The circus is in town! (9/11 trial thread)

[Bob the Mercenary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5AC1S720091113

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks and four co-conspirators will be sent to New York for trial in a court near the site of the World Trade Center, the Obama administration said on Friday, as it took a step toward closing the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others had been facing military commission trials at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, but U.S. President Barack Obama has pledged to close the prison.

Civil liberties advocates hailed the decision to transfer the men to criminal courts but Republicans lashed out, arguing that bringing them to U.S. soil could make New York a magnet for new attacks and that the men deserved military trials.


Okay, I know there are arguments for all of this, but having not met one person who likes the idea of suspected terrorists being brought back to NYC, only a couple blocks from the site, I thought I'd bring the debate here, since the wrong opinions always end up getting shelled into nonexistance anyway.

My problems with it begin with the fact that all of these men confessed right from the start that they were behind it and actually asked to be executed so they could go out as martyrs. And now that they are even being given the chance of acquittal is frightening. Even so, if they end up getting a not guilty verdict on one charge, I'm sure the FBI has an entire cache of charges they can bring against them to get another trial. It all depends on the jury. Which brings me to my next point.

These men, being brought up in a civil trial, are entitled to a "jury of their peers". Their peers. In New York. Really. This will only be stage one of the circus that will draw on for months if not years. The jury selection. Try finding someone in the city who wasn't effected by that event and holds a strong opinion about it either way. And every time a suspected terrorist is brought up on trial anywhere, that building and/or city always ends up recieving bomb threats, not to mention making it even more of a target.

The evidence. As of right now these men have no case. They are guilty, they admitted to it and asked for death, and have since been unrepentant. KSM was even under American indictment years before 9/11 even happened. So here's how the trial will go down. The U.S. government, the CIA, and the FBI itself will all be put on trial in place of the prosecution. The methods used to interrogate them will be placed under debate, it will be argued that those methods were actually worse than the attacks themselves, government secrets will have to be exposed since this was a terrorism investigation, I think Andy McCarthy explains it best:

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda's case against America. Since that will be their "defense," the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war.

This is where I stopped with my opinion, though. I don't want to start accusing the Pres of using this as a trial of the Bush administration by proxy, but I know that's how some will read it. Nor am I one of those who says, "just shoot the bastards". My opinion on the death penalty has gone on a rollercoaster ride over this past year, also. I don't know if I want these men to die, I just want them to pay. And if "to pay" ends up meaning "to die", then so be it.

[POS Industries]

Basically here's how it works, compiled from beginning my day yesterday with an extended period of time yelling at Rudy Giuliani through my television: These men are not soldiers, no matter how much they want to pretend they are. They are no more soldiers than Timothy McVeigh was. They are nothing more than criminals, and as the act of crime they committed was in the city of New York, that's where they go for a trial.

Or do we validate their cause as "soldiers of Allah," defining them as enemy combatants with whom we are at war? Well, then in that case we don't try them. At all. Ever. Because they are officially prisoners of war as defined by the Geneva Conventions and we are expected to treat them as such. And then all those folks who want them executed? Tough noogies. We are forbidden to execute POWs. That would be a war crime. Then when the war's over? We release them and that's that.

Do they have a chance to be acquitted? Yes. That's how the system works. Will they actually get off? Is the Pope from Alpha Centauri? It honestly doesn't matter how much evidence they have to throw out because of torture, there isn't a jury in America at this point that won't convict these men.

This is our chance to prove the righteousness of your shining city upon a hill, guys. Either we are The Single, Greatest, Best, Freest Country God Ever Gave Man™ or we abandon the system we're so proud of, that we claim best represents the fairness of our nation, and we hold some closed-door sham of a "military tribunal" off our borders and kill these men like dogs on the soil of a nation we claim to hate.

The question here is do we give our enemies a fair trial or do we become them?

