jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (118 posts)

Should the terror suspects be tried in New York City

  1. Friendlyword profile image61
    Friendlywordposted 8 years ago

    I think they should be tried where the crime occurred. I think we New Yorkers deserve to some kind of justice at long last.  We did not get the Towers rebuilt immediately like we should have. The leaders of this City gave Osama Bin Laden his final victory by replacing our Towers with some ridiculous mess.  They were our pyramids, you could see them from any part of the City. We were very proud of them. To be on the one of the top floors of the towers and feel them sway in the wind like a tree was a feeling I will never forget.

    Some people feel we the people of New York dont need to see some of the people responsible for destroying the towers and killing alot of us tried here in New York City.  One of those people is our ex Mayor. Why...because he is going to run for Governor and he does not want the world to see news footage of him running down Church Street away from his Disaster Command Center.  The Command Center he built in the World Trade Center after the first bombing attack.  Smart Man.  And...he really does not want you to see news footage of him running down Church Street with New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Keric. He is in jail, or he's out on bail, or he got his bail revoked for committing a crime while he was on bail...I cant keep up with the guy.  Anyway, to avoid some embarrassment or ex Mayor is willing to deny the us the chance to finally see some type of justice done at long last.

    1. profile image59
      C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't believe this guy being tried should have the benefit of our legal system. He was captured abroad and should have been tried via Military Tribunal. Where the Tribunal would be held? I couldn't care less. What angers me is that 8 years later this guy still has not been dealt with.  I can't imagine that this guy has provided 8 years of usefull information.
      My fear now is that his defense will be that he was tortured. That any admissions will be thrown out. If this guy is aquitted, it will have more to do with what happened to him after the attack than his involvement in the attack.

      1. profile image0
        cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        [/b]


        i agree completely.

        p.s. will his lawyers be able to say he wasn't Mirandized? good lord i hope not...

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I guess the Bush years of tyranny are not over yet.  The torture issue was a blot on our military and should never have happened.  But I guess the victims of that torture have it coming anyway.  Is that your stance? Is the evidence acquired during torture going to be admisable in a military tribunal? Is the US government going to take the position of justifying torture for information and convicting evidence?  The Israelis learned a long time ago that torture is a very unreliable way of gaining information.  A lot of conservatives want to blame Obama for this situation but the Bush/Chenney Dynamic Duo were the ones who set the table with the torture and Gitmo and now another mess is presented to Obama to clean up.  If Obama allows a travesty to take place it will set back US and foreign relations by years and invalidate any rights issue the US holds on any other nation.

          1. profile image59
            C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            "The Israelis learned a long time ago that torture is a very unreliable way of gaining information."

            Thats why they "PROFILE" because that does work. 
            Also cohercing someone does not constitute torture.

            Don't worry, the rest of the world IS watching, those that matter anyway...CHINA, RUSSIA, N.KOREA, IRAN...Yes they are watching. What they see is weakness in the face of adversity. They see indecisiveness when time is of the essence. They see division when what is needed is unity. This will dictate their actions.

            If its not a question of US Rights, why have a trial at all?

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Better yet you should ask yourself why have a trial at all if it isn't based in Human rights?

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                That would be a question of Civil Rights based on US Law. These men are not US Citizens.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  But we don't sanction other countries for civil rights, we sanction them for human rights.  To take this away for the sake of expediency or convenience contradicts our own intiatives.

                  1. profile image59
                    C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Civil rights are really no different than Human Rights. Further we only sanction those who can't hurt us economically. If that were not so, China would not have MFN status.

            2. Friendlyword profile image61
              Friendlywordposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              WHY HAVE A TRIAL AT ALL? Like I said before, everybody has an agenda that does not include the People of New York City. WE WERE ATTACKED!  WE WERE KILLED! WE INHALED THE SMOKE FOR WEEKS! WE ARE STILL DYING FROM THAT ATTACK! Hold a civilian trial, hold a military trial, Try them thru the World Court. I dont give a Damm what you call the Court. Just make sure it is held Downtown Manhattan, New York City.

