AMERICA ON TRAIL…IN NEW YORK
I’ve been trying to do as much research as possible into the recent move of the 9/11 conspiritors trail from military to civilian court.
My first response to this move by the administration was indifference. No big deal. But after reading up on the possible ramifications I am gravely concernced, as you should be. There is a great commentary from NROonline here that spells it out.
To sum it up. These accused conspirators, including Khalid Sheik Mohammad were nearing the end of the military commission trial. Even in AG Eric Holder’s words, their guilt is not really in question. Obama could have allowed that military commission trail to run it’s course and the case would have been closed. Now, by moving their case into the U.S. Court system, we are putting the probably convictions in question and, of even more concern, we are creating a world stage for America’s war on terror to put on trial.
This brazenly political move by Obama is putting America’s future, your family and mine, in harms way. It will cost you and I millions of dollars. It also will open the door for our enemies and those who despise us to use the information that must be released in this trial to cause even more harm to our nation.
It is a decision so contrary to America’s interests that one must ask, is this an act of treason. Murdering terrorist will not be on trial. America will be on trial in New York.
The Other Side Says: November 17th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
what ever happened to the rule of law in america? what ever happened to confidence in the american legal system? does anyone actually believe that self-proclaimed terrorists will go free? the only reason why anyone of the five terrorists will be aquitted is because they were tortured BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and their testimony isn’t admissible.
the military commissions were a joke from the start, they were started solely to get convictions. they didn’t allow defendents to speak with their lawyers and their lawyers were constrained by unfair rules. in the meantime, the defendents were held indefinately, some without charges. how well has guantanimo bay worked? it hasn’t. in fact it is recruiting more terrorists who see america as fighting against muslims.
after years of bush administration law breaking (nsa wiretaps and torture to name a few), america needs to return to a country of laws. it might be a political move, but it shows the world that america is better than terrorists. we aren’t going to be scared of what terrorists might do and aren’t going to stoop to their level. trying perpetrators where they committed the crime and giving them a trial shows that america will use the rule of law even on the most evil people in the world. we won’t be scared into throwing them into a cage and forgetting about them. america will use our laws because WE ARE BETTER THAN TERRORISTS.
Young Conservative Says: November 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
All this does is open up America to even more attacks. It shows the terroists that they can do any thing they want to us, and basically get a slap on the wrist. And I don’t see how you can put some one on a civilian trial for the deaths of thousands. And another big hole: aren’t juries supposed to be impartial? Since were so big on giving the terrorists all the rights of American citizens, a civilian court would not do because every one on that jury already has a bias against them.
The Other Side Says: November 18th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
young conservative, what slap on the wrist? do you actually think that ksm and the other terrorists are going to be aquitted? do you actually think that the terrorists are going to be able to walk the streets of america because they’re proven not guilty?
the fear of the american judicial system by people on the right is disheartening. we have so much evidence against the terrorists that there is no way they will ever be free again. they will be put in jail or executed for killing thousands of americans. how is that a slap on a wrist?
Young Conservative Says: November 24th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
To them, us killing them is the ultimate goal. They want to die. In the Koran, it basically states that if you do not in the name of Allah, then you do not go to Heaven. And if you die because you fought for Allah, then you are practiacally raised to the leval of a saint. And I don’t fear the judicial system. I just understand that there are a lot of lenient and biased judges and lawyers that would love to get these people off. The ACLU would jump at the chance. And answer me this: If we want to give them the rights of Americans citizens, shouldn’t these go to a war trial, since they are a proclaimed act of war, like we would do to any American citizen? And aren’t juries supposed to be impartail and unbiased? There are no impartial and unbiased citizens in America. So how is it supposed to be fair to them?
The Other Side Says: November 25th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
-what american judge in their right mind would let off terrorists who admitted to the 9-11 attacks? that logic is the fear that people on the right have of our judicial system.
-what would the aclu gain from defending terrorists?
-the war on terror is just a made up phrase. terrorists aren’t a sovereign nation, so we can’t declare war against them. its too vague to generalize all terrorists as being at war with america. and the term “enemy combatants” was used to justify keeping people at guantanamo.