[Bob the Mercenary]

Well said, but aren't there criteria that you have to meet to be covered by the Geneva Convention? I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly, it was a long time ago, but I heard that the person needed to be wearing a uniform, under a military chain of command, and meet a couple other requirements.

Not that it matters.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

My problem is that this is NEVER going to be a fair trial. No jury is going to convict them regardless of the fact that they were in Guantanamo because they didn't ahve enough evidence to put them in a proper prison.
This is a show-trial, nothing more. They have already been deemed guilty and this trial does nothing to mitigate the fact that scores of people have been illegally locked up based on evidence got from torture and "they looked like terrorists".
As for whether they are soldiers, they can't be treated as POWs because the US' entire stance up until now has been that these men are absolutely not POWs so the rules about holding POWs do not apply. If they were now to say "Oh yeah, these dudes are actually POWs" they'll get into far more shit.

I think if the US wants to avoid condemnation they could go through the international court- where teams of international judges not only judge but release detailed summaries of judgements which can be scrutinised by everyone.

[MasterOfMagic]

Okay, I know there are arguments for all of this, but having not met one person who likes the idea of suspected terrorists being brought back to NYC, only a couple blocks from the site, I thought I'd bring the debate here, since the wrong opinions always end up getting shelled into nonexistance anyway.

Why? They're in custody, its not like they're going to blow up another building. I honestly don't understand this sentiment. Maybe its because I don't live there.

[Azisien]

Why? They're in custody, its not like they're going to blow up another building. I honestly don't understand this sentiment. Maybe its because I don't live there.

Maybe he's thinking because they're in New York other terrorists/would-be terrorists would try bombing New York also.

[Marc v1.0]

Maybe it's because they like waving the fear-mongering stick around in order to push their own agenda, and don't actually give four shits if the city is attacked.

In fact, if it is, it'll only help them and they'll USE IT.

[Bob the Mercenary]

Maybe it's because they like waving the fear-mongering stick around in order to push their own agenda, and don't actually give four shits if the city is attacked.

In fact, if it is, it'll only help them and they'll USE IT.

Or maybe they honestly wouldn't like to be attacked?

You're suggesting that they flat out would not care if people died because of some suicide bombing to make a point against the trial? That's rhetoric I'd more expect from the right saying liberals enjoy people living in poverty. They're both absolutely ridiculous.

Maybe he's thinking because they're in New York other terrorists/would-be terrorists would try bombing New York also.
Not necessarily "bombing", but some flavor of murder. You get the picture, though.

[NonCon]

Or maybe they honestly wouldn't like to be attacked?

In what theoretical, nonsense logic does having the terrorists go to trial for their crimes in New York equal "OMG THEY GONNA BLOW UP MORE BUILDINGS!!!" If anyone is using that as an actual argument against this, then yes, they are plain out fear mongering. No excuses.

[Bob the Mercenary]

In what theoretical, nonsense logic does having the terrorists go to trial for their crimes in New York equal "OMG THEY GONNA BLOW UP MORE BUILDINGS!!!" If anyone is using that as an actual argument against this, then yes, they are plain out fear mongering. No excuses.

They're not talking blowing up goddamn buildings. They're just saying that they wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer, judge, or juror ended up being room temperature by the end of this. A la the mafia.

And that's more fear-mongering than saying the Republicans want us to die so they can advance their agenda?

[NonCon]

They're not talking blowing up goddamn buildings. They're just saying that they wouldn't be surprised if a lawyer, judge, or juror ended up being room temperature by the end of this. A la the mafia.

This is still incredibly ridiculous. Treating terrorists like the mafia is like treating a calculator like a super computer. There is a similarity, sure, but that's about it.

And that's more fear-mongering than saying the Republicans want us to die so they can advance their agenda?

Political parties have always used the deaths of others to further their own means. It's a depressing side of human nature, but it's the truth. They might not be sitting there saying, "Gee, I hope someone dies", but if someone did, they wouldn't care about the life and just use it to get people to side with them.

