Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Not In My Backyard!
In voicing his support for a New York trial, Mayor Bloomberg has graciously provided cover for what was surely a unilateral decision of the administration. The mayor correctly asserted that the NYPD can handle the additional security demands. Commissioner Ray Kelly has shaped New York’s police force into the best law enforcement agency in the world, as well as the leading counterterrorism and security organization.
But just because we are ready for those who wish us harm does not mean we should hang a piece of fly paper out for them just blocks from Ground Zero. Drawing terrorists out into the open in Iraq and Afghanistan makes strategic and tactical sense, but not here in the Big Apple. While the NYPD can reduce risk, they cannot eliminate it.
In late 2008, Commissioner Kelly warned a congressional commission: “Everything we know about al-Qaeda tells us they will try to hit us again, possibly next time with a weapon of mass destruction. We must do everything in our power to stop them before it is too late.” Holding this trial in New York is like encouraging them to try again. For the sake of all who lost loved ones on 9/11, and for the safety of our wonderful city, New Yorkers must be vocal advocates of the NIMBY philosophy: Not In My Back Yard!
NIMBY-ism was given public voice just this week at a press conference held by an organization called the 911 Never Forget Coalition. A diverse group of victims, family members, first responders, active and reserve members of the military, veterans, and concerned Americans, they stand resolute against Holder’s decision. At the conference, they announced that they will hold a large rally in New York City on December 9. Who will stand with them?
In 1944 my father landed at Okinawa prior to the first wave. Kamikazes filled the air above his ship and the dozens of others their to take on the Japanese in a horrible and bloody engagement. It was a time of war. Flame throwers, grenades. Hand to hand bayonet combat. Prisoners? LOL my father and Uncle who was wounded twice in the South Pacific, he was a few years older then my dad, both told me what occured in a time of war, unless it was a high quality target. Like KSM. All were killed on the spot. When you watch your best friend take his last breath asking for Mommy, and the Machine gunner relentlessly pursues you, desperate to take your life too, you know longer have a desire to provide that gunner anything other than a quick death. I lost my best friend in an act of war on 9-11. I Iive in NY. NIMBY!!! Holder and Obama are deluded. Sad sad country we’ve become.
Right up front – this comment is going to be childish and myopic but here goes. Eventhough I have many extended family members living in NYC, remembering all too well how fashionable was their vicious rage and moral indignation at President Bush during his presidency and having to now listen to their Kool-aid swilling moonbattery for Obama, my schadenfreude quietly feels elation at their discomfort over the coming trial. Childish and myopic but many ultra liberal New Yorkers deserve a good swift kick of reality right in the slats.
Trying KSM in a civilian court is a political act on the part of the Obama administration. It changes the nature of the crime and the nature of our response. How will the governent get around the fact that these defendants were not Mirandized? The strict proof level for gaining a murder conviction and the need to counter arbitrarily principled Muslims from gaining access to the jury will allow for decades of appeals.
It already takes decades to finally put anyone to death for the most heinous crimes. I believe that that is the reason for the civil trial. To delay the implementation of the death penalty as long as possible. A lawyer right of law school would know enough to make a mess of this whole procedure.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but what are you afraid of? Why so much fear? That seems to be all I hear out of the right, and frankly, it’s not pretty.
If you are willing to be brave with the blood of other men, send kids off to an unjustifiable war like W did, dodge military duty like the unending line of media and political chickehawks (Rush, Newt, Cheney, etc.) then you can at least be brave enough to let the courts do their work.
We live in America. Land of the brave, if you recall. Time to act like it.
The KSM 9/11 trial is going be another albatross around President Obama’s neck, although the real reason for the trial is to put the Bush 43 Administration on trial. This is another set of Harpy eggs already hatching…
Oh, good Lord, not the old, chickenhawk argument. When all else fails, just try shaming and insulting the opposition—and old leftist tactic.
Forrest, as Jerry, in Post #3 points out, changing this case to a civilian venue changes the entire nature of the crime, and the response; you know, all that stuff about Miranda, due process, not to mention being tried by a “Jury of one’s peers” (How the heck are they going to get around that one?) These are serious issues, with real implications for our legal system.
Terrorist attacks that might kill civilians are, of course, serious issues here, too—as if New York hadn’t had enough of that already! Of course, it’s just being cowardly to fear, say, another Beslan or Mumbai taking place, in response to this trial. Anyway, you’re a brave chap! You’re going to spend most of your time in the vicinity of the courthouse, aren’t you? Time for courage, Forrest! Don’t be a terrorism-chickenhawk! Patrol New York, to keep it safe! And, if there is, say, a Mumbai scenario acted out near the court, you’ll go out and bravely fight the attackers off! That’s the spirit! Woot!
As for letting the courts work—I thought the military court had already done that.
This is rubbing our noses in it,pure and simple.