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Couldn't care less where it's held.  Manhattan is as good a place as any. In fact I do agree the Citizens there should have a say. What will the people of Manhattan think if this trial goes poorly?

              2. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                And the question was rhetorical. I don't think its a matter of agenda. Its a simply matter of opinion. Its also not simply a New York tragedy. DC was attacked. Passengers on those planes were from all over the Nation. So were the people inside the towers.

        2. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I believe this will be an argument presented.

          1. profile image0
            cosetteposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            really?

            omg haha....that is almost laughable.

            [/b]

            yep.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Then send it to The Hague and the World Court to try the case.

              1. profile image59
                C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Because they are impotent.

                1. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Or would not serve your intent.

                2. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Or because you may not get the result you want.

              2. profile image0
                sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Now there's a bunch of losers.

      2. Army Infantry Mom profile image60
        Army Infantry Momposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I agree with your comment,..It was a Dam shame they waited 8 years to deal with them,..It would of only taken me 8 minutes to decide what I think they should of got,..

    2. profile image47
      davimesonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The Liberal minded folks in the US Government have finally gone over the edge in a politically motivated exercise that will no doubt backfire on them somewhere down the road. The decision to bring these self admitted terrorists to New York City and put them on trial for their crimes is an attempt to provide a forum for the Dem’s to show they can be tough while also being fair. The idea is to show the American electorate that they can trust the Democrats with National Security while providing the rest of the world with evidence that the USA under the current Government is compassionate and civilized. The first wall you have to hurdle is to call the World Trade Center bombings a “crime” versus an “act of war”. With everything that has happened prior to 9/11 and for sure directly after, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could leap to this conclusion. Secondly by taking this step they are providing war criminals with all of the protections in the Constitution of the United States which should be reserved for US citizens only. Even if you argue that the crime was committed on US soil these guys were certainly not in North America and in fact were captured as Prisoners of War on foreign soil. Third is the fact that the other POW’s in Gitmo either will or have been tried by military tribunals. It is then obvious why the Libs want the high profile guys handled in New York (PUBLICITY!). To the first point it is ludicrous to think that the enemies of the USA will think any better of them because they put these guys on trial. If you look closely at these people and any of the Countries that sympathize with them, you will see that their method of doling out punishment is far more severe and undemocratic than anything seen in the western world. Do you honestly think taking this step will change their thinking? The other western nations (primarily Europe) are almost impotent in terms of their ability to deal with terrorists so why should anyone care what they think? In fact the publicity of these trials will play right into the terrorist’ hands as they will have a national stage to berate the USA which will provide a strong recruiting tool for young Jihadists to help their cause. To the second point can you imagine the life that a judge and jury would have after the trial of these radical Muslims? Does the name Salmon Rushdie conjure up any images? For the last point I have to take you back to WWII and the Nuremburg trials that saw the German leaders who developed and executed the atrocities of that war. They were tried in a World Court under Military rules of procedure. The soldiers were kept in prison camps until the end of the hostilities and then set free to return home. What is wrong with this model? It doesn’t work for the Libs because they see the terrorists as misguided souls that will suddenly wake up and embrace the United States and the Western world when they find out how nice we are. They want to convert the world to our democratic style of life. While that is a nice objective I thought our Country’s first priority was to protect its citizens, and not to save the world? God bless the unfortunate families that lost friends and family in the World Trade Center tragedy. They will have to put up with these arrogant !@#$%$%% standing up on TV every day thumping their chests and berating the United States of America along with their loved ones. I say shame on the political opportunists.
      WWW.seniorsmoment.ca

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Well it seems you have pidgeonholed the topic with regards to placing everyone who does not believe as you in a particular hole.  There is so much distortion and conjecture in that piece that it will take too much time to give every "fact" its' due.  I am all for sending this to the Hague and allowing a war tribunal handle the trial and executions if found guilty.  There is no argument that there should be a trial but what you propose is a travesty.  And for what? To assure a guilty verdict and appease our anger at the cost of our values?  I am sorry but the US is in a pickle over this because you can't espouse Liberty and Justice for Alland railroad a trial because it feels good.

