Justice Dept To Look At Trying KSM Outside of NY

[ExiledInIllinois]

With this line of thinking it is no wonder why we are in the fiscal mess we are in today. Also, the burden is on the state/city not at the federal level.

 

Not so sure on the Fed thing given the nature of the case. But you are right... Just think what 200 million gets you infrastructure-wise. I know in my line of work, 1/4 of that would keep us going another 50 YEARS... And it would only take about ONE YEAR to get that 50 million back (that is, the positive effect it has the economy).

[DC Tom]

You seriously doubt that possibility? You think the American Jurisprudence system is rigged?

You can't conceive of a technicality that has them walking free at the end of the spectacle of the century?

You did see the OJ Simpson trial - didn't you?

 

Hell, I can think of two ways off the top of my head: wasn't properly extradited, wasn't granted a speedy trial. And there's a good argument to be made for tossing out any evidence against him resulting from his incarceration at Gitmo. His trial is is a circus of unconstitutionality.

[Nanker]

Hell, I can think of two ways off the top of my head: wasn't properly extradited, wasn't granted a speedy trial. And there's a good argument to be made for tossing out any evidence against him resulting from his incarceration at Gitmo. His trial is is a circus of unconstitutionality.

I couldn't agree more. I think that's the ultimate goal - to try the bastages and then let them go after the prosecution fails. What better proof that the American jurisprudence system is fair and that we were wrong to have incarcerated these people in the manner that we did. Holder will simply hold up Bush, Ashcroft and Gonzales as the real villains.

[DC Tom]

I couldn't agree more. I think that's the ultimate goal - to try the bastages and then let them go after the prosecution fails. What better proof that the American jurisprudence system is fair and that we were wrong to have incarcerated these people in the manner that we did. Holder will simply hold up Bush, Ashcroft and Gonzales as the real villains.

 

What better way? How about putting the guy in front of a military tribunal, as international law requires. What does that say about our "fairness"?

 

Total flustercluck.

[IDBillzFan]

What better way? How about putting the guy in front of a military tribunal, as international law requires. What does that say about our "fairness"?

 

Total flustercluck.

This is a perfect example of why people are increasingly disillusioned with the current administration. There are two ways to try these guys. One will cost almost a quarter billion a year; the other will cost $29.99 plus shipping and handling. We're reminded every day how we're in the greatest economic pantywad since the great depression. We're reminded that we need to freeze spending, and cut budgets, and attack the deficit...and we're told it's so bad that we're forcing government offices to photocopy on both sides of a piece of paper...a cost-cutting measure SO incredible, that it warranted a press conference.

 

But no. We need to try them here, and spend the money. The question that will corner the administration this coming month (when he releases the budget which INCLUDES the costs for this trial) is simply "Why?" What do you have to gain from a federal trial that you can't gain from a military one?

 

They can't give the true answer (which, as a repetitive partisan hack, I believe has a lot to do with putting 'torture' on trial). And they can't do it at Gitmo, which was supposed to close last week. This is truly being between "Barack and a hard place." No matter what they do, they're going to take another public beating, especially if the health care bill is really dead, and this takes its place on the front pages for a while. It's been bungled from the get go.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Again, 200 million a year brings nothing but a yawn in today's climate[/b]. We spend billions on lame **** that does nothing. A closed door trial with the transcripts online is far more preferable to a military tribunal. In a military tribunal, they are just judged and executed (in all likelihood). That will impact our troops. Muslims will think the guy(s) never got a fair shake. In a public trial, I grant you they will get to condemn us. We aren't that far apart on this issue.

 

 

 

 

Sig or cash, your choice.

 

It isn't rigged, the simple fact is KSM is guilty and there is no way in hell he gets off.

 

 

This is a perfect example of why people are increasingly disillusioned with the current administration. There are two ways to try these guys. One will cost almost a quarter billion a year; the other will cost $29.99 plus shipping and handling. We're reminded every day how we're in the greatest economic pantywad since the great depression. We're reminded that we need to freeze spending, and cut budgets, and attack the deficit...and we're told it's so bad that we're forcing government offices to photocopy on both sides of a piece of paper...a cost-cutting measure SO incredible, that it warranted a press conference.

