It is currently 04/04/25 10:38 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next   Page 1 of 3   [ 55 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 8:49 am • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I personally do not buy into the theory that bringing these 5 to trial on US soil in any way endangers Americans ~ I also don't believe that American commitment to human rights only applies to Americans ~ I also don't believe for a nanosecond that there is ANY chance that ANY of these 5 "will be released into our communities" ~ and there IS a bit of "poetic justice" in staging the trials in NY ~ but beyond all that, isn't Gitmo itself considered to be "American soil"? ~ Sooz


November 13, 2009
Posted: November 13th, 2009 01:07 PM ET


WASHINGTON (CNN) -
Growing partisan tensions over national security issues exploded Friday as several top Republicans ripped Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try five suspected 9/11 terrorists in civilian court.

The attorney general was accused of risking Americans' security by treating the suspects like "common criminals" with a right to greater constitutional protections than they would otherwise receive in a military trial.

Five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the September 11, 2001, attacks - including confessed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - will be tried in civilian court in New York, Holder announced Friday.

"These terrorists planned and executed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans. Treating them like common criminals is unconscionable," Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn said in a written statement.

"The attacks of September 11th were an act of war. Reverting to a pre-9/11 approach to fighting terrorism and bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans."

Cornyn asserted that Holder had irresponsibly put "political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise."

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said the decision meant Mohammed and the other defendants would be able to claim new protections, including Miranda and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

"Bringing terrorists to U.S. soil expands their constitutional rights and could result in shorter sentences," Smith claimed in a statement.

"America already gives terrorists more constitutional rights than any other country. The administration should not prioritize the rights of terrorists over the rights of Americans to be safe and secure," he said.

Smith argued that trying suspected terrorists in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is the "most appropriate venue and safest option for the American people."

He also said the public needed to be "reassured that no terrorist will ever be released into our communities."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, agreed with Smith that suspected terrorists ought to be tried by military commissions.

"It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims' families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America," he said in a statement.

The September 11 terrorist "are war criminals, not common criminals," he argued. They are "not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts."

Lieberman argued that the updated military commission system recently signed into law by Obama "provides standards of due process and fairness that fully comply with the requirements established by the Supreme Court and the Geneva Conventions."

Critics of military commissions, however, offered strong praise for Holder's decision. Anthony Romero, the head of American Civil Liberties Union, called it "a huge victory for restoring due process and the rule of law, as well as repairing America's international standing, an essential part of ensuring our national security."

Romero argued that it would "have been an enormous blow to American values if we had tried these defendants in a (military commission) process riddled with legal problems."

Trying the suspects at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility would have amounted to "a miscarriage of justice in sham proceedings," Romero said.

Romero criticized Holder's decision to try five other detainees - including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind behind the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole - by military commission.

"Time and again the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling terrorism cases while protecting both American values and sensitive national security information. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts," Romero said.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... more-77656



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/13/09 11:19 am • # 2 
It think the decision is a good one.

Other trials of terrorists have taken place there without a glitch.

The comments of the critics noted here are histrionic.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/13/09 11:35 am • # 3 

Notes on Guantánamo Bay

The first U.S. presence on Guantánamo Bay was a Marine battalion that camped there on June 10 1898, and the first American casualties of the Spanish-Cuban-American War were two marines killed there the following day.

Five years later, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt signed an agreement with Cuba's new government, leasing the bay for 2,000 gold coins per year. The agreement was forced on the new Cuban government through the Platt Amendment, which gave the U.S. authority to interfere in Cuban affairs.

The Lease Agreement signed on February 16 1903, granted the U.S. "the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water… and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose."

On July 2 1906, (just before the 2nd U.S. military intervention) a new lease was signed in Havana for Guantánamo Bay and Bahía Honda, for which the U.S. would pay $2,000 per year.

The U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, the oldest existing U.S. military base outside U.S. territory, sits on a 45-square-mile area (117.6 square kilometers) about the size of Manhattan Island.