So tell us Forrest who appears as dense as the trees that form it what was this UNJUSTIIFIABLE war the one against Saddam who not only bragged of the WMD’s he had but actually USED them against the Kurds and HID the others in Syria when invaded and who invaded Kuwait and who defied the UN for years and years and years. I would hate to think what YOU would call a JUSTFIED war maybe the DIPLOMATIC one Obambi is waging against Honduras and Israel I think. You MOONBAT.
Maybe they should hold the trial at the New York Times building, maybe get some of those 9/11 widows . . . oh, what did Ann Coulter call them . . . whores! . . . maybe get them to sit on the jury.
4. Forrest: Gump, it seems.
Forrest – because one objects to something is not a sign of fear (blind emotion) but of reason.
The 9/1 Gang are terrorists; they were involved in a military attack against the USA. They are not citizens involved in criminal acts. The world did not try the German military as civilians but in a military trial. This trial should be military.
Why? Because a criminal act focuses on the intentions and psyche of the individual as a citizen and not a member of a military agenda. As such, there are multiple defenses for a criminal act that are irrelevant to a military act: including such anamolies as not reading them their Miranda ‘rights’ (despite not being citizens); insufficient evidence (since to reveal all would harm our intelligece gathering system); insanity, even ‘racial and religious discrimination’ and so on.
A military trial, on the other hand focuses only on the action – of attacking and killing over 3,000 US citizens within the military ideology of Islamic fascism.
Your red herring personal views of ‘unjustifiable war’ and so on have nothing to do with the difference between a military and a civilian act. And a military and a civilian trial.
Therefore, since this was a military action but is being defined by Obama as a personal and individual criminal act, the focus will be on the personal views of these people…who will use the court to expound that they are merely hapless victims of American Evil. Is that what you support? A jihadist propaganda event?
I see comment #4 has read the Democrat talking points about the civilian trial of war criminals in New York City. The latest meme is to boastfully declare that they are not afraid, and to call those of us who argue against a criminal trial “cowards.”
Nice try, but that meme isn’t going to work. None of us are afraid of KSM or, for that matter, Osama bin Laden. These people are enemy combatants and have been captured and neutralized. What we fear for is our children, our unarmed civilian men and women and babies on the streets of New York, who are being made into targets by the foolish leftists like Obama and Holder.
Their blood will be on the left’s hands, but that apparently seems to be okay with leftists. In fact, they seem to revel in the sacrifice of innocents. One might think their religion requires human sacrifice to please their dark god. If one were to speculate, one might draw that conclusion.
Forrest: Wow, do you sound tough. Nice dodge though. Way to deflect the topic.
I think MPCT said it all.
What you Forrest and the rest of your progressive bretheran must hope for is that there is not another terrorist incident as a result of this trial. Because as tough as you are, if we were to find you, I bet you would be peeing your pants knowing you defended inhumane murderers because of your pathetic ideology.
We do live in the home of the brave and in 2012 you will truly see it.
Has anyone polled NYers on this decision? On the 9/11 attack itself? (I know at least one NYer who said the U.S. “had it coming.”) I do recall that the New York Civil Rights Commission or Human Rights Commission or whatever it is decided to favor Muslims in hiring and outreach because they were feeling so threatened and isolated after 9/11.
Maybe New York is the best place to have the trial after all.
You represent no one but yourself. Stop dragging the 9-11 families in in bulk to defend your weak and unsubstantiated points.
Amen Forrest. I’m sick and tired of these cowards jumping at every shadow and calling it courage.
anon-forrest etc..it’s got zilch to do with courage. Sheesh..it has to do with justice.
The 9/11 Gang are not civilians and therefore are not criminals. They are terrorists; that means that they engaged in acts of war against a nation. That means that they should not be tried in a civilian court. In any city.
Criminal trials are normally tried ‘on the location’ of the crime – which is why it is New York in this case. The costs of their lawyers are born, in this case, by the taxpayers. But the location isn’t the issue. What is at issue is the mode of trial: criminal vs military.
What Obama is doing is denying the reality of terrorism as a military strategy and reducing it to criminality. Again, this changes the nature of the crime, from an ideological or national attack against another ideology/nation, to one of individual intention to do harm to another individual.
I think that it is obvious that Islamic jihadist attacks are not individually-driven but are ideological and against any and all civilians of the nation. They are terrorist attacks.
They should be tried in a military court. In any city.
”This well-meaning but misguided decision by the Obama administration could hold deadly consequences for New York.”
”Well-meaning”??? You lost me right there.
The Swiss have just voted to ban minarets….that’s a nice beginning. It’s refreshing to know there are still pockets of freedom-loving people in the western world who have what it takes, as individuals and as a group, to say, “You know what? NO. I draw the line here.”
Now with the wakeup call of KSM getting more civil protections than Navy SEALs who are chasing his kind of scum, NOW can Americans get over the embarrassment of “Gee, we don’t want to act all thin-skinned and stuff, but we really don’t like you planning to kill us and we’re going to use the tattered remnants of our Republic to stomp you out of our lives”? I hope so. I truly, truly hope so.
