Putting 9/11 terrorists on trial in New York

• bigdaddy2003

  

  It seems that the government has opted to put the men responsible for the attacks on 9/11 on trial like everyday criminals instead of letting a military court handle it. Apparently President Obama feels that the attacks were the result of years of America's arrogance around the world which is totally absurd.
  
  What do you think of this move? I personally think it's a horrible move.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  It's politically motivated, which is all you really need to know.
  
  The sensible thing would have been to just proceed with military trials and executions.
  
  Obama and his cronies don't do sensible, however.
• derek bomar

  

  won't executions be easier to attain in civil proceedings?
• derek bomar

  

  http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/federal-death-penalty/page.do?id=1101082
  
  The U.S. military has its own death penalty statute, although no executions have been carried out since 1961
• Glory Days

  

  I have a feeling there are going to be a lot of technical problems if this goes to a civilian court.
• jmog

  Bad Idea for many reasons, here's a few...
  
  1. Its 100% politically motivated, if you don't believe that your VERY naive.
  
  2. It will heighten terrorism alerts in NYC the whole time the trial is going on, both on the terrorists planning attacks and on the authorities trying to stifle their plans.
  
  3. It will be mainly used to put the US government (mainly what was done during the Bush Admin) on trial. Hence back to #1, it is politically motivated.
  
  4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.
  
  5. This is the very reason military tribunals were created, for WAR CRIMES. This is not a crime committed by some US citizen on US soil, this was a war crime and should be handled like every other war crime.
• CharlieHog

  jmog wrote: 4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.

  
  Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  derek bomar wrote: http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/federal-death-penalty/page.do?id=1101082
  
  The U.S. military has its own death penalty statute, although no executions have been carried out since 1961

  Your link would lead me to believe if tribunals had done the trials under that relatively new law (related to Gitmo) we don't know how long it might be before an execution would occur.
  
  However, I'd rather have the military in charge of this since it's related to an attack on our country and not a civil infraction; and these are not US citizens so they do not deserve to be treated as such.
• jmog

  CharlieHog wrote:

  jmog wrote: 4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.

  
  Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.

  Do you really think this administration cares that much if they walk or not? Or do they care more about making Bush/Cheney look really bad?
  
  The defense lawyers will get every bit of interogation used against these guys out there in open court and THAT is why this is going to our public criminal system and NOT a military trial.
• BCSbunk

  The Constitution covers this. Article 3 section 2 it includes foreigners who commit crimes against the US.
  
  Section 2.
  
  
  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
  
  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
  
  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
  
  or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. FROM 1st paragraph
  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed FROM last paragraph.
  
  I think ALL CRIMES is very very clear. I have seen many unamerican people though who wish to destroy the Constitution which I swore to defend as a soldier.
  
  IF Bush/Cheney are brought into this then so be it. They should have handled this on their watch and failed to do so.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.

  From what I understand, they can gather up a billion pages worth of evidence and it wouldn't necessarily mean a dang thing. Evidence still needs to be judged whether it's admissible. Evidence is thrown out of civil court proceedings all the time. (I have a relative who is a d-lawyer)
  ..........
  
  I say it's a bad idea. Mainly for all the reasons listed above.
• BoatShoes

  It will be interesting to see some of the evidence the Court finds admissible in this case. Personally, considering that the Feds have elected to try other detainees in military tribunals which aren't bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence, it leads me to believe that Holder doesn't foresee much of a problem in getting in the crux of the evidence against Mohammed. the Tribunals generally adhere to the FRE, but they're not strictly bound like the Federal District Court is.
  
  For instance, one exception to hearsay is the "excited utterance exception," which means you can get an out of court statement in during instances when say, the declarant was frightened or in some way, not in a position to likely lie about it, etc. It'd be interesting to see an argument that statement's made after waterboarding fit this excpetion to hearsay! Could you imagine! There'd be prosecutors waterboarding perps every where! haha
  
  Personally, I doubt the U.S. attorneys will even have to go there.
• eersandbeers

  bigdaddy2003 wrote: Apparently President Obama feels that the attacks were the result of years of America's arrogance around the world which is totally absurd.
  

  
  Actually that is a huge part of the problem. Our intervention in foreign nations directly contributed to 9/11. It's called blowback.
  
  But that doesn't really have anything to do with why they decided to put these men on trial in NYC.
  
  I have absolutely no problem with it. We tried Moussaoui in New York, so I don't see why we can't do the same with KSM.
• fish82

  

  It's an awesome idea...mainly due to the residual teeth marks in Obama and Holder's glutes when it's all said and done.
• dwccrew

  

  BCSbunk wrote: The Constitution covers this. Article 3 section 2 it includes foreigners who commit crimes against the US.
  