After the Platt Amendment was annulled in 1934, a new lease was negotiated between the Roosevelt administration and a Cuban government that included Fulgencio Batista as one of three signatories. Batista emerged as the strong man on the island over the next twenty-five years.

When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, the U.S. banned its soldiers stationed at the bay from entering Cuban territory. The Cuban government asserts that Guantánamo should have been returned to Cuba at this time.

"It's no secret," wrote Rafael Hernández Rodriquez in Subject to Solution: Problems in Cuban-U.S. Relations, "that the main mission of the naval bases in this area of the Gulf is to control, police and spy on Cuba."

During a speech in Chile on December 3 1971, Castro said, "that base is there just to humiliate Cuba; just like a knife stuck in the heart of Cuba's dignity and sovereignty… But from a military standpoint, the base is completely useless."

On January 11 1985, in a speech during a visit to Nicaragua, Castro addressed the potential use of military violence to recover this territory. "What interest can we have in waging a war with our neighbors?" he said. "In our country we have a military base against the will of our people. It has been there throughout the twenty-six years of the revolution, and it is being occupied by force. We have the moral and legal right to demand its return. We have made the claim in the moral and legal way. We do not intend to recover it with the use of arms. It is part of our territory being occupied by a U.S. military base. Never has anyone, a revolutionary cadre, a revolutionary leader, or a fellow citizen, had the idea of recovering the piece of our territory by the use of force. If some day it will be ours, it will not be by the use of force, but the advance of the consciousness of justice in the world."

In an interview with Soviet journalists in October 1985, U.S. President Ronald Reagan said that the purpose of the base was political: to impose the U.S. presence, even if the Cubans didn't want it.

On June 14 2002, at the United Nations General Assembly, Cuba demanded that Guantánamo territory be returned to the island.

The issue of returning Guantánamo to Cuba is complicated by the agreement signed by Batista in 1934. The agreement states: "Until the two Contracting Parties agree to the modification or abrogation of the stipulations of the agreement in regard to the lease to the United States of America of lands in Cuba for coaling and naval stations… the stipulations of that Agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect."

To the U.S. this means an "open-ended duration" that can only be terminated by mutual agreement. To Cuba it means that Guantánamo Bay is "occupied territory."

While this paper will not attempt to enumerate the many legal aspects of international law invoked by this "occupation," it's important to note that most other "territories held" throughout the world have been returned. The Panama Canal was returned to Panama in January 2000, Hong Kong was returned to China by the United Kingdom in 1997, and Portugal returned Macau Island to China in 1999.

Since 1959, the U.S. sends a check for the lease amount every year, but the Cuban government has never cashed them.

Related:
U.S. Occupation of Cuba | The Teller Amendment | The Platt Amendment

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/funfacts/guantan.htm



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/13/09 11:39 am • # 4 
Moving their trial to New York is more than an effort to secure the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. It's also about ensuring that the justice system of the USA does work and it will be served in a public and transparent manner. I don't think the public at large would feel satisfied that these people were tried, convicted and executed in a one line ticker on CNN.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 12:40 pm • # 5 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
it is a great decision. does NY have a death penalty? if NOT, that would be even better.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/13/09 1:33 pm • # 6 
Bloomberg is very comfortable with the decision. Guiliani in the '90s endorsed the same. Today however he was throwing a hissy fit. .He must be pms- ing.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 3:33 pm • # 7 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
This Mukasey statement is sure to raise enormous fears in NYC ~ and likely throughout the US ~ Sooz


November 13, 2009

Mukasey: 'very high' risk of attack over NYC 9/11 trial

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said today that it is highly likely that terrorists will attack New York City as a consequence of the Obama administration's decision to send five alleged Sept. 11 plotters there for trial in federal court.

During a question and answer period following a speech to a conservative legal group, Mukasey was asked about the possibility that there might be an escape by one or more prisoners.

