because terrorist groups are not sovereign states. That's a huge difference right off the bat.

In fact, the entire legal basis for holding these people outside of the requirements of the Geneva Convention is because they aren't members of signatory states.

Exactly. The justifications used to thwart the Geneva Conventions are the exact opposite of the justifications used to set up the Military Tribunals. The Bush Administration basically just did everything and anything it could to thwart the law. I think it's unfortunate that no members of the administration are going to stand trial for the many crimes that they've been accused of, but that's a different topic.

[ShivaX]

Or, as has been said, someone might try to pop the guy. (You guys are being hyperbolic, but on the wrong tangent.) Personally, if he's found guilty, I’d much rather see the guy sit in a cell for the rest of his life instead of getting killed - whether by the death penalty or not.

But, hey, if New York wants to do it, have at.

Well from what I've gathered the facility they're using makes that a near impossibility. Its not like the guy is going to be driven across town from his cell to the courthouse every day. I guess I overlooked that concern, but it seems almost on par with the Magneto scenario.

[ShivaX]

al Qaeda (and for that matter Hizballah in Lebanon) is the 21st century equivalent of the Barbary Pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs); and the US declared war on them back in the 18th century for much the same reasons we're fighting al Qaeda now. They weren't a sovereign nation, but we declared war on a sovereign nation to stop them.

It's the same with KSM. We went to war with Afghanistan to stop the attacks, even though the government of Afghanistan wasn't technically responsible for the strike. But they were intentionally harboring the entity which did perpetrate the attacks - much the same way the North African nations harbored the Barbary pirates - and KSM is a captive of that war.

Yeah but thats back when we actually declared war. Whos the last nation we declared war on? The Axis powers in WW2. I guess that was the last war we were in.

Nowdays the president just sends troops over and then when Congress tries to stop them by denying funds (their only option) they are accused of wanting to kill our servicemen by denying them the tools they need to survive.

I'd love to see our nation go back to following the Constitution on this point, its beyond stupid to leave such a massive issue in the hands of one person.

[DoctorFinger]

Yeah but thats back when we actually declared war. Whos the last nation we declared war on? The Axis powers in WW2. I guess that was the last war we were in.

Nowdays the president just sends troops over and then when Congress tries to stop them by denying funds (their only option) they are accused of wanting to kill our servicemen by denying them the tools they need to survive.

I'd love to see our nation go back to following the Constitution on this point, its beyond stupid to leave such a massive issue in the hands of one person.
Actually, we officially declared war on Iraq during the first Gulf War. I believe that was only the 6-7th time it's been done, and the Barbary Wars were not on that list. It was a simple authorization of military action.

As to whether or not the President has - or should have - the power to send troops anywhere, the constitution explicitly makes him the Commander in Chief, so on that count we are following the constitution. The other options - making the absolute head of the military a non-civilian or vesting all military functions in Congress - would be disasters. If Congress really wanted to end the wars, I believe they could force the issue without cutting funds, but I'm not positive on that point.

[johnperkins21]

the constitution explicitly makes him the Commander in Chief

Well, only of the Army, Navy, and militia. :p

Article II - Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.

[ShivaX]

Actually, we officially declared war on Iraq during the first Gulf War. I believe that was only the 6-7th time it's been done, and the Barbary Wars were not on that list. It was a simple authorization of military action.

Doing some online searching about it seems to indicate that we didn't even declare war for the Barbary Wars which flys in the face of everything I learned in school. The only formal declarations were: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WW1 and WW2. Everything else was "authorized by Congress".

As to whether or not the President has - or should have - the power to send troops anywhere, the constitution explicitly makes him the Commander in Chief, so on that count we are following the constitution. The other options - making the absolute head of the military a non-civilian or vesting all military functions in Congress - would be disasters. If Congress really wanted to end the wars, I believe they could force the issue without cutting funds, but I'm not positive on that point.

I honestly don't think Congress can stop a war once its begun. To my knowledge they never have, it always comes down to the President at the time to end things.

And as far as the entire thing is concerned (of course this is wikipedia):

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[4] These include instances in which the United States fought in Korea in 1950, the Philippine-American War from 1898-1903, and in Nicaragua in 1927.

And there is the War Powers Act, which has been followed pretty consistently since Vietnam. Of course the problem isn't typically getting into wars, its getting out of them. Once we're in Congress seems to have little to no options beyond the political suicide of cutting funding.

[Slack3r78]

Actually, we officially declared war on Iraq during the first Gulf War. I believe that was only the 6-7th time it's been done, and the Barbary Wars were not on that list.
This is incorrect. The Gulf War, as with the current conflict in Iraq was an authorized military action, not a declared war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States#Formal

[Slack3r78]

Doing some online searching about it seems to indicate that we didn't even declare war for the Barbary Wars which flys in the face of everything I learned in school. The only formal declarations were: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, WW1 and WW2. Everything else was "authorized by Congress".

The Barbary states declared war on the United States, the Congress authorized military action against them in turn.

[DoctorFinger]

On a slightly tangential note, what will jury selection be like on a case of this magnitude? My uncle recently served on a Federal jury in New Jersey for a relatively minor and low key corruption trial, and the process was insane. What sort of people would you get on the KSM jury, and how long will the trial last?

[cppcrusader]

Well if he's just going to go ahead and plead guilty I don't think they'll even get to pick a jury. I believe the process goes plea is heard before the judge, trial date is set and then a jury is selected.

[DoctorFinger]

His lawyers have said that since the trial will now be held in civilian court, he will be pleading not guilty and arguing that the attacks were justified.

[Ink Asylum]

That should speed things along.