9/11 Terrorists to be tried in civil trial in NYC

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Foreign Affairs on Nov 13 

Eric Holder announced today that five of the 9/11 terrorists currently being held at Guantanamo Bay will be brought to New York City, mere blocks from the site of the the most horrific attack we have ever seen on American soil.

Holder is confident that each will receive the death penalty.  I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never even been in a courtroom, but it’s my understanding that the decision of a person’s guilt and their sentance is set by the jury and judge presiding over that trial.

These people are terrorists.  They committed an act of war on our soil and, therefore, do not have the right to a civil trial.  There is no punishment harsh enough.

It’s a mockery of the memories of the innocent Americans and the heroes of the NYPD and FDNY that died that day and a slap in the face to the men and women in the military who protect this country and have given their lives so we can walk down the street without fear of another terrorist attack.

Comments

  • Conservative

    O’Farren,
    Couldn’t agree more. Don’t bother. These jackasses clearly cannot understand simple facts. Leave it to a liberal to act like this.

  • Conservative

    Hey Billy Carlin,
    FUCK YOU! Don’t ever insult the U.S.A ever again! Evidently, you are an idealogue with limited knowledge. THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HAVING A TRIAL IS TO PROVE THESE FUCKING TERRORISTS GUILTY, AND THEN EXECUTE THEM! THE CRIMES HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, AND ADMITTED BY THE MASTERMIND!!!! THE DAY THE US IS ON TRIAL IS THE DAY THAT YOU YOU REALIZE THAT UR COUNTRY SUCKS AND THE US IS THE BEST!!!!!!!!!
    SUCK IT MOFO!

  • Conservative

    Yes that is in our constitution but for U.S CITIZENS!These terrorists were here on account of being caught in Gitmo, U.S property, but were residents and citizens in the Middle East (go figure)”Treen” is wrong. With all due respect, please make sure you are correct before putting your far left idiology up on the page. Somebody who commits an unlawful act against the U.S who is not a citizen is to be placed in military tribunal court, as stated in Section 948b. of our law system. Explain to me why this TERRORIST is excluded. My opinion?
    Obama is “kissing ass” to the Muslim World, afraid of their reaction if we did what we were supposed to do with him.

    Sec. 948b. Military commissions generally
    (a) Purpose— This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

  • http://hotmail.com O’Farren

    These men are criminals of war. They do not have the right to a civil trial. Period. How can you argue with that? On top of that NY will provide a platform on a global scale for the Muslim extremists. I like to use the metaphor: When a dog bites a human (if not immediately taken out back and shot in the head) they are to be put down. I as an American feel that these men are to be treated as such. They are brainwashed cowards that deserve no more no less. A civil trial will only create problems even if an impartial jury is unlikely.

  • armjoint1

    One other thing, are all the jurors, witnesses, etc. going to be be given protection for the rest of their lives, which they will need if they appear as either a judge or a witness.

  • armjoint1

    Thank goodness I didn’t vote for the baboon. If there is a civil trial this means every one of the defendants has a right to be mirandized. Any testimony they gave can be thrown out of court therefore they will not not necessarily get the death penalty; then they will have a right to appeal and it will cost taxpayers a fortune. Think about it!

  • http://www.paisleyexpressions.blogspot.com Billy Carlin

    You people in the US should really get out of your political cults and open your eyes. The rest of the world will be watching this trial. Wait until the evidence of Dr Judy Wood and Dr Morgan Reynolds etc is presented – then it will be the US that will be on trial and it will be apparent where the guilty people are.

    • Alaina Segovia

      Exactly what are we guilty of?

    • Lolo

      Strongly agree – Carlin is a jackass and an embarassment to his country – wherever that is. Please do not hold that against his fellow countrymen – he is obviously a poorly educated man who has no social skills or friends – what other reason would he have to spend his time poking his nose into the business of a country he allegedly does not even like?

  • http://twitter.com/theatomicmom East of Eden

    Let’s just say what is really going to be on trial here: The Bush Admin, the CIA and everything that the left has hated about the Bush years….

    If Obama was really serious about this, HE would have made the announcment on a Monday, not Eric Holder on a Friday with him out of town….this is just more of his political games.

    • Brian H

      What this demonstrates is how shallow and short sighted Obama is politically. This charade will do nothing but embarrass him and his administration for creating it. Any damages that will follow from this inept logic will harm his administration.