 

But no. We need to try them here, and spend the money. The question that will corner the administration this coming month (when he releases the budget which INCLUDES the costs for this trial) is simply "Why?" What do you have to gain from a federal trial that you can't gain from a military one?

 

They can't give the true answer (which, as a repetitive partisan hack, I believe has a lot to do with putting 'torture' on trial). And they can't do it at Gitmo, which was supposed to close last week. This is truly being between "Barack and a hard place." No matter what they do, they're going to take another public beating, especially if the health care bill is really dead, and this takes its place on the front pages for a while. It's been bungled from the get go.

Because this is the currant mind set. 200 Million here, 200 million there, next thing you know it adds up to real money.

[Keukasmallies]

So my thought is try these guys at some military base, outside of the continental US, utilize the regular presence of the military security already there to provide trial security.... let me think a bit; how about Gitmo? Then we could use the soon-to-be earmarked $200,000,000 in trial security money for some other, more positive, purpose.

 

Oh no, that place might still carry the aura of perceived torture. After all, 9/11 was such a clean tragedy; we wouldn't want to treat the perpetrators the way they treated us...would we?

[IDBillzFan]

So my thought is try these guys at some military base, outside of the continental US, utilize the regular presence of the military security already there to provide trial security.... let me think a bit; how about Gitmo? Then we could use the soon-to-be earmarked $200,000,000 in trial security money for some other, more positive, purpose.

 

Oh no, that place might still carry the aura of perceived torture. After all, 9/11 was such a clean tragedy; we wouldn't want to treat the perpetrators the way they treated us...would we?

He can't send this to Gitmo. He's still got poached health care/insurance reform on his face. He can't afford to add an order of over-easy Gitmo closing as well. He'll have enough trouble getting his budget passed as it is. I already heard some moderate Dems yesterday saying they'd vote against the budget if it includes the $200 million for the trial. Frankly, I'm still curious what he did with the $650 billion he budgeted as a down payment for health care last year, but I seem to be the only one curious about the whereabouts of that unspent money.

[ieatcrayonz]

IMO it should be a closed trial casket.

We only disagree by one word.

[KD in CA]

Now putting out feelers for scrapping a civilian trial altogether....

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_on_...us_sept11_trial

[DC Tom]

Now putting out feelers for scrapping a civilian trial altogether....

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100212/ap_on_...us_sept11_trial

 

Amateur hour.

[IDBillzFan]

Amateur hour.

Actually, this is great to see -- amateurish or not. I think civilian trials are a bad idea on multiple levels, and I don't care if they're only changing their tune to get their approval ratings up. Going to a military tribunal would be the right move.

 

Plus, the administration has a lot of positive capital to spend, now that we all agree that Iraq is a crowning achievement of the Obama administration.

[PastaJoe]

Quiz:

 

1. Who said, after the Zacarias Moussaoui civilian trial and conviction, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” ?

 

2. Who said, just 3 months ago, “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”?

 

Under the Bush administration, almost 200 terrorists were convicted by the criminal justice system, and now reside in American prisons. Only three defendants were tried by military commission, and only one is still in custody, Ali al-Bahlul. The other two are free, having received five- and nine-month sentences, respectively.

 

Where was the outrage from the right when this was happening? Hypocrisy (my bad for not using spellcheck).

[Magox]

Quiz:

 

Who said, after the Zacarias Moussaoui civilian trial and conviction, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” ?

 

Who said, just 3 months ago, “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”?

 

Under the Bush administration, almost 200 terrorists were convicted by the criminal justice system, and now reside in American prisons. Only three defendants were tried by military commission, and only one is still in custody, Ali al-Bahlul. The other two are free, having received five- and nine-month sentences, respectively.

 

Where was the outrage from the right when this was happening? Hypocracy.

I know not of this "hypocracy" you talk about.

[DC Tom]

Quiz:

 

Who said, after the Zacarias Moussaoui civilian trial and conviction, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” ?

 

Who said, just 3 months ago, “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”?