    3. ledefensetech profile image73
      ledefensetechposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      This wasn't a purse snatching or a murder.  This wasn't even a mass murder, this was an act of war.  I'm glad to see these guys going to trial for their actions, but civilian courts are not the place to try acts of war.  How much of a detriment was trying the WTC bombers of 1993 in federal court?  It's past time we started treating these terrorists as what they are, enemies of the United States.

    4. vrbmft profile image79
      vrbmftposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I just posted a blog related to this topic.  My thought is that the people of New York or Manhattan need not be put at risk for another terror attack.  I think holding it in New York is an attempt to rub their noses in it, so to speak, which maybe okay, but with crazy people, rubbing their nose in anything only infuriates them into more craziness.  I think he doesn''t deserve the attention and should be tried in Freezurassov, Alaska.  It was originally a Russian settlement, and now comprises a dozen or so igloos about three blocks from the artic circle.

  2. mistywild profile image61
    mistywildposted 8 years ago

    Abso-frigin-loutely

    1. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Everyone seems to have some personal agenda concerning the 9/11 attack. And they  never seems to include the People of New York in their plans.

      1. mistywild profile image61
        mistywildposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        well, then they are ignorant, New York suffered the most loss of life. Not only that, the word hero was defined by the NYPD and NYFD and such agencies there, those who willingly went in knowing they may not come back out alive, just to try and help another human being, that is definitely the definition of hero to me.

  3. fishtiger58 profile image78
    fishtiger58posted 8 years ago

    Yes they should be tried where the crime took place. Sometimes when a case is high profile they move to a different area. Really I think no matter where they go everyone has heard about it so it doesn't really matter where they are tried as long as they are. And about time too!!

  4. d camp rant profile image60
    d camp rantposted 8 years ago

    The problem is: finding 12 jurors without a bias towards these 5 terrorist. Are you comfortable giving these terrorist our constitutional rights? They were found and taken on Afganistan not U.S. soil. What about the media circus? How does that show respect to the family members of the 3,000 fallen citizens?
    I find it kinda coincidental Eric Holder tried and tried to go after the Bush Admin. and the C.I.A. but to no avail, and now he has found a way.
    Those five scumbags do not deserve our constitutional rights. They most definetly do not deserve the tens of thousands of New Yorkers tax dollars it will take to hold them,feed them, defend them. Did we bring the Nazi's to New York and hold trials for them here? They deserve the same treatment they would give our soldiers and journalist had they found them-beheadings!

    1. The Rope profile image57
      The Ropeposted 8 years ago

      There are different justice rules for treason, why not terrorists? While I do believe NYC should have it's justice, I think using taxpayers money to try them in the normal course of events is a slap in the face for all of us.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        If it were a civilian court or a military court wouldn't the taxpayer still be footing the bill?

        1. The Rope profile image57
          The Ropeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          doesn't take nearly as long

      2. Jonathan Janco profile image71
        Jonathan Jancoposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Gitmo is also funded by the tax payers, so was the trial of Saddam Hussein. I do feel the trial should take place where the crime did. As for housing them in U.S. prisons, I'm perfectly comfortable with that. And obviously they wouldn't be recruiting in our prisons, because the Aryan Brotherhood and the Latin Kings don't like to share their monopolies.