      Again. I am amazed how weak he seems to be in his political skills and calculations. Whether it is Gitmo, selling Health Care, Van Jones, Harvard Law professors, Olympic bids, “Stimulus” packages, New York fly-overs in A-Force 1, terrorist trials, golfing, Broadway shows, late Night talk show circuit, war with Fox News, Iranian revolts, Eastern Europe missle defence, bowing to Arab leaders, responding to Fort Hood appropriately, etc. etc. etc.

      Not only is the guy a novice, at best, in running the Executive Branch, he is also a novice in his political skills. Quite shocking, actually.

      • Troy La Mana

        It shouldn’t be shocking at all. Plenty of people tried to tell America that he was the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time candidate. The liberals didn’t care, they had to be racist and elect him based on the color of his skin and not the color of his character.

        • Brian H

          I am not shocked that he is Not-Ready-for-Prime-Time. I am shocked how weak he is in the game of political posturng and saviness.

  • http://nonangrypoliticalwoman.blogspot.com treen

    Because I’m apparently a glutton for punishment, I’m going to keep digging even with little hope of any sympathy here.

    1. I always understood the right to a trial to be a fundamental right that went beyond the Constitution. John Adams defended the British soldiers who were accused of the Boston Massacre well before the Constitution (or even the Declaration of Independence) was written for that very reason – because it’s a fundamental right that you get to defend yourself in a trial. Of whatever form it takes – civil, criminal, military tribunal, whatever.

    2. I agree that Obama is a really sucky President. But the guy IS an attorney … and back in July/Aug 2006, the Senate passed that military tribunals bill. THAT bill mucked things up for Gitmo and how the terrorists can be tried and blah blah blah. The Republicans got all tricksy with their “enemy combatant” definitions and really screwed things up. I’m going to take a stab that Obama is having to work around this bill.

    3. And then there’s the fact that we waterboarded the one guy over 100 times and if/when that gets entered into the record, that could gum up the works as well. The civil trial may be a way around that? Maybe?

    So I’m willing to cut Obama a little slack on the civil trial route … but I do think sending them to New York as opposed to trying them in DC or something is making more of a show of it than is necessary.

    • Brian H

      1. The Constitution is the law of the land…nothing goes “beyond” that. John Adams defended soldiers based on English law. He was also defending soldiers who were arrested for committing acts within his jurisdiction. Acts of war are not simply criminal violations of law.

      2. At least we can agree Obama is a “sucky” President.

      3. There is no “civil” trial. It is a criminal trial. Civil trials are lawsuits, not criminal procedings. Master-Slob Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is beig charged in a criminal court. As you said, the fact that this NUTTER was waterboarded will be used by his attorneys to get the case thrown out completely. There are no CSI investigators who taped off the crime scene and took sample evidence to build their cases here. This guy launched a military attack against the USA.

      Its all fun and games to team Obama untill somebody loses a city.

  • Troy La Mana

    The U.S. Constitution only applies to citizens of this country. They do NOT have a right to a civil trial. This action, more then anything else, proves that the Obamanation has gone back to a pre-9/11 mentality. Clinton tried people responsible for the first WTC bombing and what did it get us? OBL saw that as a weakness and planned for the second attack. I would look over my shoulder for the next few years if I were you. Our weakness is showing.

    • Mrs Rusty Shackleford

      I agree Troy. Constitution does not apply to them. Why is this not a cause for a war tribunal? American citizens were not the only ones killed at the Twin Towers, or on the planes. Why is this not being done at Hague? Why isn’t the administration approaching it from a real trial stand point and trying them as war criminals and plotting a case against Al Quaida? If Obama is so appologetic about the US and our actions then why not take it to his favorite ppl the UN and let the Great European World decide the fate of these?

      I think it shows how incompetent this administration is. I don’t think they are thinking of ways to try and put closure to anything which is what a trial is suppose to do. They are all about the show and grand standing and throwing the American ppl a bone ever now and then. After all, we are all stupid and unable to take care of ourselves and we need the almighty government to tell us what we can and can’t do, eat, buy, and how to breathe without leaving a carbon footprint. Brian’s phrase is elections have consequences. My phrase is resistance is futile. Assimilation is in progress. Please hurry up with 2010!