"The [Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan] is a very secure place....Is it secure? Of course, it's secure. They're not going to escape," Mukasey told a conference of the Federalist Society. "The question is not whether they're going to escape. The question is whether, not only that particular facility, but the city [at] large, will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--whether this raises the odds that it will. I would suggest to you that it raises them very high."

Mukasey said the men now to be tried in New York should have been left before military commission proceedings at Guantanamo that were already in progress.

"The plan seems to be to abandon the view that we're in a war," Mukasey said. "I can't see anything good coming out of this. I certainly can't see anything good coming out of it very quickly. And it think it would have been far preferable to try these case in the venue that Congress created for trying and where they were about to be tried."

Mukasey, a former federal judge who oversaw cases relating to the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, warned that a civilian court trial for the Sept. 11 plotters could produce " a cornucopia of information for those still at large and a circus for those still in custody."

However, despite his warnings about a terrorist attack on New York, Mukasey said he thought the legal system could carry out a fair and successful trial. He also said finding impartial jurors would not be much of a problem.

"Understand, I am a partisan of the Southern District of New York. I know of no jurisdiction where you could get people who are better prepared to deal with it, and that includes prosecutors, judges and jurors," he said. "But saying that, if you have to do it any place, that is a place to do it, is not the same as saying and should not be construed by anybody as saying that's what I think should be done, because it isn't."

Mukasey portrayed the idea of civilian trials as a reckless "social experiment" that the nation was likely to regret.

"If I thought that I or my family or my fellow citizens had three lives to live, I suppose I could be persuaded that we should live one of them as a social experiment to see whether the result here is one that we want to live with. But I don't and they don't and you don't," he said. "It would take a whole lot more credulousness than I have available to be optimistic about the outcome of this latest experiment."

At a news conference this morning announcing the administration's decision, Attorney General Eric Holder disputed claims that having a 9/11-related trial in New York would endanger New Yorkers.

" New York has a long history of trying these kinds of cases," Holder said. "New York has a hardened system. We have talked to the Marshal Service there. An analysis was done about the capabilities that exist in New York, and I'm quite confident that we can safely hold people there, that we can protect the people who surround the courthouse area, and bring these cases successfully. So I don't think that that criticism is factually based."

Mukasey's remarks were viewed via a C-SPAN recording posted
here.



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/13/09 5:29 pm • # 8 
macroscopic wrote:
it is a great decision. does NY have a death penalty? if NOT, that would be even better.

Why?! What on earth else would you do with creatures like that? I think they are the perfect example of the reason to keep the death penalty, for such egregious crimes that they don't deserve to be fed and housed by society. Let them be executed and find out if they have their 71 virgins waiting for them.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 5:49 pm • # 9 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
Calluna wrote:
macroscopic wrote:
it is a great decision. does NY have a death penalty? if NOT, that would be even better.

Why?! What on earth else would you do with creatures like that? I think they are the perfect example of the reason to keep the death penalty, for such egregious crimes that they don't deserve to be fed and housed by society. Let them be executed and find out if they have their 71 virgins waiting for them.
i will tell you PRECISELY why, Cal.

radicals CRAVE martyrdom more than sooz craves chocolate. if you give it to them, 100 more will spring up in their ashes. make them fester away and rot of old age and it will deny them the dignity of a MILITARY death.

mark my words- putting these men to death will be the worst mistake we ever made, if they are guilty. and if they are not, they should be set free. neither move has the smallest thing to do with compassion.

BTW- i am not convinced that KSM is 1/10th as bad as he says he was. he is an egomaniacal clown. but we will never know, as the experience of being waterboarded ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE TIMES has left him a shell of a man.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/13/09 5:54 pm • # 10 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
This Mukasey statement is sure to raise enormous fears in NYC ~ and likely throughout the US ~ Sooz


it would be great if for ONCE in this long battle, we could stop acting like cowards.

sorry, but i really DO feel that way.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/14/09 1:14 am • # 11 
Administrator

Joined: 01/16/16
Posts: 30003
You aren't the only one, Macro.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/14/09 2:32 am • # 12 
My problem with the death penalty for criminals such as this is that it's actually like putting a sick dog out of it's misery. If they deserve punishment (and despite all the hype, that's yet to be determined) then would it not be a harsher punishment to lock them up in a dark musty hole than it is to take their life according to the rules of execution (ie. quick and painless)?