#4 – Forrest. If you have no fear and if you are ‘brave’ enough let’s see you on that jury, eh?
Mistaking common sense for fear is quite an error when you’re gurgling in your own blood. Just ask Daniel Pearl. And why do the Left keep forgetting that the military has been voluntary for many years – decades, as a matter of fact. The only people in the military that complain are the Leftists who go in to get something out of it (education, money for college) and who don’t want to hold up their end of the deal.
There’s one of my ”what’s in it for me” family members in the military now. He’s depressed because he has no friends in the military. That’s because they know with him next to them in a fire fight, he won’t have their backs.
Although one of my preexisting conditions was successfully diagnosed as optimism, I disagree with Amanda Bowman’s assertion regarding the certainty of a conviction should the trial actually take in a civil court in NYC.
Anyone remembers OJ Simpson? Just put the explosive mixture of celebrities and cameras in a courtroom, and watch the hammer break apart if it ever comes anywhere near the nail. Slogans of Hope and Change during a campaign do not create a mandate for mindless innovation the process for illegal combattants. It is even more egregious and injurious to the family and close friends of the victims than it is to the rest of us.
I share Ms. Bowman’s concern, however, that the relatives of the 9-11 victims may not receive the solidarity and the support they deserve from the nation. Another good cause for the tea partiers. It will be difficult to force the DOJ to rescind the unprecedented blunder of trying KSM and consort in a civil court in NYC, but not necessarily impossible, if we make enough of a stink of it.
The present administration in general, and its DOJ in particular, has vulnerabilities, some of which may still be under the waterline, so we must keep the pressure.
We should recognize that capturing these people alive incurs many more risks and costs than killing them outright on site. Why should we write these precious investments off, just because some hypersensitive and excitable pundit expounds some fanciful theory of equal rights to all, including our sworn enemies?
Rally Against NYC Terror Trials
. . . Those opposed to this farcical show are planning a massive demonstration at noon next Saturday, December 5th in Foley Square, Manhattan.
The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, http://defendourdefenders.org/, consisting “of 9/11 survivors, family members, first-responders, veterans, and active-duty and reserve military” in conjunction with its “partners, TheBravest.com (a site maintained by New York firefighters remembering the fellows they lost on September 11, 2001), 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America, and Keep America Safe“ will stage the rally: http://bit.ly/7soYrU .
Foley Square, in the heart of N.Y.C., is accessible by various bus and subway lines.
The rally will be the first, and maybe the last, chance for Americans to be heard in opposition to Holder’s asinine and dangerous call to give Khalid and al-Qaeda what they’ve wanted all along. Within weeks, this crew will be regurgitated on the doorstep of what once was the World Trade Center. . .
(Read the rest at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1348)
Berlet98- I’ll be there. The audacity of Forrest #4 to comment on those In NYC those who oppose this political fiasco is sickening. I have lost two loved one’s to Islamic terrorists. Both innocents. One my best friend in WTC. The other my beautiful cousin Gila, only 19 years old with the heart of a saint, murdered for being a Jew. Brave Forrest, your freedom exists solely because of the sacrifice of many proud Americans who gave their lives for it. You disgrace all of them.
Commenting from Brooklyn NY!
Mistaking common sense for fear is quite an error when you’re gurgling in your own blood.
Add delusions of self-importance to paranoia and cowardice for the Doktor. Your odds are much higher to gurgle in your own blood during a common mugging. That is, if you ever leave your home, you pant-crapping sissy.
Yes, let’s see Forrest and Anon get on the jury! They’re fearless fellows, they’re not afraid of the terrorists.
I say we call those who support the NYC KSM trial Chickenhawk anti-terrorists! Unless they’ve gone out, and done battle with terrorists with their own manly arms, and volunteer to sit on juries, or provide security service, they’re just cowardly chickenhawks. We live in America, land of the brave! It’s time to act like it, and they will show us the way!
(By the way, Forrest, it’s also easy to be brave playing with the lives of defenseless civilians: men, women and children, who will become targets, if KSM’s compadres decide to stage an attack.)
It’s funny, by the way, that the same left that scolds us for being cowards about the KSM trial, is, simultaneously, trying to terrorize us with tales of global warming. THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING! WE MUST SAVE MOTHER GAIA! EVERYBODY STOP AND PANIC!
Berlett98, it does sound as if a lot of New Yorkers don’t like the idea of the trial taking place there. Nor should they. (And isn’t it going to be hard to find somebody to sit on the jury there who doesn’t have a preconceived opinion about 9/11, and isn’t that kind’ve damaging for a civil trial? Oh, we must NOT ask such questions! They are cowardly! Let us, instead, thump our hairy chests, and bellow, ARRRROOOOOOOAAAAHHRRR! in our fearless defiance. . . blah, blah, blah.)\
Professor Guvinoff, yes, this trial is going to become a bigger circus than O.J.’s ever was! Expect endless telecasts of dancing Bin Ladin’s, screaming, propagandizing defendants, lawyers spouting laughable nonsense, intimidated judges and, maybe, an actual bombing, or hostage-taking situation, to add to the fun.
