9/11 Mastermind to be tried in New York, In Civilian Court

[rambone]

These monsters were not U.S. citizens, and do not deserve a "civilian" trial. They deserve to be tried in front of a military tribunal.

Who will compose the Jury of their peers? Who hasn't heard about the 9/11 terror attacks? This trial will turn into a side-show. Its all happening a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.

I also have my doubts about mixing them into the general populations of our prisons, where they can recruit others to their cause.

9/11 Terror Detainees Face Trial in N.Y

WASHINGTON — Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court, an Obama administration official said Friday.


The official said Attorney General Eric Holder plans to announce the decision later in the morning.

The official is not authorized to discuss the decision before the announcement, so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the detention center by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

The New York case may also force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counter-terrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method — waterboarding, or simulated drowning — was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

Holder will also announce that a major suspect in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will face justice before a military commission, as will a handful of other detainees to be identified at the same announcement, the official said.

It was not immediately clear where commission-bound detainees like al-Nashiri might be sent, but a military brig in South Carolina has been high on the list of considered sites.

The actual transfer of the detainees from Guantanamo to New York isn't expected to happen for many more weeks because formal charges have not been filed against most of them.

The attorney general has decided the case of the five Sept. 11 suspects should be handled by prosecutors working in the Southern District of New York, which has held a number of major terrorism trials in recent decades at a courthouse in lower Manhattan, just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers once stood.

Holder had been considering other possible trial locations, including Virginia, Washington, DC, and a different courthouse in New York City. Those districts could all end up conducting trials of other Guantanamo detainees sent to federal court later on.

The attorney general's decision in these cases comes just before a Monday deadline for the government to decide how to proceed against 10 detainees facing military commissions.

In the military system, the five Sept. 11 suspects had faced the death penalty, but the official would not say if the Justice Department would also seek capital punishment against the men once they are in the federal system.

The administration has already sent one Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to New York to face trial, but chose not to seek death in that case.

At the last major trial of al-Qaida suspects held at that courthouse in 2001, prosecutors did seek death for some of the defendants.

Mohammed already has an outstanding terror indictment against him in New York, for an unsuccessful plot called "Bojinka" to simultaneously take down multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean in the 1990's.

Some members of Congress have fought any effort to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial in the United States, saying it would be too dangerous for nearby civilians. The Obama administration has defended the planned trials, saying many terrorists have been safely tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the United States, including the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef.

Mohammed and the four others — Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali — are accused of orchestrating the attacks that killed 2,973 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

Sign a petition against a civilian trial for this non-civilian terrorist:

9 11 Families for Safe and Strong America

 

[Bill of Rights]

These monsters were not U.S. citizens, and do not deserve a "civilian" trial. They deserve to be tried in front of a military tribunal.

Who will compose the Jury of their peers? Who hasn't heard about the 9/11 terror attacks? This trial will turn into a side-show. Its all happening a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.

I also have my doubts about mixing them into the general populations of our prisons, where they can recruit others to their cause.


Sign a petition against a civilian trial for this non-civilian terrorist:

9 11 Families for Safe and Strong America

Not a chance in hell am I signing that petition. I do think they deserve a trial, a fair trial, just as anyone else would get for killing 2,973 people, and when the evidence clearly shows their guilt, they will be executed.

This is what our system of justice is supposed to do. We urinate and defecate all over our Founders and ourselves if we change the rules because of the players. The fact is that our system does work, and the guilty will receive the punishment due them. As to their peers, well, we'll have to stretch the rules a little bit... they don't allow feces to serve on juries, thus... they consider themselves human, so we can find any human to serve.

Three who lost spouses on 9/11
Three who lost siblings on 9/11
Three who lost parents on 9/11
Three who lost children on 9/11

One of each from the Pentagon, the Towers, and Flight 93. Actually, make it four from each place, so we have four alternate jurors.