There's also the question of the "moral high road" - something the Bush Administration abandoned. Keeping them in Guantanamo Bay would continue to cast doubt on the morality of a nation that went to great pains for over a century to make it known to the world that the US is a nation of laws, justice and the constitution. If America is to ever recover it's covetted leadership in the world, justice as it was known to the world before Bush must be done and must be seen to be done.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/14/09 3:02 am • # 13 

Macro , I absolutely agree with you.

As to former AG Mukasey , he lost his credibilty from the get go with his torture / waterboarding comments. Then he went on to his tearful act complete with lies. I realise he has a right to express his opinion as much as the next guy. However it is merely more of his same old routine. It is sad. He made the choice, however, to be remembered for a reputation lost.

It is important to have a trial with an outcome that is / is percieved as credible.



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/14/09 5:52 am • # 14 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
macroscopic wrote:
radicals CRAVE martyrdom more than sooz craves chocolate.

Harrrumpppffffffffffffffff ~ "craves"??? ~ I prefer to think of it as a hard-earned and well-deserved indulgence ~ Image

Seriously tho, I share much of the thinking posted that NYC is the right place for these trials ~ and for a civilian, vs military, trial as well ~ the crime was against civilians and should be judged by civilians ~ but ... the civilian trial does carry a higher risk of success, primarily thanks to the gwb administration's public admission and defense of using "enhanced interrogation techniques" ~ I read this morning that hundreds [if not more] of the 09/11/01 victims' families are strongly ANTI civilian trials in NYC ~ they feel that civilian trials will allow the defense to present the defendants in a more sympathetic light ~ again, primarily thanks to the gwb administration's public admission and defense of using "enhanced interrogation techniques" ~ that is a legitimate concern, as is the risk of some kind of "episode" by fanatics leading up to or during the trials ~ but neither of those concerns sways my thinking ~

The death penalty issue is murkier for me ~ I understand the thoughts against making these defendants "martyrs" in the eyes of their supporters ~ but I believe that ANY sentence, death OR life/no parole, will serve the same purpose ~

Sooz



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/14/09 6:15 am • # 15 
The only retort to terrorism is to refuse to be frightened.
There are times I can't help believe that significant portions of US society actually enjoy fear and drama.

The reality is that you could try these guys anywhere and there could still be attacks.
So you take a big swallow, hold by your principles and do the right thing.
If the case collapses because torture was used, that's the fault of those who chose to employ torture not the fault of the defendants.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/14/09 9:47 am • # 16 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
The "rogue" weighs in ~ Sooz


By Amanda Terkel at 2:44 pm

Palin Calls Decision To Try 9/11 Defendants In Federal Court 'Atrocious,' Wants To 'Hang 'Em High'

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks - including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - will be prosecuted in U.S. federal court. "I am confident in the ability of our courts to provide these defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years," said Holder. "The alleged 9/11 conspirators will stand trial in our justice system before an impartial jury under long-established rules and procedures."

But the U.S. justice system apparently isn't good enough for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin (who believes that the White House has a "Department of Law"). Last night she went on Facebook and posted a message calling the Obama administration's decision "atrocious":

Quote:

Horrible decision, absolutely horrible. It is devastating for so many of us to hear that the Obama Administration decided that the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be given a criminal trial in New York. This is an atrocious decision. [...]

Criminal defense attorneys will now enter into delaying tactics and other methods in the hope of securing some kind of win for their "clients." The trial will afford Mohammed the opportunity to grandstand and make use of his time in front of the world media to rally his disgusting terrorist cohorts. It will also be an insult to the victims of 9/11, as Mohammed will no doubt use the opportunity to spew his hateful rhetoric in the same neighborhood in which he ruthlessly cut down the lives of so many Americans. [...]

