5 Reasons Not To Hold Terror Trials In New York City

[swansont]

swansont; John Allen Muhammad, was tried and convicted of murder (Dean Meyers), domestic terrorism (Virginia's, anti terrorism statute -extortion), conspiracy to commit murder (premeditated) and the illegal use of a firearm. These were all under Virginia Law and their Courts. The fact he was Muslim, was not material.

 

Why? Why would the strategy of getting Muslims on the jury, in order to secure a hung jury, not apply in this case?

 

 

Zacarias Moussaoui, (Good Example). He was indited by a FEDERAL GRAND JURY AND TRIED IN FEDERAL COURTS, for conspiracy (with Osama bin Laden and some of the original 19 hijackers, for the murders of thousands (Gitmo, not in operation then). Under US Law, this WAS a death penalty case, Minnesota law not material (where picked up). For multiple reasons, including the evidence presented was from German Sources, which were used, was on the premise no DEATH penalty could be imposed, he was sentenced to life, without the possibility of parole. The verdict has since been challenged, by both Moussaoui and attorneys, will likely be challenged many more times, always with the POSSIBILITY of a new trail being ordered.

 

"So much for that"? Neither case, is equal to the 5 which are likely to be tried in NYC. These people, were NOT picked up in the US, where law enforcement (including the Federal) applied proper procedures. Under International Law, when combatants and/or their leaders are picked up (CAPTURED), they can be held to the completion of the war, if any charges are deemed necessary, charges can then be applied or they are released to their original Country of origin, where they simply go free or are charged and tried by that Nation.

 

And? How does this impact the above strategy of packing the jury with Muslims?

 

 

No, that direct question would be seem as jury tampering, however there are many other questions, which could lead to that conclusion allowing the challenges/recusal or excused potential juror. To ask that question would be presumptuous to a verdict, for a proceeding that has not occurred.

 

Baloney

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death-qualified_jury

 

 

Absolutely NOT, I rather enjoy his comments and often make comments on them. In fact, I have read most all of his threads, keeping track of what's important to the liberal mindset, of the day. I do the same on the 'Huffington Post' and 'Move On'. If it's the desire of this Forum and you to encourage such activity, that's perfectly fine with me. As for trolling, or the idea of making several post about the same subjects, with different angles, I've seen many banned here and elsewhere, IF the ideology is NOT consistent with that of the forums moderators. I would disagree with many of these bannings, several here specifically called trolling. I would never report (judge)a post, for any reason. On three or four forums, they ban maybe two or three posters per year, for other than spamming. Those that are ignored, generally won't return after the first or second attempt.

 

I don't care what you see elsewhere; what matters to this forum is what you see here. Name one user who was banned for their ideology being counter to the moderators' (as if that were possible). We keep a log of banned and suspended individuals (for reasons other than spam), and this is one reason why: for the transparency against this kind of accusation. Users are not banned because of their ideas, unless the specific expression is not permitted (e.g. libel, prejudice, ad hominem). They are banned because they break the rules.

 

Trolling is posting provocative material without the intent to engage in meaningful discourse. Those banned for trolling were given several chances to respond to questions (too many chances, according to some). Your "many banned here" is actually "zero."

[npts2020]

So if it is so much easier to get a conviction and execution in the state of Virginia, why not try all of the detainees in Virginia? After all, 9/11 happened there too.

[jackson33]

A couple items have happened since my last post this thread, have tempted me to revisit.

 

One point that was attempted, is the setting of precedence. It could be possible for any combatant picked up in any conflict around the World, to demand a trial in a US Federal Court, once the proceeding are commenced. Since no combatant has ever been apprehended and tried in this manner and apparently will now happen, they will have that right in in the state of war, where the combatant is picked up. Shooting at American Forces, lobbing a missile into a US Military Base, bombing a bus load of civilians with Americans on board can be assumed act against Americans.

 

SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R-S.C): Can you give me a case in United States history where a enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court?

 

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I don't know. I'd have to look at that. I think that, you know, the determination I've made --

 

GRAHAM: We're making history here, Mr. Attorney General. I'll answer it for you. The answer is no.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574545843301320078.html

 

The cost alone, not only in dollars, but in the operation of an economy are going to be devastating on NYC, indirectly on the taxpayers and those doing business or visiting the 'Big Apple'. How many of the thousands that travel there daily from around the World to shop, be entertained or do business, will just avoid the place, over a three year period. The estimated 75M$ cost of additional security cost is thought to be a fraction of what it will cost, and if for no logical purpose, something DOES happen, what ever it had cost will be a fraction of future cost to everyone.

 

The U.S. attorney and the FBI will neither confirm nor deny the grand jury is sitting. That information was first reported by Channel Four, NBC's local affiliate in New York. New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly stated Tuesday that the security plan will cost far more than the $75 million that Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., presented at a Senate hearing last month.

Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Browne told ABC News, "That $75 million was a preliminary, back of the envelope estimate. It is expected to cost significantly more." [/Quote]

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/york-grand-jury-hears-evidence-911-terror-trial/story?id=9291998

 

So if it is so much easier to get a conviction and execution in the state of Virginia, why not try all of the detainees in Virginia? After all, 9/11 happened there too.[/Quote]

 

Good question and a point, I think is continuously being overlooked. If those terrorist had some how lived, or any of the other 19, the prosecution under Civil Law would not be questioned. The acts were committed inside the US. The 'Conspiracy' of those involved, the planners and financiers, so to speak, were not in the US, are not American and picked up during a military action in a foreign Country. Another possibility; What if in the end, two or more, decide to plead guilty naming names of others involved. say from Saudi Arabia, to drop the death penalty, or Germany AGAIN refuses to offer pertinent evidence to quilt, with the death penalty intact. Are we going to expect SA, to extradite their Citizens, for trial as co-conspirators or German Government Officials for obstruction of American Justice.

 

swansont; I agree and have deleted the comments, to prevent any direct comment. I'll respnd later to your thread.....

Edited December 14, 2009 by jackson33

[bascule]

One point that was attempted, is the setting of precedence. It could be possible for any combatant picked up in any conflict around the World, to demand a trial in a US Federal Court, once the proceeding are commenced. Since no combatant has ever been apprehended and tried in this manner and apparently will now happen, they will have that right in in the state of war, where the combatant is picked up.

 

But wouldn't that only apply if they were civilians (i.e. "terrorists"), not soldiers of a foreign military acting at their behest?

[swansont]

Jackson33's board comments have been copied over to another thread, so as to not distract from the discussion here

[jackson33]

But wouldn't that only apply if they were civilians (i.e. "terrorists"), not soldiers of a foreign military acting at their behest?

 

bascule; The authority for picking these people up, in the first place was as Military Combatants. As a National Military, we can't just run around and pick up civilians at will, even if known terrorist, for instance in Spain, India and England, where similar acts occurred.

 

The process for setting precedence (IMO) had already been established, with the Supreme Court, ruling on Habeas Corpus (The right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus has long been celebrated as the most efficient safeguard of the liberty of the subject), although that decision pertained ONLY to Gitmo.

 

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." . . . In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

 

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/12/101629/333

 

What Roberts, was dissenting is the potential of this decision, for ALL persons detained by the US Military, anyplace, any time and under for any reason. This would HAVE to be true, in order for the Gitmo decision to be Constitutional.

 

What has now happened is a leap in the mindset, from rights through the Military and there system to the Civilian System, for justice. If a person is picked up as a Combatant, in Civilian Clothing or Military Dress, on foreign soil, where is the difference, at least pertaining rights? (I used the above site and the responses on an MSNBC blog to demonstrate there desired intent, which were before the Civilian Trial Decision)

 

Another question; Once an Attorney General, Eric Holder in this case, sets the precedence for Civilian Trial for particular persons, can he or future AG's deny any person under anything close to the same circumstances? (Opinion) I don't think so, and if I were an attorney, for others still in Gitmo set for Military Tribunals, I would be asking for a continuance, until after those NYC trials begin, think it would be granted and punishment, substantially less if taken to Civilian Court.

 

You might be interested in some of these cases, but rather lengthy...

 

http://www.defense.gov/news/commissions.html

 

In reading my post for grammatical errors, I see several places where "IMO" should be placed. I think we both understand, nothing has yet happened for anything I suggest to become law or set precedence, it's simply conjecture on my part, I believed in part validated by the five former AG's that have written AG Holder.

[bascule]

bascule; The authority for picking these people up, in the first place was as Military Combatants.

 

What nation's military are they a part of?

 

If they're military combatants then by definition they cannot be "terrorists", right? They're enemy soldiers.

 

I keep asking these questions and not getting a response.

 

Terrorist = Civilian

Military Combatant = Soldier of a Foreign Military

 

Correct or not?

[toastywombel]

This is from wikipedia:

 

"In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States."

 

To me it seems that the term was really abused by the Bush Administration. It was used to keep terrorists from having prisoner-of-war rights and at the same time not allowing them constitutional rights or habeas corpus. Thus, allowing them to be left in legal limbo.

 

Jackson33, I have read through your posts somewhat hastily, but what do suppose we do with the terrorists. From what I read try them in military tribunal?

[Mr Skeptic]

but what do suppose we do with the terrorists. From what I read try them in military tribunal?

 

We kill them. The real problem is what to do with suspected terrorists.

[npts2020]

Other than citizenship (and possible innocence), what is the difference between anyone being held at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere and Ted Kascynski (sp?) or Timothy McVeigh, both of whom were tried and convicted in the American court system?