If we are discussing rights, even those of this ilk have them. "...we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." (emphasis mine)

We are, it is famously quoted, a nation of laws, not of men. Let them be judged. We all know what will happen if they do not exit the courtroom with a date with a needle. There won't be enough left of them to scrape up with a spatula.

And justice will be served.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bigiron]

i like this better: 9/11 Mastermind to be HUNG in New York, In Civilian Court


just another dog and pony show by our government to show we are sensitive to the muslim community and wnat to treat everyone equal. makes me a little sick and raises the question, why the hell are these men still alive after confessing. shouldn't this have taken place a long, long time ago?

 

[Prometheus]

These monsters were not U.S. citizens, and do not deserve a "civilian" trial. They deserve to be tried in front of a military tribunal.

Who will compose the Jury of their peers? Who hasn't heard about the 9/11 terror attacks? This trial will turn into a side-show. Its all happening a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.

I also have my doubts about mixing them into the general populations of our prisons, where they can recruit others to their cause.


Sign a petition against a civilian trial for this non-civilian terrorist:

9 11 Families for Safe and Strong America

So which is it? If they are to fall under military courts, they get to fall under the geneva convention.

If they are civilians they fall under the civilian courts.

I don't buy for one second this blatant end run of the Constitution under the guise of 'enemy non-combatant'.

They must be held accountable for their actions. We cannot allow anyone to be held indefinitely and without charges and a trial.

If there is anything we can learn from the government, give and inch and they take a mile.

**** I have no doubts that obama is doing this for ulterior motives. That said, getting these people dead or free is the proper thing to do.

Lets all keep in mind the Constitution LIMITS the government. It doesn't give Rights to ANYONE. We already have them.

 

[Panama]

WOW!
This is a monster size can of worms!

Did they get mirandized at the time of their arrest,
or wait a minute,
they were captured in a foreign country by the military, not arrested,
so is there a jurisdiction issue to deal with,
and they never got the chance to fight their extradition,
what about the evidence, wouldn't that be coerced and unreliable?
I mean, even on here, we have had LENGTHY debates whether waterboarding is torture or not?
That will be fun in a court of law!
What about the right to speedy trial?
Who gets called as witnesses?
How much of our operational secrets will get relieved?

I hate to say it, but I can actually see a really good attorney getting some of these guys acquitted!

Then what, turn them loose, and where?
Hell, they may sue us, as in the United States, for damages!

What a freakin' mess!

 

[Randy Divine]

I have no faith in the NY Prosecuting attorneys or the Federal Judges. These guys may be walking the streets some day soon.

 

[Denny347]

We are a nation of laws and I think that is where our greatness as a Nation is. We are BETTER than these terrorists, we prove it by administering OUR laws fairly to them. It is more than they would/have shown us but that is the point. We rise ABOVE such actions in the face of terror...not below. Be careful not to become the very monster that we despise. We are quite capable to administer justice legally and effectively.

 

[Denny347]

I hate to say it, but I can actually see a really good attorney getting some of these guys acquitted!

Then we did something wrong and the Feds should have done a better job. If they cannot even prove guilt in a proper court of law to a jury that hates the defendants guts then what are they doing in custody in the first place?

 

[rambone]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed devised the plan to infiltrate, blow up airplanes, destroy buildings, and kill thousands of people. I always considered 9/11 an act of war on the United States by foreign combatants. I thought that is what military tribunals were for.

Is the steadfast libertarian perspective that military tribunal trials are unconstitutional? Or is this thread being influenced by the reference to Guantanamo Bay?

I don't know who all the people are at Gitmo, and this really isn't about them. I do think the ba$tard should have been tried by now, period. But the 9/11 mastermind declared war on America. Maybe you guys can sway me, but I don't want to see this trial turned into a circus that ends with a guilty man going free.

 

[Hotdoger]

Then we did something wrong and the Feds should have done a better job. If they cannot even prove guilt in a proper court of law to a jury that hates the defendants guts then what are they doing in custody in the first place?