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 8 years ago

      Absolutely Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in New York where the crime took place.  What could be the reason otherwise?  Are we afraid that he will be let off by a weak justice system?  This is the system by which we put our own convicts to death.  Wouldn't it be a little hypocritical to not subject him to the same process we subject ourselves to under the constitution.  If the government is afraid of due process let them prove that he was not entitled to it.  The holding of these people without a trial has been a blight on our record of human rights.  How can we critisize other countries for the very practice we employ?

    3. profile image0
      Poppa Bluesposted 8 years ago

      Absolutely not! They should be put before a military tribunal, tried and executed. They are not US citizens and they are not criminals, they are terrorists captured on a battlefield of war. Why should they get the benefits that US citizens get? Why should they be given a platform to espouse their views of hate?

      This would only be a show trial, designed to try the previous administration for their perceived human rights violations! What if they are found not guilty on some technicality?

      No. No civilian trial!

      1. The Rope profile image57
        The Ropeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I need a 10 Thumbs up icon!  Thanks PB!

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        This statement alone says it all.  You don't trust a fair trial to take place.

        This is not a question of US rights but of human rights.  It is so hypocritical to hold other countries to higher standard when we don't exercise the same standards we push on other countries.  Maybe a trial in the Hague would be better as this was an international incident?

        1. profile image0
          Poppa Bluesposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Again you miss the point! No country not even the USA has EVER tried prisoners of war in civilian courts! What's wrong with a military tribunal? That's a internationally accepted process for justice! There is no good reason to bring that filth back to NY for what would only be a show trial! The AG has said he is confident of the outcome, so what's the point? This idea is stupid on so many levels it's just unfathomable and it clearly highlights the naivete and inexperience of Obama and his minions!

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            But if you are really about the right thing being done I would suggest a trial in The World Court.  This was not just a domestic military event.  The international ties alone dictate that it should be placed in a neutral place with objective oversight.  A military trial has all sorts of caveats with it that won't allow evidence of sensitive national security deemed by the military.  The odds are stacked in the governments favor through control of the evidence. Not a fair way of dealing with the players.  No my friend your obvious bias is ruling you in this case and by denying someone a fair trial and then surely an execution by the same hands will be a dark day for human rights and America.  I guess everyone that doesn't share your view is an Obamamite huh?

        2. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          International incident? One was the mastermind of the attacks. He commited crimes against the US. No, I can not support giving up our sovernty on this guy.

          Technicality. What that means is that it is reasonable to expect that the rules of arrest and miranda probably didn't take place on the battlefield.  Nor did they take place during internment.  Further interogation methods will be questioned. Those are all tecnicalities that could lead to critical evidence being withheld, prejeducial evidence being introduced, etc.  All of these technicalities could lead to an aquittal based on the lack of due process, not the merits of the evidence.

          We have history to teach us how to deal with these people. Barbary Pirates.......

          Bottom line, the biggest miscariage of justice is that all of these clowns are still alive in GTMO.

          HOW DARE YOU! Run on about HUMAN RIGHTS in defence of men who planned the murder of thousands of inocent people....

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
            1. profile image59
              C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              You insist on treating each issue as an "either or" situation. I'm only stating that some cases are extreme. The swiftness and decisiveness of the action creates a deterent. All of that was lost once we held on to them for so long anyway.

              Suspension of what rights? The rights of the Constitution? They are not entitled. Human rights? Maybe if they had displayed a little more humanity they could expect that. No sir, they have no expectation of rights and humane treatment. What they got, they got based on our belief in human dignity. No matter how many high ideals you throw out there, human nature will prevail.
              That doesn't makes us right or wrong, it makes us human.
              Yes, I believe that most people in the US do believe as I. That these men were captured as foriegn enemy combatants and therefore are subject to military justice. Its harsh, but effective.

              When facing extreme violence, fair play was not shooting them on site. 

              Make no mistake about it. The Barbary Piracy was not justice, it was a reckoning.  That is exactly what is needed this day in age. When Jefferson questioned the pirates as to why they attacked the US without provocation they stated they did so based on their interpretation of Islam.  There is nothing new about Radical Islamic Extremism. Its hundreds of years old. The way to confront it is just as old and still valid.