We ain’t see nothin’ yet!
Unless they’ve gone out, and done battle with terrorists with their own manly arms, and volunteer to sit on juries, or provide security service, they’re just cowardly chickenhawks. We live in America, land of the brave! It’s time to act like it, and they will show us the way!
Your inability to comprehend simple ideas is truly staggering. People who support wars that they won’t fight in are called chickenhawks because they advocate other people risking their lives for something they won’t do. Advocating that civilian trials be held, despite the danger to the civilian population [in the unlikely event that there were one] is the opposite of that. Indeed, some of the people you’re talking about live in New York and they go on about their lives despite the fact that their city has already been attacked once and despite the possibility of it happening again. You’re not only a coward, you’re a stupid one.
I’m still confused about the authority the AG has to grasp those in military custody and assign them to civilian courts. That makes the UCMJ meaningless if a egomaniacal AG can haul any prisoner from military to civilian courts…
I’m led to believe this is a decision that can only be made by the POTUS. But, as we have seen all 2009, the POTUS habitually throws the constitution and separation of powers under the bus. We’re in danger of tyrannical rule replacing the system that has operated since the founding of the Nation.
If these people are found guilty in a military tribunal and sentenced to death President Obama would have to sign the death warants. President Obama would rather have them go free then have to make a decision like this. My opinion of course but show me something in his background that proves me wrong.
Moho, it’s obvious you just don’t get it. You need to brush up on your reading comprehension a bit.
(By the way—in the event that there is a terrorist attack, and people do get hurt, are you willing to do anything to help them? Are you going to be brave, and wade into the wreckage to rescue them? Donate blood? Give money? Admit you were wrong? And, after 9/11, what makes you so certain the danger is small? That seems like a pretty blinkered attitude.)
And, Moho, by the way, what about the very good reasons ETAB brings up in Post #18 about not treating terrorists as if they were individual criminals? Or the legal points Jerry brings up, in Post #3? Or are we just supposed to ignore all that, because to question it is “cowardly?”
Are you just hoping the terrorists get off, due to some legal technicality?
I’m surprised that #25′s (pragmatist) post got past Rule 3:
”Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.”
25 Sounds like a Leftist attack to me. But, hey, what do I know? It seems I don’t get out enough.
It’s a leftist attack alright, Doktor; there’s no rational argument there, just insults, and an attempt to bully you into submission: YAH, YAH, YER A SISSY! YOU’RE MORE LIKELY TO GET MUGGED THAN ATTACKED BY A TERRORIST, NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!
They’re not trying to convince us of anything, they just want us to shut up.
#30, Clear Mind, well, yes, questions of authority about assigning prisoners in military courts to civilian ones are troubling—and they aren’t the only troubling questions surrounding this whole affair. This is really shaping up to be a legal mess.
(Yes, I know—it’s cowardly and sissified to ask questions about this; let us simply pound our hairy chests, and bellow AAAAROOOAAAHHHHRRRR! I AIN’T NO SISSY! Still, the legal aspects are disturbing.)
Why is President Obama & Eric Holder giving US citizenship to KSM & the other 9/11 terrorists with this trial? Eric Holder could not answer the question when posed by Senator Lindsey Graham. He could not rationalize why they are setting this precedent.
The real answer is for pure political reasons to put the former Bush 43 Administration on trial. However, these things have dramatic unintended consequences. The one unintended consequences is Obama did not expect the media to put much of a spotlight on the KSM 9/11 trial. This is only the beginning.
KSM will also get the government’s secret files on how they learned about KSM; this will leave another opening for another terrorist attack down the road.
For President Obama & Eric Holder, it is all about politics. They obviously could care less about the people.
Yes, by making this a civil, rather than a military trial, Obama and Holder are giving de facto American citizenship to KSM & the rest. I suspect the real end game is to put America, and the Bush administration, on trial.
It is going to be the circus to end all circuses. And it may have deadly consequences.
Yes, by making this a civil, rather than a military trial, Obama and Holder are giving de facto American citizenship to KSM & the rest.
Please explain; how is it that he gets de facto American citizenship? This ought to be good.
Pragmatist, Obama is treating international non-Americans as common domestic criminals; they are not. They are not Americans & have no right to our system. This is why we have military courts & military tribunals. If you do not understand this concept, then you’re completely missing the point.
Moderator why are you allowing this impersonator # 39 post with my Nick and all over PJM like a rash are you incapable of MODERATING. Please dont allow these Mohammedan idiots to make a mockery of your threads.
Sebastian # 39 is NOT a post of mine seems the PJM moderator is incapable of stopping Mohammedans such as MOHO posting using other peoples Nicks.
clear mind (30):
I’m still confused about the authority the AG has to grasp those in military custody and assign them to civilian courts. That makes the UCMJ meaningless if a egomaniacal AG can haul any prisoner from military to civilian courts…
You comprehend the essence of the problem. He has no such authority, this is purely a political act.