-i’ll give you that no jury will be impartial to the case, all they can hope for is that the jury makes their verdict based on the evidence.
Young Conservative Says: November 30th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Those are the judges that let rapists, murders, and child molesters go. And what would they have to gain from it? The noteriety that they defended these people, that they are so powerful they can do anything.
Kaiser Says: December 1st, 2009 at 12:19 am
How about “War on Jihad Terror Groups Hanging out in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nearby Countries”?
Nah, not really catchy. I guess it’s just a name. Technically, we haven’t declared war since WWII, but in the long run I hardly think it matters.
I haven’t been keeping up on this particular subject, so go ahead and ignore me. I’m not quite fully informed.
The Other Side Says: December 1st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
young conservative, you’re saying that judges want the notoriety of freeing rapists, murderers and child molesters? and because they can let evil people go, they have the power to do anything? that is unbelievably cynical of our judicial system and again is fear-mongering.
there is so much evidence against the terrorists, i.e. confessions that they planned and executed 9-11. its going to be harder to not get convictions. why are conservatives so afraid of trying terrorists in american courts?
Young Conservative Says: December 2nd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Nice twist on words there. What I actualy said was that the judges that would let them go are the type of judges that let the murderers, rapists, and child molesters go. And when I said that they want the noteriety from defending them, I was talking about the ACLU, not the judges. If you had been paying attention and put what I was saying into context(answering your question about what the ACLU would gain from defending them), then you wouldn’t have been able to twist my words around. You want to know why I’m so cynical about the judical system? Because they would put an 18 year old boy in jail for sleeping with his long time 17 year old girlfriend, whom he has every intention of marrying, in jail for 20 years,put him on the sex offenders list, and ruin his life, but when it comes to a 60 year old man molesting a little girl, they won’t put him in jail because of his age. Or how they won’t put reapeated drug users in jail for more than 5 years, even when they want to go back to jail, would love staying there for the rest of thier lives. You can’t tell me theres not something totally twisted there. But I digress. Are you saying that if the ACLU were able to get these terrorists off, that it wouldn’t put them in a place of being untouchable,that if they could get these guys off, they couldn’t get any one they wanted to off? That they wouldn’t be able to twist any law around to get their way?
The Other Side Says: December 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
maybe young conservative needs to add subjects to their sentences. you never mentioned the aclu or stated that the judges that you were talkig about were the ones that would let the terrorists go. and you transition from talking about judges to saying someone would get noteriety. its all very confusing.
if the aclu freed self-confessed terrorists, you think the aclu would be perceived as untouchable? thats insane. americans would evicerate the aclu. who would support an organization that freed people who killed thousands of americans?
again, my main point is that conservatives are irrationally afraid of trying these terrorists in america. the only reason why they would be transfered to new york is because eric holder is confident that they will be convicted. the american justice system has its flaws, but a case this high profile will not be messed up. a lot of people are watching.
Young Conservative Says: December 7th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Like I said, if you were paying attention and not just trying to make me sound like and idiot, then you wouldn’t have gotten confused.You think that every one is who is guilty is convicted? Then you are more naive than I’ve ever been. Ever heard of O.J. Simpson? In 11th grade, I had to take part in a mock trial against him as a part of the prosectution. Almost ever shred of evidence there was pointed to him being the killer. But he was let go because he had a good lawyer. Simple as that. And I do believe that the ACLU would be untouchable. America, like it or not, is very religous, right down to the core. Yet, the ACLU would make the 10 commandments be taken out of court houses, but defend Neo-Nazi’s freedom of speach. Your argument is that we would turn against them. But we haven’t, even though they have done, and continue to do things that I’ve listed above. If people were going to turn against them, then they already would have.