LOL!!!!!

Since when does "guilt" have anything to do with our present judicial system?

Our courts have been turned into a total FARCE!

 

[Panama]

Then we did something wrong and the Feds should have done a better job. If they cannot even prove guilt in a proper court of law to a jury that hates the defendants guts then what are they doing in custody in the first place?

That is my exact point, I think the Feds (actually the entire government) did a lot wrong.
I don't know how we can administer justice, by affording them some Constitutional rights, but not all of our Constitutional rights?

Talk about your slippery slope!

Like in my previous post, if you or I get "arrested", we are gruanranteed "all" the Constitutional rights I mentioned above and then some, starting with being mirandized and so on.

So what I am "asking" is will we give them just a few of our Constitutional rights, or do we guarantee them ALL?
If we grant them all, we have already violated nearly every one of those Constitutional rights?

So now what do we do?

 

[Denny347]

LOL!!!!!

Since when does "guilt" have anything to do with our present judicial system?

Our courts have been turned into a total FARCE!

Maybe, so your solution is what?

 

[Bill of Rights]

That is my exact point, I think the Feds (actually the entire government) did a lot wrong.
I don't know how we can administer justice, by affording them some Constitutional rights, but not all of our Constitutional rights?

Talk about your slippery slope!

Like in my previous post, if you or I get "arrested", we are gruanranteed "all" the Constitutional rights I mentioned above and then some, starting with being mirandized and so on.

So what I am "asking" is will we give them just a few of our Constitutional rights, or do we guarantee them ALL?
If we grant them all, we have already violated nearly every one of those Constitutional rights?

So now what do we do?

If they were not given the Miranda warning and they made statements in response to questioning, then those statements would be thrown out, unable to be admitted into evidence. However, if they made statements freely, without questions being asked, those would probably be OK. Also, if there is evidence that was obtained without cooperation of the defendant, such as, oh, I don't know, a few buildings being damaged or destroyed.. I think those would probably be admitted into evidence as well.

The problem is that they are not uniformed combatants fighting for their nation, and IIRC, that excludes them from the Geneva Convention, however, they were not merely non-combatants haplessly captured in a war zone.

In Revolutionary times, an enemy would likely be tried and taken to the wall to be shot, however a spy was hanged and I do believe that this sentence was carried out without trial. I do know that a British officer had the power and indeed, the duty to execute those suspected of treason, and the normal method was by hanging from the nearest tree, without appeal. These are not warriors who live by a code of honor, but honorless rats deserving of nothing more than a quick death.
Personally, I would not legitimize them by treating them as soldiers, but treat them as common criminals and punish their crimes. (though these days, that's pretty frightening, as common criminals do get the revolving door justice system. I trust that New Yorkers, however, given notice that these scum were exiting the courthouse, I think would ensure they walked no farther than a few steps, and nobody saw nuthin'.

Either way, they've lit their last fuse and made their last Semtex vests.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Denny347]

That is my exact point, I think the Feds (actually the entire government) did a lot wrong.
I don't know how we can administer justice, by affording them some Constitutional rights, but not all of our Constitutional rights?

Talk about your slippery slope!

Like in my previous post, if you or I get "arrested", we are gruanranteed "all" the Constitutional rights I mentioned above and then some, starting with being mirandized and so on.

So what I am "asking" is will we give them just a few of our Constitutional rights, or do we guarantee them ALL?
If we grant them all, we have already violated nearly every one of those Constitutional rights?

So now what do we do?

Which rights do they not need or we do not want to give them? He is NOT the first foreign criminal (terrorist) to be caught oversees and brought back to the US to stand trial. Ramzi Yousef was behind the first WTC bombing. He was caught in Pakastan and transported by the FBI to the US to stand trial. He was tried and convicted in Federal Court. I believe there were 4 other terrorists that were all caught outside the US and brought back to stand trial in Federal Court. There were no troubles that time, why is it different now? Our constitutional rights are rights that we were born with. Many refer to them as "God given rights". Do we not apply them to other humans that we take into custody? Or does God only give these things to US citizens? The only slippery slope I see is not applying our laws to everyone. Our system is flawed , I won't argue against that for sure, but I challenge you to find an existing legal system that is better. Practice what we preach.