  • http://twitter.com/theatomicmom East of Eden

    They commited acts of war, and can still get due process and a “fair trial” in a military tribunal. By taking this to civillian courts the Obama adminstration is bringing into question issues of national security. These men will languish in prision for years before they even see their trials happen. If I’m not mistaken that violates their 6th Amendment rights to a speedy trial. Not to mention they cannot get a “fair and impartial” jury in NYC. Who there was not affected in some way by 9/11? Then there is the issue that these men have asked to be tried in a military court. They do not want to be subjected to more of our justice system. Let them have their martyrdom. The only thing that I wish would happen is every day when they have to go from jail to the the court, that they be made to walk thru a column of NYPD, FDNY, Port Autority Police and National Guard so that the victims of 9/11 can have partial justice. This is just another exmple of the Obama Admin’s complete ineptitude and inexperience.

    • Brian H

      Just throw his A%$ into the general population. “Justice” will be served within minutes.

  • http://nonangrypoliticalwoman.blogspot.com treen

    I totally disagree that they don’t have a right to a trial. Isn’t that in our Constitution? That anyone who commits a crime has a right to face their accusers in a court of law? Last time I checked it was (even when that crime involved killing thousands of people at the same time), and I thought the regulars on this blog, um, supported the Constitution.

    That said, do you really think that these guys are going to get anything LESS than the death penalty? They’re taking them to New York for a reason – because there, EVERYONE remembers what happened and takes it personally, more than anyone else in the country I’d bet, because they SAW it happen. It will be a show trial because there’s no way that there’s an unbiased jury to be found anywhere, especially not New York.

    If there’s “no punishment harsh enough” for your satisfaction, what exactly do you propose to do with these people if NOT put them on trial and give them the death penalty? Just curious.

    • kristen

      They are war criminals and the Constitution does not apply to them. They should be tried in a military tribunal rather than a civil court. They are totally separate systems which have separate purposes. These terrorists (aka murderous thugs) will only make a mockery of their actions and the victims of this horrendous act.

      This act is a complete disgrace for our country and has to be one of Obama’s worst decisions yet. (And there are many.)

    • http://conservativetruthseeker.blogspot.com/ Neil Braithwaite

      Correct Kristen.

      They are war criminals!

      This is an Obama grandstand to divert attention from the economy.

    • Alaina Segovia

      Ditto Kristen and Neil.

      As for their punishment… they want to be executed so they will be martyrs for their cause. As far as I’m concerned they can sit in solitary confinement and rot. As a taxpayer, I’ll be more than happy to pay for that.

    • Gil Rice

      Although it is pretty obvious how you voted last year, the worst thing that could happen to them, is leave them in the Bay and have listen to, maybe Kanye West the rest of their natural days.

      • http://nonangrypoliticalwoman.blogspot.com treen

        Pretty obvious how I voted? Thanks, but assuming my vote is really presumptuous and patronizing. Not to mention wrong. It is possible to support the right to trial even for the terrorists and NOT be a member of the Obama fan club.

        Although I do agree with you that the worst thing to happen would be solitary confinement with Kanye West playing.

    • Brian H

      Treen.

      An act of war against our nation is not penal code violation in the context of a “crime”. Master-Slob Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is responsible for launching an act of war against the USA, not holding up a Stop-n-Go. He was arrested in Pakistan. In court, his lawyers will argue that his Miranda rights were not properly read to him, that the evidence obtained against him was obtained illegaly, and any witnesses against him who are in Pakistan may not be able to testify. I can;t believe you can’t distinguish the difference. I will actually be SHOCKED if a conviction could be obtained in a criminal proceding.

      Not to mention the DANGER that a public trial will bring to NY and how this terrorist will use this event to rant and make a joke of our system.

    • ConstitutionRules!!!

      Terrorists are NOT American citizens!!!! They DO NOT have the right to a trial in the federal court system. The Constitution applies ONLY to AMERICAN citizens. ONLY Americans can be tried in the American court system. Terrorists are WAR CRIMINALS and can ONLY be tried in the MILITARY COURTS!!! It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for terrorists to be given civil trials!!! Look it up in any American Government book. The Government is breaking the Constitution which is the HIGHEST law of the land. It has gone unbroken since the founding of this country. Only now has the Government BROKEN THE CONSTITUTION!

      • terrorist….LOL

        when you say,”Terrorists are WAR CRIMINALS and can ONLY be tried in the MILITARY COURTS!!!” What war are u exactly talking about??? A war that has no geographical boundaries? We are not fighting or at war with any one or two specific countries, but we are dealing with insane people that are all over he world….so there is actually no war happening that involves the U.S.