The Other Side Says: December 14th, 2009 at 6:37 am
court houses are government property. religion is not allowed on government property. that is seperation of church and state.
even if you don’t like what neo-nazis stand for, i don’t either, it doesn’t mean you can take away from their right to speak. unless they are violent or break the law, they can preach hate. that is freedom of speech.
both examples are legal protections for america’s diversity. preventing the 10 commandments from being shown in court houses or letting neo-nazis spew hatred are legal in america. young conservative might not agree with the decisions for both examples, but that doesn’t make them illegal. the aclu is protecting american’s rights, even if you disagree with them.
Young Conservative Says: December 14th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
If these people actaully looked at what the Founders ment, they couldn’t take them down. And I’m not saying that the Neo-Nazi’s don’t have the right to free speach. I’m just making the point that they will defend any thing, why wouldn’t they defend the terrorists?
The Other Side Says: December 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
young conservative, what did the founders mean? and what does that have to do with the aclu?
the aclu can defend who ever they want. but when they look at the unbelievably negative pr from defending people who murdered 3000 americans, they won’t do it. and why would the aclu defend terrorists? no rights are being infringed upon so there is no reason for the aclu to get involved.
the main point in all of this is the conservatives fear of the american judicial system. young conservative seems to think the worst even though the vast majority of defendants are tried correctly. young conservative has, for whatever reason, a fixation on the aclu. whats up with the aclu?
Young Conservative Says: December 17th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I brought up my opinion on the ACLU once and you keep bringing it up so I answered you.And the whole reason these terrorists are being tried in the U.S. is because the Obama administration is saying that their rights were being denied by detaining them in Guantanimo Bay. And just because I have a bad opinion of the modern American judicial system doesn’t mean every conservative has one. I think that most just beleive since that they have proclaimed war on America they should be tried by Millitary courts. If any other consrevatives are reading this and think that I’m wrong, please say so.
The Other Side Says: December 18th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
i just can’t understand the strongly held irrational belief that america cannot try self-confessed terrorists. conservatives objected to giving the terrorists a trial and now are objecting to housing terrorists in illinois.
it looks a lot like fear from conservatives. ironically they always accuse liberals of being soft on the terrorists.
Kaiser Says: December 26th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Why is it ironic?
I know you don’t understand it and that’s fine, but I don’t see the irony.
The Other Side Says: December 27th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
why are conservatives of trying terrorists in america? there is so much evidence showing how safe and effective the us judicial system generally works which refutes the fears that conservatives talk about.
Young Conservative Says: January 4th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Let me remind of again of O.J. Simpson. The evidence pointed to him. His lawyer is the one who got him off. All that matters any more is who’s on the jury, and how good the lawyer is. And even if they did confess, and then change their story later, it doesn’t matter. I don’t think that the jury is allowed to know that.
The Other Side Says: January 6th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
such irrational pessimism with the united states judicial system.
Young Conservative Says: January 7th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
This is the problem with liberals. If they believe in somthing, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, they will die believing it. And I guarantee that there are more cases like that one, just not as publicized.
The Other Side Says: January 9th, 2010 at 4:00 am
people from both sides of the aisle believe things strongly, thats why politics is so brutal. to say that only liberals believe things till their death is naive. conservatives are proving themselves to take positions without any factual basis.
for instance, trying terrorists in american court is reliable. there are so many more successful trials than unsuccessful ones that show how affective the american judicial system is. to bring up only one case, or 10 more, neglects the thousands of successful trials. look at the shoe-bomber, richard reid. he was tried in us court and is serving a life term. the one trial that i raised trumps young conservative’s oj simpson trial.
my belief that the american judicial system will successfully try the terrorists is based on seeing far more successful trials than unsuccessful. that seems like an informed position to take. if you don’t think the american courts can convict self-confessed terrorists, what is that based off of? if america’s courts were so incompetant, than why are criminals roaming the streets?
The Other Side Says: February 7th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
ok, young conservative. did you see that the underwear bomber freely gave actionable information about the terrorist organization that recruited him? and he was given american rights. he has a lawyer, read his miranda rights, will get a trial. he was not tortured or held indefinitely for no reason.
the american judicial system works and the information provided by the underwear bomber is proof. that is why i think the fear behind this situation and the trials in new york are unfounded.