[Nikose Tyris]

While I agree with your viewpoint on how something like this may occur, I really do see it as a strech of 'may'. While I beleive any precaution against such a thing happening is wise, where does it change from 'precaution' to 'being TOO precatious'? is there a point?

[Marc v1.0]

I'd think arresting/detaining anyone with a halfway "suspiscious" name would be well over the line of precaution, so there has to be a cutoff point.

problem about it all is that if you monger enough fear, people will let you move that point.

EDIT: Bob, I'm not saying they want people to get hurt or die in an attack. The want people to think they will, though. They want people to fear for their lives so they can use that fear to fuel their own agenda. If something did happen, I'm not saying they wouldn't regret the loss of life, but they'd then turn around and take a huge steaming shit all over the tragedy by using it to push agendas and point fingers and rouse the rabble. In essence, they wouldn't care, because how much can you really care about something if you use it to twist political favor in your direction?

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

Politicians love tragedies. They let you do whatever shit you want. Take 9/11- allowed Bush to invade where he felt like and to trample on the constitution to do what he feels like.
Take Pearl Harbour- gave the US an excuse to join the war they wanted to join.
There are heaps of these and in cases they welcome them.
But seriously, if terrorists want to attack New York they seriously don't need any more excuses. They have truckloads of them. They already want to destroy the country.

[Magus]

It makes about as much sense to fear attacks because they're located in New York as it did when people were arguing over housing Guantanamo detainees in mainland prisons. I'm pretty sure the place I want a dangerous terrorist is under lock and key in a maximum security prison in the middle of America's heartland, a thousand miles from any border. What possible threat could they pose when all chance of help is removed from them in this way?

So basically, in a way, the trial should not be taking place in New York, it should be taking place at Fort Knox. But do people think there will be some kind of serious attempt to like, I don't know, jack a prisoner car or blow up a wall to like, give them a jailbreak or something? I think they're confusing terrorists with prisoners on a chain-gang in some old-timey movie. These guys are going to be chained hand-and-knee, held under guard by FBI agents and SWAT teams. The threat from the detainees is zero. The threat from outer forces is unaffected by the location of the detainees. End of story.

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

These guys are going to be chained hand-and-knee, held under guard by FBI agents and SWAT teams. The threat from the detainees is zero.

I hope not. And any hope of conveying that this is anything other than a setup would be out of the window right away.

And the mainland prisons argument with Guantanamo was completely different. The point was they couldn't be held in mainland prisons because they weren't charged as criminals and had no evidence to hold them normally.

[Tev]

I hear they're maybe moving them to a prison just north of me up by Chicago.

EDIT: Here's the linky... (http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=38167)

If federal officials approve of the Thomson Correctional Center, it could soon house some detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Several Illinois Republicans are criticizing the plan saying visitation rights would open the door to terrorists and could make Chicago a target.

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin denies the claims saying Republicans are just trying to stir up fear.

DURBIN: Talking about actual buildings as targets in Chicago? Please, that doesn't do us any good. Speculation on where the terrorists might strike next. Does that really help us as a nation? I don't think it does.

Durbin says the terrorism suspects will have no visitation rights except for legal counsel. He says the rural area of Thomson could use the 3,000 jobs the prison is estimated to create.

[Bob the Mercenary]

Isn't there a chance that, with the right judge, they can argue that since the President flat out admitted KSM was tortured his confession should be thrown out? I mean an infinitely tiny chance, but a chance nonetheless.

The other thing they're worried about is giving this guy a stage to preach his hate from. I heard that from both the Daily News and NY Post, both sides of the spectrum want to deny this guy a forum for his views. Not that I know how much his testimony can rile up more hatred, it's just the principle. I'd also like to see how much of a dick this guy is once the families of the victims start their turns on the witness stand, or just simply sit in the audience.

Or, maybe I'm overthinking this and we should just let him spew his rhetoric all the way to the electric chair.

[Magus]

Even if they can't use his confession they can use the myriad of evidence they used when deciding to spirit him away in the first place to secure the conviction, I'm sure.

