Comments on: Trying 9-11 suspects in New York makes sense

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:06:17 +0000

Thanks, Mauigirl, and welcome back.

Macrum, I'm conflicted about executing these murderers. Generally, I'm opposed to executions because there have been so many cases where people executed or on death row have been found innocent through DNA testing or after someone else confessed to the crime they were convicted of. The 9-11 terrorists are a different matter. But denying the terrorists martyrdom is a strong reason for sentencing them to life, so I'm OK with that. It just irks me that our taxes would have to pay their room, board, medical care, etc., for decades.

By: MRMacrum

MRMacrum — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:21:27 +0000

S.W. Anderson – We seem to be on the same page here with the exception of how we think the trial will play out. And yes, at least Obama is moving forward and as I said earlier, maybe we can put this behind us. I have heard conjecture that the accused will plead guilty so that they can become executed martyrs. I hope we instead sentence them to Life.

By: Mauigirl

Mauigirl — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:44:38 +0000

Well said. As you know, I totally agree. It is the first step toward trying to rectify all the wrong moves that the Bush/Cheney administration made.

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:53:21 +0000

Holte, more than just Nazi political leaders were tried in Germany and, I think, at Nuremburg. Generals down to camp guards were tried, and many executed. There were also trials in France, Italy, the Low Countries, Scandanavia and probably elsewhere. Likewise in the former Yugoslavia. The big names got most of the coverage but others were called to account — officers, troops, POW guards and collaborators. None were soldiers penalized only for fighting for their country. They were tried for atrocities, for crimes against humanity. Regarding delay, there absolutely has been a lapse of justice in handling terror war detainees, as I've acknowledged.

Bee, I think the worry is a terrorist attack on New York, not jihadists showing up to rescue their fellow dirtbags or shoot up the court. Or, there could be some other kind of reprisal. Security is a big concern, as it should be.

Macrum, the whole thing is a mess. That would've been true even if Bush & Co. had handled it competently. Our laws and procedures are set up for dealing with uniformed soldiers, usually captured in a war zone, not civilian criminals. Our perceptions from 9-11 on were that we were carrying out a military response to a military threat. In fact, we sent the military out to deal with a criminal conspiracy. ~~Obama's~~ Holder's decision brings this muddled situation back to reality, trying criminals in criminal court. Justice might be blind, but I don't agree this will be a joke of a trial. Trials are about getting at the truth. To the extent that happens, the trial can mean closure and, I hope, some sense of justice being done for the kin and friends of 9-11 casualties and for the country. That's important for us to do and for the world to see us doing, imperfectly as it no doubt will be done.

By: MRMacrum

MRMacrum — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:34:42 +0000

I am even wondering now why we are even bothering to try them. More than a few “experts” on both sides contend the terrorists tried in NYC will never get out of prison, no matter what the verdict. The legal leg this is propped up on is “they still represent a threat to the USA”.

Again just my opinion, but it is time for the Left to realize that these people will not get what we consider a fair trial. Any notion of the nobility of American Justice will be waived when the security concerns of this country are thought to be at stake. Ideology always loses out in these situations.

I do however like the in your face method here of having this joke of a trial done in NYC. It’s a gamble politically for Obama. I would be more comfortable though with all of them being tried in the same venue, no matter which one it was. This selectivity bothers me.

BTW – Just call me Crum. MR are my first two initials -;)

By: Bee

Bee — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:06:08 +0000

Ok, so the republicans are going apeshit because of “security”. Please, drug dealers and gangbangers get tried every freaking day in New York, and in most of the rest of the country, but we don’t hear about their cronies breaking them out of the courthouse, so I really don’t see security as a concern.
I agree with SW in that the real motivation is a fear that some of the truth will get out, and that won’t be good for Bushites in general.

By: holte ender

holte ender — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:24:30 +0000

The Nuremberg trials were held in 1945-46, the smoke was still rising from rubble that was Germany, they were swift and Nazi leadership was the main target. Justice should be like that, not years and years later. Stalin wanted all German officers executed, between 50,000 and 100,000, Churchill and FDR/Truman didn’t want soldiers executed for fighting for their country. Slobodan Milosevic was accused of genocide and was a politician. I didn’t forget these things, didn’t think them a worthy comparison to the bungling excuse for justice that has been going on for nearly 10 years.

By: S.W. Anderson

S.W. Anderson — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:30:46 +0000

MrMacrum, I think they're all common criminals, not soldiers, and should be tried as such. Justice delayed is justice denied, so as you note they've all been detained way too long without trial. I don't think fair trials can't, or inevitably won't, be held at Guantanamo. Open proceedings and expert oversight are called for, though.

Tom, Giuliani is a political hanger-on with a strong sleazy streak. His expert opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald's (if the price hasn't gone up again).

Holte, you're forgetting the Nuremburg trials, plus some more-recent ones in the former Yugoslavia. Communist Bloc countries also had a bad habit of declaring POW's spies, and trying them accordingly. I think many prosecutors and defense attorneys will want to participate in the KSM+4 trials.

By: holte ender

holte ender — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:44:04 +0000

Holder is doing what should have been done years ago, how are they going to get a jury that’s impartial, defense lawyers will be lining up for this one, first of all lets define what’s the difference between a prisoner of war and a battlefield combatant, prisoners of war don’t stand trial.

By: Tom Harper

Tom Harper — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:29:41 +0000

I think it makes perfect sense to try them in New York City. There may be some risks, but I was in favor of Obama moving these trials out of Gitmo and into the U.S., so here we are.

I saw an article on one of the leftwing news sites about Giuliani ranting about this decision. It was a rehash of his “a noun, a verb and 9/11″ formula. That alone told me that Holder, Paterson and Bloomberg had made the right decision.