If we are stuck with this terrible Obama Administration decision, I, like most Americans, hope that Mohammed and his co-conspirators are convicted. Hang 'em high.

Palin further insulted the U.S. legal system by lamenting that a "hung jury" or "court room technicalities" may allow the defendants to walk away from this trial without receiving just punishment." But the decision to make terrorists face the U.S. court system isn't just an idea dreamed up by the Obama administration; there's a strong precedent for it in this country. The U.S. has already successfully prosecuted 145 terrorism cases in federal court,including shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui.

In fact, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani praised the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers:

Quote:

-- "'It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,' he [Giuliani] said, 'that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.'" [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-- "[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. … Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani declared that the verdict 'demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon - the law.'" [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

-- "I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead," said Giuliani. [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

Even in the weeks after Sept. 11, Giuliani "framed the attacks in the language of crime, describing the hijackers as 'insane murderers' and calling for restoration of the 'rule of law.'" As CAP's Ken Gude explains, Holder's decision is a "victory for the rule of law and the American system of justice."

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/14/palin-hang-ksm/



Top
  
PostPosted: 11/14/09 12:32 pm • # 17 
Palin is as dumb as a stump.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/14/09 6:34 pm • # 18 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
i took a pretty strident stand here, and you guys could have knocked me for it, but you didn't.

thanks.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/14/09 6:38 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
as for Palin, she has absolutely no insight into how our judicial system works obviously, nor does she have any respect for it.

there is absolutely NOTHING in her statement of principle that would prevent ANYONE who CLAIMED to be a terrorist from being hung, whether or not they actually were.


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/15/09 4:23 am • # 20 
PALIN FOR PREZ!
Image

"You Betcha!"





Top
  
PostPosted: 11/15/09 4:24 am • # 21 
A vote for Palin is like a vote for Barbie.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/15/09 4:39 am • # 22 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
is that cover for real, Sid?


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:37 am • # 23 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/22/09
Posts: 9530
I'm not sure the civil courts are the place to try these guys either, mainly because of the strict rules of evidence. While I was totally opposed to the kangaroo court Military Tribunals set-up by the Bush administration (and thrilled with the Tribunal's refusal to play the game) I can see where there would need to be some relaxation of the rules in order for there to be any kind of trial let alone a conviction or honest rather than technical acquital. A lot of the evidence appears to be circumstantial, witnesses are either dead or unlikely to show-up if only because they wouldn't be allowed in the country, cultural differences would colour much of the evidence, other witnesses would be hostile in the extreme and national security and the security of informants does have to be taken into account. In my opinion, the right system for trying these guys falls somewhere between civil court and the Bush Tribunals. They are cases where "The Law" will have to take second seat to "The Truth" and Judges and juries are frequently going to be called upon to weigh the difference.

A point I haven't seen discussed in the news is the fact that, in some cases, other people have already been convicted of the crimes some of these guys (KSM in particular) are accused of. If KSM, for example, was found guilty, what happens to those who have already been convicted. Where those people have been convicted in other countries it might be easy enough to just ignore them but there's a super-max prison in Colorado that's full of them making it hard to ignore.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:41 am • # 24 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
I'm not sure the civil courts are the place to try these guys either, mainly because of the strict rules of evidence.

actually, it doesn't really matter, Jim.

if these guys are POW's, THEN we can give them tribunals.
if not, according to Article IV, we HAVE to give them civilian trials.

so, either the "EC" needs to be reclassified ast POW, which will never happen, or we MUST give them court trials.

qed


Top
  
PostPosted: 11/19/09 5:59 am • # 25 
I seriously feel sorry for Palin. That woman is so damn dumb it's just sad.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next   Page 1 of 3   [ 55 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.