Paul of Alexandria. Your understanding of the judicial system in our country would be laughable, if it weren’t so dangerous. Read the constitution, there is no role independent role for the military in it whatsoever. The military serves only at the pleasure of the President. It does not have an independent role, nor is it vested with any powers in the judiciary. The President is the commander in chief of the military.
Pragmatist, I’m sorry for the mis-identification. The trolls often try to use other posters’ pseudonyms as one of their tactics.
Yes they do, @45, and I would appreciate it if you stopped using mine.
BettyBlue – Since when does a person’s political stance make them incapable of responding to an emergency?
You don’t really know what you’re talking about.
Um, #39, “I’m too tacky to get my own nic”, Sebastian Shaw answers your question in #40.
“Lefty” (if that really is your nic), I really don’t know what you’re blathering about. Where have I said that a person’s political stance makes them incapable of responding to an emergency?
I do mock those who use the “YER ALL A BUNCH OF COWARDS!” as their sole, and solitary, defense of the KSM trials, because I think they’re full of horse apples. I also suspect you’re the same person as pseudo-”Pragmatist”.
PJM Moderator, we need a clean up here.
#45, formerly “Pragmatist,” stop stealing other people’s online identities. Be yourself if you believe your own garbage. Apparently, you don’t. You sound like Yes We Can (No We Didn’t).
They are not Americans & have no right to our system. This is why we have military courts & military tribunals.
Betty Blue, Lefty has an obvious point. You lack a fundamental understanding of the American justice system. Whatever your opinion about KSM, do the world a favor and get some background on how our system of justice functions. All people, regardless of nationality are entitled to the same protections under the constitution. The bill of rights uses the word “persons” and “people”, not citizens.
BettyBlue – I take umbrage with your comment to Moho.
“By the way—in the event that there is a terrorist attack, and people do get hurt, are you willing to do anything to help them? Are you going to be brave, and wade into the wreckage to rescue them? Donate blood? Give money?”
Many people offered to help either at the site that morning, or by offering to give blood. Sadly, there was nothing that could be done. I’m not crazy about moho, but I’m sure that he would offer to help, as would anyone in an emergency.
As for the trial, I see no reason not to hold it in New York. We’re always a target anyway. The fact that the people screaming most about this aren’t from New York shows that it is mainly about political posturing. It matters very little with me if it is a civil or military trial but after almost ten years we need to close this chapter.
Moho, the Bill of Rights & the Constitution is for Americans; KSM is not an American–but a foreign terrorist!
Actually, moho, you are incorrect. The bill of rights is part of the Constitution, which begins with ‘we the people of the United States’. This does not refer to visitors, tourists or visa students.
It refers to what the federal government can do or not do; what are federal and what are state rights. It protects the citizen from the power of the govt, and this power extends only to citizens. That is, the US can’t deport a US citizen but it can deport a non-citizen. You have to be a citizen to vote, etc.
And the bill of rights as a part of the constitution refers only to ‘the people of the United States’. If you are a Pakistan tourist, you don’t have the ‘right to bear arms’; or the right to come to the country to preach violence against the state.
Please explain; how is it that he gets de facto American citizenship?
They are enemy combatants, captured on foreign soil for the most part. The American Justice system applies only to citizens and legal visitors to the US who commit a crime. This was an act of war not a run of the mill murder and thus falls under military jurisdiction. In fact we’d be well within our legal rights to line them and shoot them without a trial.
The bill of rights is part of the Constitution, which begins with ‘we the people of the United States’. This does not refer to visitors, tourists or visa students.
It refers to what the federal government can do or not do; what are federal and what are state rights. It protects the citizen from the power of the govt, and this power extends only to citizens.
This is a belief system immune to rational thought.
Not much to say other than: I live in Manhattan and I, and everyone I know, are not even mildly apprehensive about “welcoming” KSM back for his trial.
I guess the concern is sweet, but we aren’t a bunch of pansies here people. We’re New Yorkers. We didn’t leave after 9/11, and we aren’t fleeing in terror because they are going to convict one of the perpetrators within subway range.
This is from the Volokh Conspiracy, not known to be liberal:
Constitutional Rights of Non-Citizens:
I’ve heard many people suggest that the Bill of Rights protects only citizens, and not legally admitted aliens. Some have argued that surely the Framers would not have understood the Bill of Rights as protecting noncitizens.
It turns out, though, that at least one pretty significant Framer — that would be James Madison — took the opposite view. Here’s Madison, from his Report on the Virginia Resolutions, which criticized the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798:
Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.
To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.
But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.
If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.
The Supreme Court has endorsed Madison’s view at least since Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) as to the criminal procedure provisions, and in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) (also unanimously) as to the Equal Protection Clause racial equality principle. Aliens might be deportable for their speech (see here for more on that question), but they can’t be otherwise punished for it, nor can they be criminally prosecuted in the civil justice system without the normal constitutional protections. (The question of when military justice may be applied to them is a separate and complicated issue, and one that may potentially relate to citizens as well as aliens.)