Does anyone really think they won't be convicted? Like, for real? Like Barrel said, it is to an extent a show trial, not only for the fact that no American jury is going to deliver a not-guilty verdict, but also because it is so open-and-shut a case.

Also, as you said, if he at all touches on rhetoric it's not going to help his defense case. I'm not sure how much rhetoric is allowed in trials (I know they get to say something after receiving their sentence), but spewing terrorist rhetoric would be tantamount to a confession in the eyes of a jury.

This is all, to me, a pointless worry. They won't get off, terrorists aren't going to flock to rural Illinois and start bombing that little town that, quite frankly, could do with an influx of federal prison jobs (from what I read today in the USA Today). It's all just so...gah, pointless.

Anyway. I think conservatives should have basically no worry over this than if it were an international court or something, which, unfortunately, would be "fairer" in the eyes of the world. I don't think even Americans can believe that this trial will be unbiased because it would be impossible to find jurors who don't carry a bias against the defendents.

[Fifthfiend]

Even if they can't use his confession they can use the myriad of evidence they used when deciding to spirit him away in the first place to secure the conviction, I'm sure.

Does anyone really think they won't be convicted? Like, for real? Like Barrel said, it is to an extent a show trial, not only for the fact that no American jury is going to deliver a not-guilty verdict, but also because it is so open-and-shut a case.

It's actually completely a show trial, because they're giving these people trials specifically because they know they can get convictions, while giving fake-ass pseudo-trials to the people they can only convict under fake-ass pseudo-trials, while continuing to just flat-out imprison without any kind of trial all the people that they couldn't even convict via fake-ass pseudo-trials.

The evidence. As of right now these men have no case. They are guilty, they admitted to it and asked for death, and have since been unrepentant. KSM was even under American indictment years before 9/11 even happened. So here's how the trial will go down. The U.S. government, the CIA, and the FBI itself will all be put on trial in place of the prosecution. The methods used to interrogate them will be placed under debate, it will be argued that those methods were actually worse than the attacks themselves, government secrets will have to be exposed since this was a terrorism investigation

Good. In fact the only good thing about any of this is that it may require the government to admit to some of the "secrets" that everybody already knows that they did.

[Bells]

well, isn't in the end the real deal not about the men in trial but any fellow "warriors" of them that might be around or watching?

If so, more the reason to have the trial in NYC... if you get scared enough to the point to change the location of their Trial, you're just telling them that they still scare you. Even in custody. These folks aren't really worried about diying or getting killed... so the trial really doesn't matter to them.

[MasterOfMagic]

I can't really see The Terrorists trying to stop these trails by an attack. I can certainly imagine them using it to inflame people's anger, but the idea of a group that sends people willingly to their deaths (and glorifies such deaths) trying to stop a trail like this is kind of a stretch for me.

I mean, I can see where the idea is coming from now, but I don't believe it.

[Bob the Mercenary]

This isn't really my main worry anyway.

We're assuming that by doing this show trial, we are showing the world that we are the better person, and in a way vindicating ourselves of the last decade. But are we really? I already pointed out that the President said the men were tortured, but Eric Holder also said KSM has no chance of being acquitted. If I were the defense attorney I would demand the whole case be thrown out on account of the trial being tainted and any information gleaned from Mohammed be treated as if it were extracted through torture and therefore also thrown out. You could also argue that he was never read his rights. A huge taboo.

If we're going to try this man, we can't use the normal rule set used in criminal trials. But, if we don't use that, what will we use? Do we even have a contingency for something like this? And why are men who carry out attacks on civilian targets granted more rights than those who attack military targets? Those men captured on the battlefield are put through military tribunals that all of you guys seem against, and men who bring buildings down and kill thousands are brought to civil trial.

When I mentioned disclosing government secrets, I didn't mean interrogation methods per se. What I was really referring to was the blind sheikh trial. Over the course of that trial a list of unindicted conspirators was released, making public those individuals that were currently under surveillance. Terrorists who were on that list found out they were being watched and took appropriate measures. It's stuff like that I'm worried about.

