hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Nov 15, 2009 18:49:53 GMT -5
So that's a, "no" on O.C., OK?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 15, 2009 19:19:58 GMT -5
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. I wouldn't be so glib as to say that there's no law against publishing classified information. There are a variety of laws related to national security, and a leaked article that was so egregious could easily have its publication suppressed (an easy example would be nuclear codes) - the US government has, in the past, classified graduate theses and forbidden people from discussing them in open fora. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 15, 2009 19:36:31 GMT -5
Whether Bill Gertz does it or not; and, whether someone leaked it or not and the Times published it -- it's all immaterial to the fact that classified information would have been made available to the general public (and terrorists) as a consequence of having the trials in New York.
And anyone who doesn't think having the trial in New York will increase the possibility of a future terrorist attack on New York is just not being realistic.
And, finally, don't discount the possibility that the chief architect of the September 11 attacks will be found not guilty, basing his defense on the prosecution's evidence being not admissible in court because he was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and was not read his Miranda rights before he talked.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 15, 2009 22:25:27 GMT -5
And, finally, don't discount the possibility that the chief architect of the September 11 attacks will be found not guilty, basing his defense on the prosecution's evidence being not admissible in court because he was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and was not read his Miranda rights before he talked. Holder knows his job is riding on this. I'd be absolutely stunned if he didn't do his homework and make sure that we have enough admissible evidence to prove these guys, especially KSM, guilty. Anyways, the entire justification for the 'enhanced interrogation' techniques was that they were used to prevent future attacks, not that they proved guilt in past attacks. If that was indeed the case, then our evidence linking KSM to 9/11 came from somewhere else. Will there be some evidence thrown out because of how it was obtained? Possibly, maybe even probably. But unless Holder's a total dunce, we've got other evidence that we know will stand up to prove KSM and the others guilty. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 15, 2009 22:44:31 GMT -5
If my reading on this is correct, KSM may even plead guilty and agree to be put to death. It seems like he just wants to be a "martyr," whatever that means in this context.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Nov 15, 2009 22:50:13 GMT -5
And, finally, don't discount the possibility that the chief architect of the September 11 attacks will be found not guilty, basing his defense on the prosecution's evidence being not admissible in court because he was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and was not read his Miranda rights before he talked. Holder knows his job is riding on this. I'd be absolutely stunned if he didn't do his homework and make sure that we have enough admissible evidence to prove these guys, especially KSM, guilty. Anyways, the entire justification for the 'enhanced interrogation' techniques was that they were used to prevent future attacks, not that they proved guilt in past attacks. If that was indeed the case, then our evidence linking KSM to 9/11 came from somewhere else. Will there be some evidence thrown out because of how it was obtained? Possibly, maybe even probably. But unless Holder's a total dunce, we've got other evidence that we know will stand up to prove KSM and the others guilty. The fact that Holder's job is riding on this is what distresses me. KSM and his lawyers will do their best to hijack the process and make as many accusations as possible. This has been modus operandi for al Qaeda in the past - and previous false accusations in a variety of instances have led to riots and made the US job of strategic communication much more difficult. Failure is not an option here. Partial success is not an option. If KSM is convicted and if the trial does not become a mockery of justice, then Holder will have succeeded. But if either (or both) of the above don't come to pass, then Holder won't only be fired, but he and Obama will have blood on their hands. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 15, 2009 23:03:11 GMT -5
At the end of the day, assuming the case doesn't get thrown out on a technicality (which I think is very unlikely given the overwhelming significance of bringing these guys to justice), there's no jury in NY or any other state in the union that will let these guys walk. If this goes to a jury, the odds of a not guilty are 0. For all the stunts people pull and all the political and cultural division we hear about everyday, I still have complete and utter faith that everyone is on board with these guys spending the rest of their lives in prison. (I'd rather not execute b/c, aside from being anti-death penalty, I also see no reason to make them martyrs. Put them in supermax in Florence, and let them rot until they're forgotten.)
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,911
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Nov 15, 2009 23:05:56 GMT -5
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. I wouldn't be so glib as to say that there's no law against publishing classified information. There are a variety of laws related to national security, and a leaked article that was so egregious could easily have its publication suppressed (an easy example would be nuclear codes) - the US government has, in the past, classified graduate theses and forbidden people from discussing them in open fora. I'm not being glib, I'm being factual. There is no U.S. law that forbids the publication of classified information. There are a variety of laws related to national security, yes. And the government has indeed classified various documents and placed restrictions on the people who originated them. This has no bearing on third parties who may receive these documents. It is illegal for someone with access to classified information to leak it. There is no law preventing someone who has come into possession of this information from disseminating it. There is no equivalent in the U.S. to the Official Secrets Act that exists in the United Kingdom and makes illegal this sort of reproduction. This is why Bill Gertz, the NY Times and the Washington Post, and any number of other sources of information have gone unpunished. |
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Nov 16, 2009 1:11:29 GMT -5
And anyone who doesn't think having the trial in New York will increase the possibility of a future terrorist attack on New York is just not being realistic. And, finally, don't discount the possibility that the chief architect of the September 11 attacks will be found not guilty, basing his defense on the prosecution's evidence being not admissible in court because he was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques and was not read his Miranda rights before he talked. 2 things. First, NYC is the #1 or #2 terror target regardless of any trial I think YOU are just not being realistic in saying it will increase the desirability of an attack. Outside of potentially DC, NY is the place the terrorists have wanted to attack the most, at least since 1993. I don't see how a trial makes NYC MORE desirable of a target. You really think a trial in a military proceeding (which still may occur in the continental U.S.) is going to reduce the desire of Al Qaeda to attack NYC? Man, I would love to live in your fantasy world. Are you suggesting it is a better outcome if the trial is in Gitmo and as a result there is an attack in DC, and not NY? Come on, everyone knows DC and NY are targets 1 and 2. That desirability is not the product of a judicial hearing. It's due to population/economic centers. As for the second comment I quoted, my understanding of the law is that even though the case takes place in Article III courts, the defendant is not entitled to the identical constitutional protections I am. For instance, non-citizens are not entitled to priv. and immunities protections. Additionally, I don't think that evidence procured by torture would be admissible in a military tribunal. Although I am not well versed in the evidence standards for military tribunals, it's not like anything goes in those settings. I believe evidence from torture would still be barred in those proceedings. As for Miranda rights, upon a cursory glance through Lexis, there has not been any definitive answer. