9/11 Trial

[hoyaalf]

Just watched Jim 'Bus Transfer' Lehrer interview AG Holder on 9/11 trial paying particular attention to the many and varied factors affefting venue considering it's a nimby sort of issue for me.

Modest proposal: trial should be removed to Oklahoma City.

As G. Tennant once said
...

hold on a sec; my mother is calling.

[The Stig]

Didn't we have an agreement to not discuss serious issues on Friday?

[hoyaalf]

Didn't know.

Mea Maxima culpa.
Score 32-27 us.

[jgalt]

Nov 13, 2009 22:18:00 GMT -5 hoyaalf said:

Score 32-27 us.

To me That is a serious issue too

[EasyEd]

It's now Sunday so we can discuss it.

Terrible decision by President Obama, hiding behind Holder. New York is already a prime target for terrorists (are we allowed to use the term?) and now we're going to hold a trial in New York for some of the people primarily responsible for the twin towers attacks? The trials are sure to take 4-6 years, what with all the evidence to be presented and all the legal maneuvers; 4-6 years for terrorists to plan and carry out other attacks, whatever form they may take. If new attacks take place during this time period, and even after it, the blood of those affected will be on President Obama for this stupid decision.

Another issue: how will the presentation of evidence impact our intelligence-gathering in the future? How will classified information be handled? Will the media be allowed access to classified information and allowed to publish it?

An awful, boneheaded decision by the White House.

[Boz]

Silly, ed. They are not terrorists, they are "man made disaster representatives."

I'm not really that concerned that there is a security threat by having these trials there, but the following do concern me:

1. Having trials in civilian court risks disclosure of classified information and, if such information is not disclosed, risks mistrial. thanks for that, SCOTUS, you dimwits.

2. We are now going to have the privilege of listening to KSM and these other idiots pontificating and spouting their drivel for all to hear.

3. I think the majority of 9-11 families in NY are against this and this will probably be traumatizing for them, something I don't think had to take place.

A bad decision, I agree, but I don't think it's because it will increase the threat of an attack in NY.

[redskins12820]

Nov 14, 2009 14:15:09 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It's now Sunday so we can discuss it.

Terrible decision by President Obama, hiding behind Holder. New York is already a prime target for terrorists (are we allowed to use the term?) and now we're going to hold a trial in New York for some of the people primarily responsible for the twin towers attacks? The trials are sure to take 4-6 years, what with all the evidence to be presented and all the legal maneuvers; 4-6 years for terrorists to plan and carry out other attacks, whatever form they may take. If new attacks take place during this time period, and even after it, the blood of those affected will be on President Obama for this stupid decision.

Another issue: how will the presentation of evidence impact our intelligence-gathering in the future? How will classified information be handled? Will the media be allowed access to classified information and allowed to publish it?

An awful, boneheaded decision by the White House.

Terrorism cases (including other Al Qaeda, post 9/11 cases) are tried in the SDNY all the time. I'm pretty sure SDNY and Eastern??? District of VA handle all terrorism cases and have vast experience doing so. I believe SDNY has already handled other Gitmo cases.

As for classified evidence, no, the media will not be able to access it. In fact, the defendant will not be able to access it if it's classified. Just because you are in civilian court does not mean you get to see classified evidence. It will be reviewed by the judge and attorneys with security clearances in camera.

pubrecord.org/law/3805/federal-court-rules-seizure-muslim/

"'Later amendments to the PATRIOT Act authorized submission of classified information to a court, in camera and ex parte, upon a legal challenge to a designation.

The Treasury Department says, “This new PATRIOT Act authority has greatly enhanced our ability to make and defend designations by making it absolutely clear that OFAC may use classified information in making designations without turning the material over to an entity or individual that challenges its designation.”'

Additionally, CIPA (see article below) will restrict the evidence presented in open court.

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434182416&NY_Federal_Court_Braces_for_Trial_of_Terror_Suspect


The only question with evidence is what is admissible. Stuff admitted during waterboarding is probably (definitely?) going to be barred.

[strummer8526]

Nov 14, 2009 14:15:09 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It's now Sunday so we can discuss it.

It's Sunday? Where the hell are you living?

[strummer8526]

Nov 14, 2009 14:55:43 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Nov 14, 2009 14:15:09 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

It's now Sunday so we can discuss it.

Terrible decision by President Obama, hiding behind Holder. New York is already a prime target for terrorists (are we allowed to use the term?) and now we're going to hold a trial in New York for some of the people primarily responsible for the twin towers attacks? The trials are sure to take 4-6 years, what with all the evidence to be presented and all the legal maneuvers; 4-6 years for terrorists to plan and carry out other attacks, whatever form they may take. If new attacks take place during this time period, and even after it, the blood of those affected will be on President Obama for this stupid decision.

Another issue: how will the presentation of evidence impact our intelligence-gathering in the future? How will classified information be handled? Will the media be allowed access to classified information and allowed to publish it?

An awful, boneheaded decision by the White House.

Terrorism cases (including other Al Qaeda, post 9/11 cases) are tried in the SDNY all the time. I'm pretty sure SDNY and Eastern??? District of VA handle all terrorism cases and have vast experience doing so. I believe SDNY has already handled other Gitmo cases.

As for classified evidence, no, the media will not be able to access it. In fact, the defendant will not be able to access it if it's classified. Just because you are in civilian court does not mean you get to see classified evidence. It will be reviewed by the judge and attorneys with security clearances in camera.

pubrecord.org/law/3805/federal-court-rules-seizure-muslim/

"'Later amendments to the PATRIOT Act authorized submission of classified information to a court, in camera and ex parte, upon a legal challenge to a designation.

The Treasury Department says, “This new PATRIOT Act authority has greatly enhanced our ability to make and defend designations by making it absolutely clear that OFAC may use classified information in making designations without turning the material over to an entity or individual that challenges its designation.”'

Additionally, CIPA (see article below) will restrict the evidence presented in open court.

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434182416&NY_Federal_Court_Braces_for_Trial_of_Terror_Suspect


The only question with evidence is what is admissible. Stuff admitted during waterboarding is probably (definitely?) going to be barred.

District of DC has had a fair number of Gitmo cases, including several that ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

[The Stig]

If we've been holding these people for almost a decade, we better d*mn well have enough evidence to convict them.

We already put an Al Qaeda terrorist on trial with Zacarias Moussaui. His rantings in the courtroom simply made him look like an idiot. The trial was long, but despite Moussaui trying to pull all sorts of stunts, we got a conviction. I'm not aware of any dangerous information becoming public as a result of that trial. So it IS possible to try these sorts of terrorists in a public court and give them the justice they deserve without compromising our national security.

[redskins12820]

Nov 14, 2009 17:30:09 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Nov 14, 2009 14:55:43 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Terrorism cases (including other Al Qaeda, post 9/11 cases) are tried in the SDNY all the time. I'm pretty sure SDNY and Eastern??? District of VA handle all terrorism cases and have vast experience doing so. I believe SDNY has already handled other Gitmo cases.

As for classified evidence, no, the media will not be able to access it. In fact, the defendant will not be able to access it if it's classified. Just because you are in civilian court does not mean you get to see classified evidence. It will be reviewed by the judge and attorneys with security clearances in camera.

pubrecord.org/law/3805/federal-court-rules-seizure-muslim/

"'Later amendments to the PATRIOT Act authorized submission of classified information to a court, in camera and ex parte, upon a legal challenge to a designation.

The Treasury Department says, “This new PATRIOT Act authority has greatly enhanced our ability to make and defend designations by making it absolutely clear that OFAC may use classified information in making designations without turning the material over to an entity or individual that challenges its designation.”'

Additionally, CIPA (see article below) will restrict the evidence presented in open court.

www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202434182416&NY_Federal_Court_Braces_for_Trial_of_Terror_Suspect


The only question with evidence is what is admissible. Stuff admitted during waterboarding is probably (definitely?) going to be barred.

District of DC has had a fair number of Gitmo cases, including several that ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

Yeah, I forgot Judge Green was a DC judge. If I remember correctly, she dealt with Boumediene.

[EasyEd]

Anybody want to bet me the New York Times will not publish classified information from the trials? And anybody want to bet me the MSM and Democrats will not applaud the Times?

BTW we tried in New York those who bombed the WTC the first time. It may or may not be coincidental a second attack on the WTC followed.

[redskins12820]

Nov 14, 2009 20:21:00 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Anybody want to bet me the New York Times will not publish classified information from the trials? And anybody want to bet me the MSM and Democrats will not applaud the Times?

BTW we tried in New York those who bombed the WTC the first time. It may or may not be coincidental a second attack on the WTC followed.

That's the most correct statement I've ever heard. It was completely coincidental that the trial happened to be in the same city as a subsequent attack. Since it was coincidental, that would be incorporated into "may or may not be coincidental."

In other related news, it may or may not be coincidental that I visited NY in the 1990s and 9/11 followed. May or may not.

[jerseyhoya34]

A couple of thoughts on this issue --

1. I find this decision to be consistent with how we want our country to be portrayed/understood. If anything has created a disconnect at home and abroad since September 11, it is that many Americans (or at least our leaders) have said out of one side of their mouths that we're in it to "protect our way of life" but at the same time not take a stand while we attach electrical wires to the genitals of prisoners, smear prisoners with feces, waterboard prisoners, and the like. It was a truly astonishing display with the "bad apples" argument being a little too rotten for my liking given what we now know about our "enhanced interrogation" initiative. That President Obama has now taken a stand to end the similarly unamerican detention of unquestionably evil people (in most cases - Uighurs being an exception IMO) is admirable.

2. This was a classic situation where the status quo would have made for the best politics. What more harm could be done by keeping Guantanamo open for another 3 years? 5 years? 10 years?