[MasterOfMagic]

This isn't really my main worry anyway.
It was a side point I was interested in, then. I've no problems with the discussion being steered another way.

We're assuming that by doing this show trial, we are showing the world that we are the better person, and in a way vindicating ourselves of the last decade. But are we really? I already pointed out that the President said the men were tortured, but Eric Holder also said KSM has no chance of being acquitted. If I were the defense attorney I would demand the whole case be thrown out on account of the trial being tainted and any information gleaned from Moussaoui be treated as if it were extracted through torture and therefore also thrown out. You could also argue that he was never read his rights. A huge taboo.

If we're going to try this man, we can't use the normal rule set used in criminal trials. But, if we don't use that, what will we use? Do we even have a contingency for something like this? And why are men who carry out attacks on civilian targets granted more rights than those who attack military targets? Those men captured on the battlefield are put through military tribunals that all of you guys seem against, and men who bring buildings down and kill thousands are brought to civil trial.
Well, attacks on the Military aren't civilian matters. What court would we try them in? Its simply a matter of following the Law. I'm fine with military tribunals when they apply, at least the person isn't getting locked up with no trail at all for years.

The alternative to trying him this way is to let him go. Unless you think we should set more precedent for locking up someone without charges indefinitely. I'm honestly conflicted on this point, because perhaps we should. It'd never happen, though.

When I mentioned disclosing government secrets, I didn't mean interrogation methods per se. What I was really referring to was the blind sheikh trial. Over the course of that trial a list of unindicted conspirators was released, making public those individuals that were currently under surveillance. Terrorists who were on that list found out they were being watched and took appropriate measures. It's stuff like that I'm worried about.
If they weren't prepared to release this information, they shouldn't have made "arrests". They did, so now it has to be done. And should've been done earlier.

[Bells]

We're assuming that by doing this show trial, we are showing the world that we are the better person, and in a way vindicating ourselves of the last decade. But are we really?

Actually, you can read between the lines and see instead of that a clear "You don't scare us anymore" instead of a "We're better than you". At least that's the feeling i get watching the USA actions Vs the USA Reactions about this...

[Magus]

Not to mention that if they were treated like POWs they could technically not be tried and executed for "attacking" the United States (though clearly they would be convicted of war crimes for attacking civilians). Anyway, I think saying they are soldiers gives them far too much credit and would actually be detrimental, since it would establish them as a military instead of a terrorist organization.

Basically, if they're terrorists, they should receive a civil trial, if they're soldiers a military trial, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Well, you can, there's no doubt they could go ahead with military trials and no one could actually stop them, but it wouldn't be good for the image of attempting to in some way give them an equitable trial. But really, I'd kinda wish the U.N. was doing the trial because then it wouldn't be considered a show trial under sort of mistily applicable U.S. law but a trial under international laws. But people would really freak out then because they don't trust the U.N. to deliver a guilty verdict, even if it is deserved (like the image of the U.N. seems to be that they would do all in their power to get them off, or something, which I don't think is true).

[Bob the Mercenary]

(like the image of the U.N. seems to be that they would do all in their power to get them off, or something, which I don't think is true).

Yeah, but they're also saying that it's possible a fringe leftist judge gets the trial and tries to make himself the hero by making the evil U.S. look like the aggressor and giving it what it deserves by getting an aquittal. I guess there's really no way to escape the pessimism on this one.

[NonCon]

giving it what it deserves by getting an aquittal..

Technically, aren't they supposed to get an acquittal?

[Bob the Mercenary]

I was talking about the judge. :)

[NonCon]

I meant the terrorists. Didn't we violate several laws when sending them to Guantanamo Bay? Legally, shouldn't they be acquitted, regardless of how guilty they were? Does anyone here actually know legalese and can disprove/confirm this statement?