Now I’m not a historian of the matter, and it may well be that the matter was unclear. Certainly Madison was arguing against people who took the contrary view; perhaps they were in the solid majority on this. But at the very least one shouldn’t just casually assume that the Bill of Rights must of course apply only to citizens, when the principal drafter of the Bill of Rights took the opposite view.
No, moho, your #55 response is unacceptable. There’s no argument or debate on your side; just your usual insults. I won’t interact with someone who rejects reasoned, factual debate and instead, debases himself to insults.
Real deal #54. Exactly; they are not civilians and thus are not entitled to a criminal trial. Futhermore, they are neither citizens nor legal residents and therefore, are not entitled to the protection of the Constitution nor the American justice system. They are terrorists from an alien country, captured out of the country, engaged in military actions against America; thus, they ought to be tried under military rules.
ETAB. I’d ask if you’re embarrassed, but its quite obvious that you have no pride and consequently no shame.
Real Deal – Sure, we could line em up, but how does that look? Do you want to print up Al Qaeda sign up sheets with that execution?
It’s my understanding that Khalid and company originally wanted a military tribunal and execution. I have no problem with denying him his last wish. Military or civil there is no way Khalid will walk.
If Obama re-released Willie Horton, placed Spitzer’s escort service on retainer at the White House and was caught breaking into the Republican Party’s headquarters in a dress he’d still be more electable than letting Khalid walk.
Let’s see 5 bullets @ $2.89 = $14.45 problem rectified.
#57, it’s a debatable issue, but the 14th Amendment is quite specific about its reference to the rights of citizens which are not identical to the right of legal residents, nor, of course to legal non-residents nor of illegal aliens. You can’t lump them into one set and declare all have the same rights.
The issue of illegal aliens is pertinent to the representation of CITIZENS, who alone can vote, in the House. As the number of House seats is fixed, then, if one state counts illegals in its population count, it might gain a seat but another state would have to lose one.
But none of this refers to the issue, that I for one, consider basic. Ought this trial to be criminal or military? That is the real issue. I’ve explained why I consider that it ought to be a military trial.
There is no need to hold it in New York and I consider the location a peripheral issue. What is at issue is military/criminal. The point of a criminal trial is that it offers the Gang of Five an open platform to, as they plan to do, plead their innocence and define their actions as ‘heroic’ defenses against presumed injustices of the US.
That is, they plan to use their trial to put the USA on trial. This is not the time or place for such a monumental agenda; that is something that only historians can undertake. The Nuremberg trials for example, were military not criminal/civilian and dealt with the individuals not the German Third Reich.
Hi ETAB how revealing in your discussion with the TROLL MOHO that he displays absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the Constitution of the USA and merely seeks to insult and dissent for dissents sake. The piece he posted regarding the Constitution has THIS paragraph in it.
“But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, A TEMPORARY OBEDIENCE, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.”
Which shows quite clearly that even IF and a very big IF aliens were to be considered as being covered by the Constitution that would ONLY apply to Aliens who were ALREADY IN the USA and not TERRORIST SCUM who perpetrated their acts OUTSIDE the USA and were captured OUTSIDE the USA. How else could they have ‘A TEMPORARY ALLEGIANCE’ or are the TROLLS trying to say Mohammedan TERRORIST worldwide owe allegiance to the USA.
What makes you so sure they will get a conviction?
ETAB:The issue of illegal aliens is pertinent to the representation of CITIZENS, who alone can vote, in the House. As the number of House seats is fixed, then, if one state counts illegals in its population count, it might gain a seat but another state would have to lose one.
But none of this refers to the issue, that I for one, consider basic. Ought this trial to be criminal or military? That is the real issue. I’ve explained why I consider that it ought to be a military trial.
No one mentioned voting. Given that its obvious that you fail to understand even the most fundamental aspects of the American justice system, your belief that the trial should be a military one is pretty useless. Do yourself a favor and learn something about the country you live in, and you won’t be such a patsy for anyone who comes along with a bigoted narrative to entice you into following them. Take this moment to admit that your ideas about politics are largely based on ignorance and misinformation and educate yourself.
To give them a jury trial means that they must be presumed innocent. At the same time, Holder and Obama are assuring us of certain convictions.
The very people who are calling this a triumph of the American justice system are admitting that the fix is in, the outcome is certain.
Bring on the kangaroos.
When you consider the opinion polls of New York residents-
47 percent of those polled think the WTC attacks were a Bush-Cheney-Israeli-Jewish conspiracy.
Bombs were planted in the WTC buildings.
Airplanes had windows painted black and decals removed.
(I always wondered what happened to the fake crews and fake passengers?)(What is the government paying them and where are they staying?-its been 8 years and we still haven’t had an airplane pilot conspiracy story or book.)
Anyway….