[bascule]

"In the United States the use of the phrase "enemy combatant" may also mean an alleged member of al Qaeda or the Taliban being held in detention by the U.S. government as part of the war on terror. In this sense, "enemy combatant" actually refers to persons the United States regards as unlawful combatants, a category of persons who do not qualify for prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the term "enemy combatant" has to be read in context to determine whether it means any combatant belonging to an enemy state, whether lawful or unlawful, or if it means an alleged member of al Qaeda or of the Taliban being detained as an unlawful combatant by the United States."

 

So they're civilians, not military.

 

It also seems jackson33 was colluding the term "enemy combatant" into "military combatant".

[Syntho-sis]

So they're civilians, not military.

 

It also seems jackson33 was colluding the term "enemy combatant" into "military combatant".

 

What if they are being supported by certain leaders within a state (i.e. Iran?)

 

Whether it be financially or ideologically? But they are not directly involved with the military. Are they still considered Civilian Combatants?

[bascule]

What if they are being supported by certain leaders within a state (i.e. Iran?)

 

That makes them part of Iran's military all of the sudden?

[Syntho-sis]

That makes them part of Iran's military all of the sudden?

 

I don't know. Maybe Hamas was originally headed by Iranian operatives. I strongly believe Iran is deeply involved in Terrorism...

[bascule]

I don't know. Maybe Hamas was originally headed by Iranian operatives. I strongly believe Iran is deeply involved in Terrorism...

 

A group of civilians receiving money under the table from a foreign government is still a group of civilians. It doesn't magically turn them into soldiers for no apparent reason, especially if they aren't even citizens of Iran.

[Syntho-sis]

A group of civilians receiving money under the table from a foreign government is still a group of civilians. It doesn't magically turn them into soldiers for no apparent reason, especially if they aren't even citizens of Iran.

 

What about Mercs?

[bascule]

What about Mercs?

 

If they are hired directly by a foreign military then yes, I'd say they qualify as soldiers.

 

Does that apply to any of the individuals being tried in New York?

[Syntho-sis]

If they are hired directly by a foreign military then yes, I'd say they qualify as soldiers.

 

Does that apply to any of the individuals being tried in New York?

 

I'm not sure. What organizations were they associated with?

[bascule]

I'm not sure. What organizations were they associated with?

 

I don't know, but to my knowledge none of them were ever hired by a foreign military. Am I wrong about that?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

On another note, I liked the Onion's take on these trials:

 

U.S. Finally Gets Around To Prosecuting Mastermind Behind 9/11

[SH3RL0CK]

I keep asking these questions and not getting a response.

 

Terrorist = Civilian

Military Combatant = Soldier of a Foreign Military

 

Correct or not?

 

Because no one (on either side of the aisle) knows exactly what AQ and similar groups are. Asymetrical warfare at its best...

[bascule]

Because no one (on either side of the aisle) knows exactly what AQ and similar groups are. Asymetrical warfare at its best...

 

Since there's no conclusive evidence they're working for a foreign military, wouldn't the logical place to start be a civilian trial, and if sufficient evidence is presented that they are, in fact, working directly for a foreign military or government, to change venue and hold a military tribunal?

[SH3RL0CK]

Since there's no conclusive evidence they're working for a foreign military, wouldn't the logical place to start be a civilian trial, and if sufficient evidence is presented that they are, in fact, working directly for a foreign military or government, to change venue and hold a military tribunal?

 

Interesting questions, I tend to agree.

 

By their own admission, they are working for AQ. Is AQ a foreign military or is AQ a civilian organization?

 

Well, most civilian organizations do not shoot at people, plant land mines, or engage in activities designed to kill people. But then the mafia would do similar and they are tried in civilian courts.

 

But AQ fighters were caught on foreign soil by the US military, not by civilian police forces in an American city...as such, wouldn't a military tribunal be more applicable?

[bascule]

Is AQ a foreign military or is AQ a civilian organization?

 

Al Qaeda is a civilian organization. If you claim they are not, then by definition they are not terrorists; they're soldiers of a foreign military.

 

But AQ fighters were caught on foreign soil by the US military, not by civilian police forces in an American city...as such, wouldn't a military tribunal be more applicable?

 

I don't see how that changes the fact that these people are civilians and not part of a foreign military. While trying civilians in a military tribunal isn't unprecedented, most of the examples form a rather dark part of America's history.

[SH3RL0CK]

I'm not a lawyer so correct me if I am mistaken. Aren't the courts set up to try people accused of committing crimes within their jurisdiction? I.e. someone who commits a crime in NYC is normally tried in NYC unless a change in venue is warranted?

 

If so, suppose we catch someone in Afghanistan who admits plotting to kill Americans, but who has never set foot in the USA. Which local court should have jurisdiction? Where should this person be tried?

 

Under this possibly flawed assumption, a military tribunal is the only place that makes sense to me.

[bascule]

If so, suppose we catch someone in Afghanistan who admits plotting to kill Americans, but who has never set foot in the USA. Which local court should have jurisdiction? Where should this person be tried?

 

I don't know... under what authority did we snatch up foreign civilians in the first place?