              I couldn't care less about what goes on in other countries. Frankly I'm tired of seeing our men and women die for the freedom of others. Dieing to save face of a foriegn policy blunder. Dieing because politicians insist on injecting their definition of "fair play" into combat campaigns.
              Wanting it both ways?  No sir, I want it one way. Any extremist who allows themselves to be radicalized in their beliefs such that they would carry out attacks on the Citizen's of the US should DIE.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                What you propose in your anger is a slippery slope.  The torture of suspects by the US opened the door for the terrorists to commit horrendous acts on captured US military it will also open the door for the same to our citizens.  This trial you propose will do nothing to end the hostilities.  It will only embolden them to act out on the US in ways we cannot imagine. Is this another subliminal "bring it on" speach? The world is watching and I don't just mean the terrorists.  Suspending human rights for revenge is a double edged sword.  It will come back and get you in ways you can't imagine.

                Unfortunately we have chosen this way to fight a war that is technology way beyond our tactics.  Maybe the same can be said about our legal and justice system to address the situation.

                1. profile image59
                  C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  It is not anger, its resolve. I will not support an attempt to negotiate with terrorist. I will never support negotiations from a real or percieved position of weakness. I will never support an effort to meet force with anything less than overwhelming force. No, "bring it on" is defensive.  I would characterize it as "Unleash the dogs of war"

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Well you must be really happy now that we have two wars going on and maybe that war with Iran can complete the trifecta. The funny thing is that the more war you create with this stance of yours the more we lose.  You cannot fight a terrorist war conventionally because politics is the issue and guerilla tactics the physical arm.  That is why they will win this war against us and our unending lunacy to fight it. It has been very effective for the eight years it has gone on. What has shown you differently

                    1. profile image59
                      C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      You know better, after discussing the issues with you many times you know my stance on both wars. Too much of the anomosity was based on bad foriegn policy. It led to war. The attacks of 911 are inexcusable. Those responsible must pay. Read my hub on the Global War on Terrorism. I explain myself very clearly there.

    4. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 8 years ago

      Al Qaeda, with the support of the Taliban, declared war on the US long before 9-11. The attacks on our soil and the thousands of mostly civilian deaths that resulted are war crimes and should be tried as such.

      The torture at Gitmo was a scandal. Obama overreacted by closing Gitmo before thinking through what to do with all the war prisoners there. Now we have ridiculous scenarios like this unfolding. Under no circumstances should these men be tried in a civilian court- not because I'm worried they might not receive a fair trial, but because the US civilian legal system is meant to deal with domestic crimes, not international war crimes.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        If that is the issue then send them onto the World Court in The Hague. They are equipted to handle war crimes and a fair hearing of all the issues surrounding it can be made

    5. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 8 years ago

      They should be tried and executed the same day, that said, if the people of New York are satisfied fine, if not a military tribunal works too. As long as they get to meet allah real soon.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        This opinion is why the trial must be made especially fair because of the attitude of a rush to justice and a hasty execution.  This is a very distastful affair to have that happen.

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          What do they deserve? And how much time we're the victims given and as far as I can tell they've already had more time than the victims. Throw away PC!

      2. Army Infantry Mom profile image60
        Army Infantry Momposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        High Five !!! I'm with ya on that.

    6. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 8 years ago

      Of course they shouldn't be tried in New York.

      No publicity is bad publicity. New York is the ultimate stage to gain publicity and more muslim terrorist's. The terrorist will elect to defend themselves in court exposing all of our countries interrogation tactics and torture tactics. Then the terrorist on trial will expose our confidential information to their terrorist buddies.

      Another thing, any information obtained from the terrorist including their admission to 9/11 can be thrown out. They admitted under torture. Torture is not lawful in our court system. They could possibly walk free noting that most to all information obtained through them was done illegally.

