Obama's dumbest decision yet, 9/11 conspirators tried in NY

We weren't at war on 9/11.

We weren't at war on December 7, 1941 either when they bombed Pearl Harbor, but that doesn't mean that we should have dealt with that matter in a civil court. OK, not the same situation since one was a country attacking and the other wasn't but that's the closest comparison we have.

I agree that it's not the smartest move. To have it moved to the NEW YORK federal court of all places seems a bit obtuse to me. Still have to have a jury in federal court, if I remember right. You're going to find 12 New Yorkers who weren't personally affected by the WTC bombings, and who aren't either mad as hell at anyone they can blame or a complete pacifist who believes we got what we deserved? I don't think there's much in between and I'm willing to bet that the majority are the former. Of course, I could be wrong since I'm a long ways away in Colorado but I do think it would be difficult to get a fair trial in the same city where the worst attacks on American soil since Pearl Harbor took place.

Up until 8:44am on that day, the above statement is true. At 8:45am, when the first hijacked jet hit the North Tower, we were at war, though we didn't realize it at that moment. It became clear when the 2nd plane hit.

The decision to hold the trial in NYC is incredible. The 5 terrorists do not belong anywhere on US soil, much less NYC. The court house is only blocks from the WTC. If KSM and the other 4 barbarians get even 2 seconds worth of satisfaction from seeing the gaping hole that still exists where the twin towers once stood...I think that alone is reason enough not to hold the trial in the city.

There is so much wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. Dusty's Mom and Heidi have already stated several reasons why this is a ludicrous decision. These men are terrorists. They are not American citizens. They are not simply criminals. And they are absolutely not entitled to the rights of US citizens.

Because of the nature of this type of trial, as opposed to a military tribunal, information will be divulged that would otherwise be classified, such as intelligence gathering methods and strategies. Interesting info for terrorists, don't you think?

What if the judge throws this case out because the terrorists weren't Mirandized (what insanity that is), or feels they were held too long, or just doesn't like that whole waterboarding business? We're talking about NYC. It's not out of the realm of possibility that a leftist judge will see an opportunity to make a political statement.

And what judge, jury and prosecutors will be eager to participate in this debacle anyway? Participating in this trial can be hazardous to one's health. The prosecutor from the '93 WTC bombing was under a death threat for years. Nothing like having jihad waged against yourself and your family.

These barbarians should have remained at Gitmo, gotten tried through military tribunal, and been hung or shot in the back of the head.

Actually, that's a very good comparison. In fact, the Japanese fleet attacked before the Japanese embassy was able to decode and preset the declaration of war to the United States. Therefore, the entire attack on Pearl Harbor was basically the act of a rogue war fleet. Yet, not one of those soldiers, sailors, officers or planners were ever placed on trial for it.

On the other side of the coin, Gavrilo Princip , the man whose actions were both directly and indirectly the cause of World War 1, the creation of Allied and Axis powers, their wars thereafter, and much of the cold war, was tried and convicted in a civilian court. Because, there was no war on when he did his deed.

Except that one important aspect of military tribunals is being overlooked. They have let very nearly every suspect they have tried go free.

On the other hand, those being tried in Federal courts such as the shoe bomber and the American Taliban boy are being given considerable sentences.

In a Federal trial, jurors do not have to be locals. I think the government can still afford transportation for jurors. At least I hope so.

What else would you expect from this administration? Are we surprised? Im not.

This is the attorney general who decided not to prosecute the thugs that were standing in front of a voting place last November with billy clubs. In my humble opinion, that was voter intimidation. But that's just my practical way.


These are very dark days for this country. I think history will look back at this president and his radical group and it will be clear that this was indeed the beginning of the end of The United States as we have known and loved.

I am ashamed.

Prosecution for voter intimidation requires a criminal complaint be made by voters who were intimidated, or to at least testify. They apparently weren't able to find any.

They did find several reporters, onlookers, and self proclaimed "monitors" outside their own voting districts that felt the local voters should feel intimidated, but that doesn't count in court.

Besides, "billy clubs" and nightsticks are "Arms". And you know what the 2nd Amendment says. The NRA is there for people just like those two.

Just as a reality check (I love doing them!), the word is that this was announced by the Attorney General without the foreknowledge of the White House. The AG has been a bit of a problem for Obama, and this puts him at serious risk; if this turns out bad (and who knows, at this point?), the Democrats stand to lose an immense amount in any following election, even in New York.

But, personally, if I were one of those conspirators, downtown New York would be the last place I'd want to be tried.

Bet no one in the White House gave it a thought that the judge who hears this, the prosecutors, and even the jurors will be on the hit list for the terrorists now - no matter what the verdict. Not only them, but their families too.

Obama is bound and determined to bring this country down so fast that no one will be prepared to what will happen!

This is the most insane thing to come out of the WH and Obama.

Which would be different from, when? The prosecutor's and judge's at the tribunals names were released. Why was there no concern for them, or their families?

Those Black Panthers had plead guilty and were awaiting sentencing, from what I understand. Then Holder comes along and sets them free. Nice.

This trial in NY will be nothing but a trial against the Bush Administration and waterboarding, just wait and see.

Add to that the tens of millions it will cost that this country can't afford and the media spectacle and the knowledge future terrorists will gain.