 

Under the Bush administration, almost 200 terrorists were convicted by the criminal justice system, and now reside in American prisons. Only three defendants were tried by military commission, and only one is still in custody, Ali al-Bahlul. The other two are free, having received five- and nine-month sentences, respectively.

 

Where was the outrage from the right when this was happening? Hypocracy.

 

The outrage was probably nonexistent, because of the difference between subjecting people detained as a result of criminal investigations to the judicial process vs. subjecting people captured on the battlefield without benefit of due process to it. "Terrorism" is a criminal charge, but trying someone under the charge presumes thecriminal justice system has jurisdiction, which is sometimes not the case.

 

I mean, a lot of it is hyprocisy...but the examples you're citing (which have been cited by others) serve largely to cloud the issue. Moussaoui's case, for example, is a clear-cut and unambiguous case where the justice system has unquestionable jurisdiction. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's case, much less so.

 

And that's where it becomes amateur hour for this administration. They keep trying to do "the right thing", while apparently not giving ANY consideration as to what that might actually be. The consideration of whether Mohammed should or should not be tried in criminal court seems to be being done now, well after they "decided" to try him in civil court. Sane, professional people usually consider decisions before they make them, not after.

[KD in CA]

Who said, after the Zacarias Moussaoui civilian trial and conviction, "I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial." ?

 

Ummmm.....some guy that retired from politics over 8 years?

[Alaska Darin]

Quiz:

 

Who said, after the Zacarias Moussaoui civilian trial and conviction, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” ?

 

Who said, just 3 months ago, “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”?

 

Under the Bush administration, almost 200 terrorists were convicted by the criminal justice system, and now reside in American prisons. Only three defendants were tried by military commission, and only one is still in custody, Ali al-Bahlul. The other two are free, having received five- and nine-month sentences, respectively.

 

Where was the outrage from the right when this was happening? Hypocracy.

Translation: "Hi, my name is Pasta Joe. I don't actually know the issue people are debating but that's not going to stop me from making a complete ass of myself."

 

Perhaps that's what you mean by "hypocracy."

[IDBillzFan]

Sane, professional people usually consider decisions before they make them, not after.

This is a point that is all too often missed, as far as I'm concerned. You earn the biggest seat at the biggest table in the world. You do it on a wave of emotion that was unlike anything I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. It's epic. It's historic. It's inspiring. And I'm not even saying that sarcastically. I truly mean this. As a person conceited enough to run for President, it's everything you could possible ask for, including full control of both houses and a year to set the stage for the greatest presidency ever.

 

How do you NOT give more consideration to important decisions before actually making them? It's the most obvious of all good plans. How do you take the biggest golden ticket Willy Wonka ever handed out, and use it to roll a big, fat Humboldt County joint?

 

I find it stunning. I actually regret having not paid closer attention to the daily workings of politics before this year because I sense it's the equivalent of having the first football game you watch as a Bills fan be Super Bowl XXV.

[PastaJoe]

Quiz:

 

1. Who said, after the Zacarias Moussaoui civilian trial and conviction, “I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial.” ?

 

2. Who said, just 3 months ago, “It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”?

 

1. Rudi Giuliani

 

2. NYC Mayor Bloomberg

 

Hypocrisy (my bad for not using spellcheck).

 

It wouldn't surprise me if many of the public who are complaining about the need to use military tribunals think that all the terrorists were tried in that forum and not in civilian courts, and that there are no terrorists held in our prisons. But why find out the facts when they can repeat the conservative talking points.

[Alaska Darin]

1. Rudi Giuliani

 

2. NYC Mayor Bloomberg

 

Hypocrisy (my bad for not using spellcheck).

 

It wouldn't surprise me if many of the public who are complaining about the need to use military tribunals think that all the terrorists were tried in that forum and not in civilian courts, and that there are no terrorists held in our prisons. But why find out the facts when they can repeat the conservative talking points.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack! I don't understand the issue. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

 

It has nothing to do with "conservative talking points", though I'm not surprised that's your contention since you're pretty much the thing you pretend to despise.