    7. terrowhite profile image57
      terrowhiteposted 8 years ago

      Terror is refered to fear and panic all teh time. Why people do this and for what reason? terorrist should not be left free and terror must be stopped.. trial must be there for every suspect..

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        I don't disagree with what you say.  But if we are going to have one,  shouldn't it be a fair one?

    8. marinealways24 profile image61
      marinealways24posted 8 years ago

      Perhaps Obama wants them to walk free in his Muslim faith furthering the country into anarchy.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Too much rhetoric to be credible.

    9. TimTurner profile image76
      TimTurnerposted 8 years ago

      They should not get a regular civilian trial.

      We saw how OJ got off.  What if something crazy happens and one or more of these guys get off innocent??

      And don't think it could never happen.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        What do you envision this trial to look like.  No evidence by the defendant?  That is what will happen when the government shuts down all evidence due to national security.  You might as well fry them and save some time. That will be a sad day for this country and what it stands for.

    10. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 8 years ago

      A fair trial also has to be fair to the victims and their families too, and freeing someone who will pose a continued threat to others' lives is neither fair nor just.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        What makes you think a fair trial will free them? Your lack of confidence in our system to convict them seems to bely your need for justice to find them guilty.  That is my point exactly.  How can they get a fair trial without the thirst for blood driving the conviction and the conditions creating that end?

        1. marinealways24 profile image61
          marinealways24posted 8 years agoin reply to this

          There is no fair trial. They could get off simply based on the fact that they were tortured. How could the trial be fair when the information obtained wasn't fair?

          Obama himself said they were tortured.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I don't know. Is unfair okay with you?  I think that maybe a deal will be struck and probably for the betterment of us that they get life in prison.  I say that because in the mess of this these people are guilty, but we screwed up in getting convictions secured to execute.  But if we don't execute them then the terrorists don't have satisfaction of more martyrs.  Just a thought.

        2. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Fair huh?

          Lets not forget.  Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, master mind of the 911 attack, is the same guy involved in the first WTC bombing. He is the uncle of Yousef, the mastermind of the original WTC bombing.  Why not a criminal trial in the US? Here's why not. In 1996 families of victims and survivors filed a lawsuit against the NY Port Authority. In 2006 the jury found that the NY Port Authority was 68% responsible for injuries due to the attack, while the terrorist were only 32% responsible. Under New York tort law any party found over 50% liable can be held totally accoutable for monitary damages.
          In New York, some lawsuits were filed in the aftermath of 9/11. 97% of all survivors and family of victims accepted the governments pay out totalling 7 billion. 96 people filed individual law suits. To date three remain. The defendants include airlines, airline manufacturers (such as Boeing), agencies such as the Port of Authority of New York and New Jersey (which owned the World Trade Center) in addition to agencies responsible for security at the WTC and the key airports, Logan and Dulles. Then there are the suits filed by the airlines/airports/private citizens against the government....
          So we see how this all works. The pain never stops for the victims families, the tax payers the traveler, the airline....you get the picture. These people are not worth that trouble.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            So because of all the pain and suffering and cost a fair trial is not warranted? Is it the chance that an acquittal is what you fear by giving a fair trial? Or would a no chance of acquittal trial better serve the victims and their families?  If you open a door for prejudged trials with rigged expeditors where would it end? The government could serve itself and rid itself of political foes by false imprisonment and maybe death.  This is a pandoras box and once you open it there is no turning back.

            1. profile image59
              C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              Khaled Shaikh Mohammed is not worth it. Besides, he's not a citizen, not entitled to our legal system.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I am not trying to protect his right per se but more over our rights.  If you allow a precedence such as this type of railroad trial then your rights could come into question as well.  Separate the two but see where the loop hole is that could come back and bite you. You may never do anything wrong but by circumventing due process you will have allowed the government one more tool to act outside the law.