I find it VERY interesting that this gets announced when Barack is out of the country and on a Friday to boot. Much like last weekend's House vote on the Health Bill.

That "hope and change" is working out REALLY well.

The Miranda rights protect an individual from self incrimination. If someone wasn't mirandized than anything they say cannot be admissable. This will apply to evidence obtained during harsh interogation techniques. However it doesn't apply to evidence obtained by other means. The government simply makes it case from other venues. I am sure there is plenty of other evidence.

Your are correct that it will be dangerous for them but I am not sure I get why this is an reason not to have a trial. We cannot based whether we bring someone to trial based on fear. If this was the litmus test no trials would happen. Judges and prosecutors have risked danger since legal systems been in place. This is nothing new. Criminal elements will always use whatever means to circumvent justice. Whether they be terrorist, organized crime or just someone who was on the losing side of a judgement.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-voting-case/

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

And even the NRA would be against weapons being waved about at polling places. They are for responsible gun ownership. Not bullying and intimidation at a voting place. That's for the Black Panthers.

Why this story isn't bigger and still being pursued is a huge question. This is wrong any way you look at it. But it is quietly dropped and only discussed on those 'non-news' networks like Fox. I guarantee you, reverse the colors of the bullies and the voters standing in line and those people with weapons would be sitting jail right now under a ton of hate crimes.

So you feel that a statement of "well, they looked intimidated" by a non-voter should be admissible then? Should we also invalidate used car sales if someone says the buyer "appeared coerced"?

The NRA's stated position is that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Are you suggesting that it's ok to infringe on that right if it's an American citizen you don't agree with?

No, the court had simply made a "default judgement". Nice of them, eh?

If they had been brought to justice way, way back when they were caught, this wouldn't be a problem.
Revenge may be cheap, but justice costs a bit more.

I see all sorts of change happening.

It was someone standing in line that took the video. Standing outside a polling place, in a military looking uniform, swinging around weapons and shouting racial things at the people in line. You really think that is ok? Like I said, change the colors of the people in the event and there would have been a much different outcome. Can you imagine a group of white cowboys trying to intimidate a line of black people from voting, shouting out "You will be ruled by the white man N****!" and waving around baseball bats?

And I think the poll worker, who was very active in the original civil rights movement, would know what he was talking about with voter imtimidation.

And the NRA would NOT be for someone using a weapon in such an irresponsible manner.

Okay, from what I have read, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed , admitted to being the mastermind of the September 11,2001 bombing of the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon. He admitted it BEFORE he was waterboarded.
BUT, he was not given his Miranda Rights before he admitted to being the mastermind.

Sooooo, does that mean, that his confession to being the mastermind of 9-11 will not be admissable in court?

Peachy, no offense but your post is a bit contradictory or I am just clueless today, which, definitely could be the case.

Why even bring the NRA into this, they have nothing to do with the voter intimidation by the Black Panthers on November 4,2008, a day that will live in infamy.

The NRA's stated position has nothing to do with what these Panthers did.

I don't see any contradiction. Where do you see it? I would be happy to clarify if I knew what was contradictory. Or are you saying the only evidence the government has is his confession before being mirandized. In which case then yes there is no case. But how do you know that? Do you know right now all the evidence there is?

And did the person making the video feel intimidated? If so, why didn't they come forward and say so? We have nothing in the form of testimony of anyone other than a poll worker who thinks that voters should have been intimidated by what was going on. Yet, none of them made a complaint to that effect.

So, to clarify, are you saying that the NRA would be in favor of infringing the right of "certain" American citizens to keep and bear arms?

Because someone brought up the subject of Black Panthers being armed with billy clubs. The untiring efforts of the NRA ensure they can legally do just that.

I know you will never find anything from the NRA stating that anyone has the right to use weapons to intimidate voters.

I'm still waiting for the name of a voter who was intimidated. There are neighborhoods where the Panthers are more trusted and respected than the police.

It doesn't matter what the NRA wants. It tickles me to be able to point out that the NRA and the ACLU are in exactly the same boat. In order to protect the rights of citizens, they are forced to protect the rights of scoundrels, because that is who the laws are directed at originally, before they are turned against the citizens.

A 21 year old gangster with a full rap sheet can legally buy a gun at any gun store, as long as nothing on his sheet is a felony. The NRA helps ensure that.

A son who inherits his fathers gun shop can take everything in the store and sell it without any paperwork to whoever as a "one time sale", completely legally. The NRA helps ensure that.

A person can buy a gun and "gift" it to whoever, completely legally. The NRA helps ensure that.

Hitler started gun registration to "combat crime". Those that protested gun registration were called "pro-criminal" and unpatriotic too. We see how well that worked out.

Just as an aside, does anyone know where the supposed video is that was taken by the "voter standing in line"? The only ones I find are from a UP student who fancies himself a "poll watcher" from outside the district, and the news videos.

So you are saying that because the video on youtube might not have been taken from someone in line, that is is made up? That black panthers in military looking garb, carrying weapons didn't shout racial things at the people at a polling place?

Uh...you see, when intimidation works, it first of all keeps people from voting freely, and secondly it keeps them from complaining.

The Justice Department messed up on this one, and it's just going to have to face the music on it later.