  Section 2.
  
  
  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
  
  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
  
  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
  
  or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. FROM 1st paragraph
  The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed FROM last paragraph.
  
  I think ALL CRIMES is very very clear. I have seen many unamerican people though who wish to destroy the Constitution which I swore to defend as a soldier.
  
  IF Bush/Cheney are brought into this then so be it. They should have handled this on their watch and failed to do so.

  This pretty much sums it up, as far as the 9-11 suspects go. Are some people really this dense? Read the CONSTITUTION, it clearly states that these guys be tried in the US. Now the guys they caught in foreign lands attacking the military, those can be tried by military tribunal.
  
  People are so set in thinking it makes the US look weak (trying the 9-11 suspects in NY) when in fact the founders of the country have set it up to be that way. Get over yourselves and your egos. This is how they, the founders, intended it to be. I'd say they did a pretty good job setting this country up and that we have done a good job screwing the country up. Maybe we should follow their model instead of some of the suggestions on here to deviate away from that.
• cbus4life

  Remember.
  
  People only believe in the Constitution when it fits perfectly with their own specific ideology, and this certainly goes for both sides.
• cbus4life

  jmog wrote:

  CharlieHog wrote:

  jmog wrote: 4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.

  Rofl, you honestly believe that the administration will let the people responsible for effing 9/11 walk if it fits their political motives?
  
  
  
  Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.

  Do you really think this administration cares that much if they walk or not? Or do they care more about making Bush/Cheney look really bad?
  
  The defense lawyers will get every bit of interogation used against these guys out there in open court and THAT is why this is going to our public criminal system and NOT a military trial.

• dwccrew

  

  cbus4life wrote: Remember.
  
  People only believe in the Constitution when it fits perfectly with their own specific ideology, and this certainly goes for both sides.

  +1
• BCSbunk

  cbus4life wrote:

  jmog wrote:

  CharlieHog wrote:

  jmog wrote: 4. With our laws, Miranda rights, etc most of the evidence/confessions by these guys will be thrown out of our court system, at that point what will we have to convict them on? Come on, they were waterboarded, whether you agree with that or not you KNOW everything that came out of their mouth after that, even if it stopped future terror attacks or brought more terrorists responsible for 9/11, will be inadmissable in our court system. There is a good chance these guys will "walk" if they are given the same rights as you, myself, and every other American citizen.

  Rofl, you honestly believe that the administration will let the people responsible for effing 9/11 walk if it fits their political motives?
  
  
  
  Do you really think the Attorney General would move ahead with this if he didn't think he had sufficient evidence to convict? He understands what will and will not be admissible.

  Do you really think this administration cares that much if they walk or not? Or do they care more about making Bush/Cheney look really bad?
  
  The defense lawyers will get every bit of interogation used against these guys out there in open court and THAT is why this is going to our public criminal system and NOT a military trial.

  This is a baseless assertion. You have no idea if this administration cares if they walk or if it is about making Bush/Cheney look bad.
  
  This administration needs no help with making Bush/Cheney look bad they did that all by themselves.
  
  This administration is now following the constitution which is the only right thing to do.
  
  This fear mongering by the Republican party is nothing more than hyperbole.
  
  It would not surprise me to see them plead guilty and this be done very quickly. If not then we will follow the constitution not pervert it at someones whim.
• jmog

  BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.
• CharlieHog

  This article makes some good points arguing against the civilian trial.
• derek bomar

  

  CharlieHog wrote: This article makes some good points arguing against the civilian trial.

  link doesn't work - regardless, all that's going on with people against this is feam mongering. Our courts can try them, and if they can't than they don't deserve to be held due to lack of evidence.
• LJ

  

  I've tried and tried to get CharlieHog's link to work, and for some reason it just won't.
• BCSbunk

  jmog wrote: BCSBunk, if you don't believe this administration has been all about "its Bush's fault" or "I'm not Bush, so I should be elected" or "look how bad Bush was", then you really haven't been paying attention.

  I have been paying very close attention.
  
  I guess it depends on who you are paying attention to or listening to.
  
  When you use the statement ALL you better be prepared to defend it because all I need to do is show one exception and ALL goes out the window.
  
  Thus what you have stated is nothing more than vitrolic parroting of certain tv and radio show hosts.
• BCSbunk

  CharlieHog wrote: This article makes some good points arguing against the civilian trial.

  If it is arguing against a civilian trial then it arguing against The Constitution of the United States of America.