I believe NYC needs a terrorists trial to reveal or punish the Bush-Cheney-Israeli-Jewish conspiracy 9/11 cover up.
Attorney General Eric Holder and President Shortchange believe they need it also.
66. Richard A.:
To give them a jury trial means that they must be presumed innocent. At the same time, Holder and Obama are assuring us of certain convictions.
The very people who are calling this a triumph of the American justice system are admitting that the fix is in, the outcome is certain.
As a defense atty. I read those same comments-
and would present NY Times articles and other papers and magazines as evidence, even put AG Eric Holder on the stand-
Then ask that this trial be dismissed because the US Attorney General and the Shortchanged president have said these men would be convicted and would not receive a fair trial in any federal court..
Case dismissed..
47 percent of those polled think the WTC attacks were a Bush-Cheney-Israeli-Jewish conspiracy.
What a coincidence, as this is the exact same percentage of statistics that are made up on the spot.
Lefty, I take umbrage with your taking umbrage. Actually, I don’t. LOL, I don’t care.
Yes, Lyddea, what makes you so sure they’ll get a conviction? And, if conviction is the pre determined outcome, then, as Richard A. points out in Post #66, it’s nothing more than a show trial. In a civilian trial, the defendants must be presumed innocent. And, given said presumption, the possibility must be left often that they will be found innocent, and let go.
If there isn’t that possibility, then the trial is nothing more than a farce, or, to Paraphrase the Queen of Hearts, Sentence first, trail afterwards! In which case, so far from being an shining example of American justice to the rest of the world, it’s going to be a joke, and make Americans look like hypocrites.
Now, do you see some of the problems inherent in making this trial a civil one? It would have been better left to the military courts. The issue really isn’t whether or not New Yorkers are “pansies”; that’s not the issue. The issue is our legal system, and how we handle terrorists. 9/11 was an attack on America, not just New York, and it concerns everybody.
(Also, there is such a thing as courage, and such a thing as being reckless and imprudent, just to prove one isn’t a “pansy.”)
There’s also the itsy-bitsy, teensy-meensy problem of how are you going to find a jury in NYC that hasn’t already heard of 9/11, hasn’t already made up their minds about it and doesn’t have strong opinions about it?
Really—should have been left a military matter.
Man, jury selection for this case is gonna be reeeeeaalllly interesting! In fact, this whole case is going to be interesting. Though not in a good way. It’s going to make the OJ trial look positively sane.
(There’s also the little matter of, “A jury of one’s peers.” Reeealllll interesting!)
As a defense atty. I read those same comments-
and would present NY Times articles and other papers and magazines as evidence, even put AG Eric Holder on the stand-
If you were a defense attorney, you’d realize that there is nothing unusual with a state or local attorney stating their confidence of the defendant’s guilt. Evidence and example of this are too numerous to mention; in fact, the state believes the defendant to be guilty according to the preponderance of evidence. Otherwise, they’d never bring charges. This is the basis of modern jurisprudence.
69. Goy:
***************************
Yeah!
47 percent was made up-
3.1% of margin-
its 51 percent.
Troll-
Betty Blue,Fearless Leader, Richard – exactly right. It ought to be a military trial not a civilian trial.
They are not civilians but members of a miltary agenda to commit war against the USA. This ‘military agenda’ is an ideological membership using terrorist strategies; i.e., it’s not a nation-vs-nation war but an ideological roup of members versus a nation. In either case, their actions are not criminal actions but war actions.
Then, on a lesser point, they are not US citizens or legal residents but are nationals of foreign nations and captured on foreign soil. They have, both as members of a military sect and as aliens, no constitutional rights to a criminal trial.
And as you have all accurately pointed out, the due process of a criminal trial, which presumes innocence, which requires and presumes an unbiased jury, which cannot admit unmirandized evidence etc, can’t be met. It’s already heavily compromised by both Hodder and Obama.
Furthermore, the fact that they confessed will be denied, and we will be told that they confessed only’under torture’. Result? The US will be put on trial; they will claim ‘just cause’ for their actions based on the Evil Nature of the USA…and the whole show will incite more jihadists to join Al Qaeda.
IF they are found guilty, they’ll be martyrs; more incitement, more ‘just cause’.
If they are released (it has to be an option in our criminal system)…it will be a huge victory for jihadism.
I have to conclude that Hodder and Obama are anti-American leftists, or stupid, or both.
anonymous – your comment is a red herring to the situation. After all, both of the legal sides in a criminal trial have to assume justified reasons for their approach of guilty vs innocence.
The problem in a criminal trial is when an authority in the political system, i.e. Hodder and Obama, and not just the lawyers for the defense/prosecution, assure us of the necessary outcome of the trial.
That moves the trial out of the justice system and into the political arena. This corrupts the justice system.
That’s what it’s about.OK?
#74, ETAB, exactly; They are not American citizens, they are enemy combtatants, captured on foreign soil; they should not be tried as civilians. Such a trial has already been hopelessly compromised, by both Obama and Holder.