                1. profile image59
                  C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Not even close. I'm a citizen. He is not. That distinction is clear. Besides the patriot act already is out there and more than capable of railroading someone.....

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Well I guess the US government should be more careful who they take into custody if they don't wish to have responsiblity of their capture. You wish to make the distinction between you being a citizen and him not being one as a reason to violate his rights.  That is well and good but when you take him into custody you have a moral obligation to afford him the opportunity to defend himself in a fair and just manor.


                    I have to go for now but we have been going on about this most of the day and all I can see from your side is that he should be given less of a chance to defend himself because of the crime commited and then he should be executed as a result of a manipulated system.  However he gets dead is okay with you.  That is driven by revenge and not justice my friend and that is why we havea justice system to distinguish the two.

    11. profile image0
      Scott.Lifeposted 8 years ago

      The Military had initially wanted to try them but once they were classified as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war, things ground to a halt. Under these rules and others found under the patriot acts and other related legislation, the military has been backed into a corner and these men in Gitmo put in limbo. In order for them to be tried militarily then they have to be re-classified as POW's which would them make their torture and detention practices illegal and in violation of the Geneva Convention among other issues and statues of the UCMJ. Military prisoners in fact have more protection and rights under the UCMJ, among other things having the right to be present during grand jury selection and choosing just to name a few. Additionally while serving in Gitmo, I noticed quite a few prisoners who were not terrorism suspects being held there. What will we do with these other nationals that are being held without charge or clear reason.

      We are left with little other choice but to try these men as criminals under our legal system as we have painted ourselves into a corner. Obama might just be ready for this whole ordeal to be over with and New York is the prime choice not just because of its location on 9/11, but because it is also the traditional sight for most modern Federal Trials, and also has means on site to house and detain these suspects securely.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Sounds like a done deal as far as the legality of the trials.  The justice system seems to have a ballywick of a problem.  Hopefully the Federal Prosecutor will be able to work around the pitfalls of torture and speedy trial as well as no charges for a few of these terrorists and secure convictions.  There is the matter of the confessions that should prove interesting.

    12. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 8 years ago

      However, wasn't the torture done by the CIA rather than the military? Oh, and I agree that since we have these guys, we shouldn't execute them now. Why give them exactly what they want?

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        It's kind of splitting hairs if you blame the CIA. I think the suspects attorney would probably counter with the suspects understood the CIA interrogators to be US military.  You know lawyerese or something like that.

        1. Valerie F profile image61
          Valerie Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          It's not splitting hairs. You can't find fault with the military for the abuse of enemy combatants or prisoners of war if they were compliant with the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, and the only torture that occurred was done by the CIA and by methods that the CIA was- at the time- allowed to use.

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Would it be the US military vs Khaled Shaikh Mohammed or the US vs Khaled Shaikh Mohammed.  Aren't the two still US agencies and the difference too indistinguishable to make the point.

            1. Valerie F profile image61
              Valerie Fposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              They are not that indistinguishable. The CIA is a civilian organization- not military at all.

              1. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                But it is pretty much a done deal that our only choice at this point is a civil trial because of the bungeling of the government.

                1. profile image59
                  C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Military Commissions Act

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Here is what Scott.Life wrote that explains it more clearly then can I.

                    Scott.Life wrote:

                    The Military had initially wanted to try them but once they were classified as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war, things ground to a halt. Under these rules and others found under the patriot acts and other related legislation, the military has been backed into a corner and these men in Gitmo put in limbo. In order for them to be tried militarily then they have to be re-classified as POW's which would them make their torture and detention practices illegal and in violation of the Geneva Convention among other issues and statues of the UCMJ. Military prisoners in fact have more protection and rights under the UCMJ, among other things having the right to be present during grand jury selection and choosing just to name a few. Additionally while serving in Gitmo, I noticed quite a few prisoners who were not terrorism suspects being held there. What will we do with these other nationals that are being held without charge or clear reason.