 

[Panama]

Which rights do they not need or we do not want to give them? He is NOT the first foreign criminal (terrorist) to be caught oversees and brought back to the US to stand trial. Ramzi Yousef was behind the first WTC bombing. He was caught in Pakastan and transported by the FBI to the US to stand trial. He was tried and convicted in Federal Court. I believe there were 4 other terrorists that were all caught outside the US and brought back to stand trial in Federal Court. There were no troubles that time, why is it different now? Our constitutional rights are rights that we were born with. Many refer to them as "God given rights". Do we not apply them to other humans that we take into custody? Or does God only give these things to US citizens? The only slippery slope I see is not applying our laws to everyone. Our system is flawed , I won't argue against that for sure, but I challenge you to find an existing legal system that is better. Practice what we preach.

I think you are missing my point, what I am saying is.
When we caught/captured them we did not treat them as criminal suspects.
They were picked up as "enemy combatants" and at the time of their capture, we did not afford them any Constitutional rights, that would have been afforded in any normal criminal case.

Hell we even admittedly water boarded them, (again not saying we should or should not, but that's different topic) but I believe that is gonna be a HUGE problem under our Constitution in a criminal court, and we can't change that.

But what we have done, is create a hybrid of criminal judicial/military justice and I don't have a clue how we can or even if we can give them full Constitutional rights now, after the fact, some 5 or 6 years later?
How is that going to work.

I seriously think a good lawyer could argue the case be thrown out before it ever gets in front of a jury, because we did not read them their rights, they were not granted a speedy trial, they were coerced to confess and so on and so on.

I am not trying to suggest what they should or should not have done to them. We all have our opinions on that as well. I am merely trying to point out you can't all of a sudden grant anyone rights that were denied at the time of their capture.

My main point is and has been from the get go, this is a colossal frigin' mess and I see it only getting worse as it goes forward toward a criminal prosecution.

God, on this one, I hope I am wrong!
Because I know we ALL agree, these BASTARDS should be brought to "complete" justice for this, and the sooner the better!

 

[Denny347]

I think you are missing my point, what I am saying is.
When we caught/captured them we did not treat them as criminal suspects.
They were picked up as "enemy combatants" and at the time of their capture, we did not afford them any Constitutional rights, that would have been afforded in any normal criminal case.

Hell we even admittedly water boarded them, (again not saying we should or should not, but that's different topic) but I believe that is gonna be a HUGE problem under our Constitution in a criminal court, and we can't change that.

But what we have done, is create a hybrid of criminal judicial/military justice and I don't have a clue how we can or even if we can give them full Constitutional rights now, after the fact, some 5 or 6 years later?
How is that going to work.

I seriously think a good lawyer could argue the case be thrown out before it ever gets in front of a jury, because we did not read them their rights, they were not granted a speedy trial, they were coerced to confess and so on and so on.

I am not trying to suggest what they should or should not have done to them. We all have our opinions on that as well. I am merely trying to point out you can't all of a sudden grant anyone rights that were denied at the time of their capture.

My main point is and has been from the get go, this is a colossal frigin' mess and I see it only getting worse as it goes forward toward a criminal prosecution.

God, on this one, I hope I am wrong!
Because I know we ALL agree, these BASTARDS should be brought to "complete" justice for this, and the sooner the better!

Ah, I see what you are saying. You do make a good point. We may have to pay for our past wrongs, or maybe we will not. Only time will tell I if the Feds did a good enough job to survive scrutiny. We (the government) did a diservice by starting down this dark road, now we have to decide when enough is enough.