ETAB
agreed…
Obama and Holders statements have made this the most biased trial in American history.
Not that I want to see these scum of the earth walk,
but that the President and AG have pushed the judge, jury and trial into a new realm of criminal justice.
And remember, one- 1 juror can put this trial into a higher court of appeal.
If human rights have been abused, length of time in jail etc. it could be appealed to the SCOTUS.
ETAB. The attorney general is not a political figure, but the director of the judicial system. You don’t know what you’re talking about as others have observed.
Anon/moho – the attorney general is most certainly a political agent, unelected, appointed by the president and an acting member of the presidential cabinet.
As such, he is a political agent. He has no business making comments on the outcome of a civilian case before the courts.
His duties are prescribed and proscribed to advice to the president/cabinet on law, and prosecution of cases in the Supreme Court. Again, that precludes making comments about the necessary outcome of a case to be tried in a civilian court.
If you continue to divert from the issues and resort to insults, then, as I’ve said before, I consider you have removed yourself from any debates.
Our justice system also demands that the accused have the benefit of a vigorous defense.
So it stands to reason that there is more than small chance that the accused, at least some of them, will be freed.
from Fearless Leader
“I believe NYC needs a terrorists trial to reveal or punish the Bush-Cheney-Israeli-Jewish conspiracy 9/11 cover up.
Attorney General Eric Holder and President Shortchange believe they need it also.”
Like I said, bring on the kangaroos. This entire trial is a political construct, with a not so transparent agenda, and therefore is an abuse of the justice system. It is a perversion and an insult, and you so much as admitted it in your statement.
His duties are prescribed and proscribed to advice to the president/cabinet on law, and prosecution of cases in the Supreme Court. Again, that precludes making comments about the necessary outcome of a case to be tried in a civilian court.
You most certainly have no idea what you’re talking about; additionally, the use of the word “proscribe” here is completely inappropriate. Rules and other structures “proscribe”, i.e., limit. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean, “limited to”, you’re wrong there too. Holder is the head of the Justice Department and is the head law enforcement official of the United States.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world’s largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.
1. Responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of federal laws.
2. Represents the United States as a party in all legal matters, including cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.
3. Enforces all immigration laws, provides information, and processes applications for citizenship
4. Maintains the federal prison system, halfway houses, and community programs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice
I would further remind our readers that Mr. Holder was a partner in the very law firm that filed suit on behalf of Guantanamo detainees, before his present position. Read in to that what you will, but at the very least, his recusal is warranted.
Richard A. can you explain why this is a conflict of interest? I’m pretty sure you can’t, because it isn’t.
Mr. Anonymous, I can understand why you wish to be unidentified.
You see no conflict of interest in AG Holder having been PAID HANDSOMELY to defend KSM and other 4 as recently as two years ago, and now is charged with his vigorous prosecution?
A prosecution for which Holder has made ridiculous public assurances that these trials will result in convictions (such statements alone are unworthy of his position, and make him look like a complete tyrant, and makes a mockery of his very oath of office).
I have a feeling I am conversing with a child.
Actually, Richard A., I suspect you’re conversing with someone who gets it, but doesn’t want to, so he dodges around, or makes flat out denials such as it isn’t a conflict of interest (when it obviously is.)
He just wants to waste your time.
Richard A.: I’m tempted to call you a liar, but you’re obviously not that smart. Covington and Burling, Holder’s former law firm represented several Guantanamo detainees in a very narrow case about whether they were entitled to Geneva Convention protections. The funniest thing about your PAID HANDSOMELY remark is that if Holder had actually been involved in that pro-bono case, he would have received nothing. And, of course, it had nothing to do with Khaled S. Mohammed.
Holder was not involved in the Guantanamo case, instead, he was representing the NFL against Michael Vick and defending Chiquita brands. You either hallucinated Holder’s involvement in the defense of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, or you’re lying about it. I don’t know which makes you look worse, since your lies are so easily dispelled that one wonders the level of intellect and lack of self-respect that would prompt such a move.
We will have the opportunity to see how this farce unfolds for ourselves. We won’t need Anonymous to interpret facts for us.
I will acknowledge that Eric Holder was PAID HANDSOMELY by Covington and Burling, the same law firm trying to shut down Guantanamo.
The same Eric Holder that apparently has no problem with Black Panthers wielding large weapons within 100 ft of polling places in Philadelphia.
#61. Cheaper yet is to line them up for a single high powered round through all their pig haeds.
I will acknowledge that Eric Holder was PAID HANDSOMELY by Covington and Burling, the same law firm trying to shut down Guantanamo.
You said this literally an hour earlier:
You see no conflict of interest in AG Holder having been PAID HANDSOMELY to defend KSM and other 4 as recently as two years ago, and now is charged with his vigorous prosecution?
You’ve actually only acknowledged two things. The first is that you definitely don’t know what you’re talking about. The second is that facts have no bearing on your political ideas, you make things up and simply move on when the discussion proves them to be figments of your imagination.