3. What alternatives are being proposed that are consistent with closing down Guantanamo?

4. If there is a court in the United States that is capable of handling trials of this kind, it is the SDNY (or DDC). I think most appreciate how the SDNY has handled recent high profile cases, including the Madoff criminal matter. Many people are simply unaware of the litigation that has already taken place over detention issues (or - gasp - that post-9/11 prisoners have brought cases in our courts) in the name of the outrage du jour.

5. I didn't realize that Bin Laden had crossed NYC off his list until AG Holder made his announcement. If there is anything we know about terrorists, it is that they revisit their targets. Perhaps we should suggest to the Israelis that they ship Palestinian prisoners and suspected terrorists to an island of choice so that their cities may live in peace.

[The Stig]

I should also mention that I have no major problem with using properly conducted and fair military tribunals as a way to try these people. What's important to me is that America gives everybody a fair trial, and that the accused are given a chance to defend themselves.

If these people are guilty, then I have no moral qualms whatsoever with locking them up for life or executing them. But the entire point of our justice system is that we don't just assume guilt. We prove to an impartial jury (or panel) that the people are guilty before we punish them.

My point all throughout this Guantanamo debacle is that we shouldn't be holding people if we don't have enough evidence to prove that they're guilty of at least planning to harm the United States, and have that proof stand up in a court of law. If we're imprisoning people without solid proof of their guilt, that brings up the possibility that we've been imprisoning some innocent people for the last 8 years without giving them the chance to defend themselves. That is 100% un-American, no matter what side of the spectrum you come from.

I'm not saying that everybody at Gitmo is innocent - I'm sure that most of the people there are guilty and will get the justice they deserve when they're put on trial, KSM being the most prominent in that category. But having even one innocent person imprisoned by the US government for 8 years without the chance to defend themselves in a court of law is an absolute outrage.

[strummer8526]

Nov 14, 2009 20:21:00 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Anybody want to bet me the New York Times will not publish classified information from the trials? And anybody want to bet me the MSM and Democrats will not applaud the Times?

BTW we tried in New York those who bombed the WTC the first time. It may or may not be coincidental a second attack on the WTC followed.

If the NY Times is able to publish it, then it wasn't kept confidential. So yeah, I'll take that bet. It's up to the court to keep national security secrets out of open court and up to the parties not to disclose any such secrets. Anything that the NY Times could gain access to is inherently no longer "confidential."

[TBird41]

Nov 15, 2009 11:01:54 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

Nov 14, 2009 20:21:00 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Anybody want to bet me the New York Times will not publish classified information from the trials? And anybody want to bet me the MSM and Democrats will not applaud the Times?

BTW we tried in New York those who bombed the WTC the first time. It may or may not be coincidental a second attack on the WTC followed.

If the NY Times is able to publish it, then it wasn't kept confidential. So yeah, I'll take that bet. It's up to the court to keep national security secrets out of open court and up to the parties not to disclose any such secrets. Anything that the NY Times could gain access to is inherently no longer "confidential."

He didn't say "confidential". He said "classified". The latter is a legal term, the former is not. If something is classified, it means that its only supposed to be seen / known if you've achieved the proper clearance. So even if the NYT gets a hold of something that's been classified as Top Secret, for example, it's still classified information and somebody broke the law.

[kchoya]

Nov 15, 2009 11:28:04 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Nov 15, 2009 11:01:54 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

If the NY Times is able to publish it, then it wasn't kept confidential. So yeah, I'll take that bet. It's up to the court to keep national security secrets out of open court and up to the parties not to disclose any such secrets. Anything that the NY Times could gain access to is inherently no longer "confidential."

He didn't say "confidential". He said "classified". The latter is a legal term, the former is not. If something is classified, it means that its only supposed to be seen / known if you've achieved the proper clearance. So even if the NYT gets a hold of something that's been classified as Top Secret, for example, it's still classified information and somebody broke the law.

Actually, confidential is a legal term of art. Classified is a designation by a government agency.

[TBird41]

Nov 15, 2009 12:03:39 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Nov 15, 2009 11:28:04 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

He didn't say "confidential". He said "classified". The latter is a legal term, the former is not. If something is classified, it means that its only supposed to be seen / known if you've achieved the proper clearance. So even if the NYT gets a hold of something that's been classified as Top Secret, for example, it's still classified information and somebody broke the law.

Actually, confidential is a legal term of art. Classified is a designation by a government agency.

Fair enough. My point still stands about the fact that information is still classified even after the NYT gets it.

[RusskyHoya]

Nov 15, 2009 12:24:44 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Nov 15, 2009 12:03:39 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Actually, confidential is a legal term of art. Classified is a designation by a government agency.

Fair enough. My point still stands about the fact that information is still classified even after the NYT gets it.

Indeed it is. However, since there is no law against publishing classified information that was leaked to you, at that point it becomes a decision to be made by the NYT editors regarding whether or not to publish it. Oftentimes, they will consult with the government and enter into negotiations about what to publish or what not to publish. On occasion, they do hold off for various reasons.

Lest anyone think this is something only the boogeyman Times does, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times has long been a treasure trove of classified information, which he publishes with impunity.