                    We are left with little other choice but to try these men as criminals under our legal system as we have painted ourselves into a corner. Obama might just be ready for this whole ordeal to be over with and New York is the prime choice not just because of its location on 9/11, but because it is also the traditional sight for most modern Federal Trials, and also has means on site to house and detain these suspects securely.

                    1. profile image59
                      C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      Again read the Millitary Commission Act as amended, signed by Obama in October of this year.

    13. Wayne Orvisburg profile image74
      Wayne Orvisburgposted 8 years ago

      I'm not really sure where to try them.  I don't think there is anywhere that would offer a fair trial.  It did happen in New York so I believe technically that's where it should be.  I'd say these guys are going away no matter where the trial is set.  Mostly just a matter of procedure really.

      1. Joseph Moschetti profile image56
        Joseph Moschettiposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Comment by Joseph Moschetti:
        From a strictly legal standpoint it depends on whether we treat their actions as "acts of war" or simple crimes against people in the State where committed. The big problem is that the "War on Terror" does not fit the standard definitions of War, where the Congress actually declare war on another country.

        The international community has to get together and establish a new definition of "war" that will allow actions that may otherwise be considered not proper as we view it under our laws. Fat chance of that happening in a positive vein in our view as Americans who have been attacked, of whom I consider myself one!

        I believe we should establish our own special crimes against our country and in those cases do away with many of the restrictive laws that govern our ability to prosecute and punish. It is certainly a grey area but there are circumstances where we are allowed to declare "martial law". These types of crimes should be treated under that umbrella and only apply after we have determined that the criminal act is indeed a terrorist attack. Of course the liberals and especially the present make up of the White House will not go along with something as simple and effective as that scenario!

        1. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Thats why, in cases such as these, our Government should issue letters of Marque and Reprisal as the Constitution states. Further international law does acknowledge letters of Marque and Reprisal.

    14. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 8 years ago

      I wonder if they could opt for a trial by judge as there will be a very hard time finding a neutral jury.

    15. Valerie F profile image61
      Valerie Fposted 8 years ago

      What kind of trial would he get if he masterminded an attack that killed thousands in his own country?

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Hopefully a fair one.  Wouldn't you?

      2. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Ten minute trial, 30 minutes to gather the crowd for the execution.....but we are rushing to judgement........

    16. profile image53
      Linda Hposted 8 years ago

      9/11 was an Act of War, not only against the citizens of New York but against non-muslims anywhere. Footage was beamed around the world rapidly and I remember feeling sick to my stomache and having tears stream down my face and I didn't know anyone involved. I think it is a pity that the US didn't opt for an International trial to be held in NYC 8 years ago, the current situation seems that whatever the verdict it will be used to make your country look bad.
      Also there were individuals killed in 9/11 who were overseas nationals and I would have thought that would be a mandate for an international trial.
      I'm Australian, we have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq too, not many but then we don't have the population you do.

    17. profile image0
      cosetteposted 8 years ago

      http://i50.tinypic.com/qy70g3.jpg

      i sure hope he cleans up nice

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe throw in a complimentary waxing for the trial?

        1. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          LOL...now thats funny!

        2. profile image59
          C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          whats with the "off the shoulder" look on the shirt?

    18. profile image0
      cosetteposted 8 years ago

      big_smile Ron and CJ.

      i expect he will be clean-shaven and wearing a nice suit and innocent expression.

    19. Friendlyword profile image61
      Friendlywordposted 8 years ago

      Thank you all for making this a great forum while I was away.  I'll say again, I dont know enough to say what kind of trial should be held for the terror suspects.  I only know it should be here in New York City.  I'm not sure. Was the Timothy McVeigh Trial held in Oklahoma City?

      1. profile image59
        C.J. Wrightposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        He was granted a change of venue to Colorado....However..the McVeigh issue is a....dead issue!

     
    working