If they are guilty, as they claim to be, I know I don't want them on the streets, but perhaps this would make a point for the government to not do this sort of thing again.

[Bob the Mercenary]

I meant the terrorists. Didn't we violate several laws when sending them to Guantanamo Bay? Legally, shouldn't they be acquitted, regardless of how guilty they were? Does anyone here actually know legalese and can disprove/confirm this statement?

If they are guilty, as they claim to be, I know I don't want them on the streets, but perhaps this would make a point for the government to not do this sort of thing again.

If you're referring to the Geneva Conventions, then I'm not entirely sure we did break any laws. I think terrorists were specifically left out of them for a reason and even when an amendment to the bill to allow terrorists was submitted for voting years ago, it was shot down. That doesn't mean we didn't do anything wrong, just nothing bound by any document.

Or, like you said, since I'm not too strong on legalese this all might be complete bunk.

[NonCon]

I meant stuff like Miranda Rights and Habeus Corpus.

[Bob the Mercenary]

I meant stuff like Miranda Rights and Habeus Corpus.

That's another thing (I may have already mentioned it), he wasn't read his Miranda rights. This just supports the point that we can't possibly have a fair trial for this guy using standard rules. So the image of us being fair, liberty-loving people is thrown out the window again.

[Tev]

Well we could always just let them go, drop them off somewhere in downtown NYC, watch what happens, and then legally prosecute the guys that lynch them......

No really, let's not do this.

[Bob the Mercenary]

Well we could always just let them go, drop them off somewhere in downtown NYC, watch what happens, and then legally prosecute the guys that lynch them......

No really, let's not do this.

xD

I know a nice little spot on Staten Island right off the Verrazano. Oh yeah, and most of the police and firemen in the city live there. Put them in a police cruiser, drop them off. You're free! Have fun.

[01d55]

Guys, relax. Even if he is acquitted, the feds will just use their post acquittal detention powers to lock him up forever.

Seriously (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/19/obama/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+salon%2Fgreenwald+%28Glenn+Gr eenwald%29).

[Fifthfiend]

I too desire a country wherein I can determine people's guilt or innocence via a variety of courts of difffering standards which I may select from based which one I believe will deliver the result I desire.

[MasterOfMagic]

I too desire a country wherein I can determine people's guilt or innocence via a variety of courts of differing standards which I may select from based which one I believe will deliver the result I desire, and then ignore the results in the unlikely case that the results don't match what I desire.
You had forgotten the best part!

[Fifthfiend]

Honestly I can't find the part of the linked piece where Obama or Holder indicate their plans to do that. It's not an unreasonable speculation but I feel it's easy enough to condemn their actions based on what they've outright said, without need for embellishment.

[MasterOfMagic]

True. I've actually been looking for a video of his address to the judiciary committee, but I'm having some trouble finding it. Its gotta exist somewhere.

[Magus]

Obviously if this country could be better, Fifth, it would be, so how can you say that about this best of all possible countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds)?

[Smarty McBarrelpants]

If you're referring to the Geneva Conventions, then I'm not entirely sure we did break any laws. I think terrorists were specifically left out of them for a reason and even when an amendment to the bill to allow terrorists was submitted for voting years ago, it was shot down. That doesn't mean we didn't do anything wrong, just nothing bound by any document.

Or, like you said, since I'm not too strong on legalese this all might be complete bunk.

While the US didn't *technically* break any laws. They certainly actually did.

Basically they said these aren't "prisoners of war" they are "enemy combatants" which is a term they just mad eup so isn't covered by any agreements anywhere because they just made it up.
So basically it's like me showing up at a murder trial and being like "Well I didn'[t commit murder because murder is defined as the killing of a human, and my victim is a Portorang which appears to be exactly the same as a human but is different because his classification is Portorang and not a human."

Also good to know that this already rigged trial will be pretty much ignored if the rigging goes wrong. And that all their buddies don't even get the chance of a trial and continue with the bullshit thatthe government was supposed to stop.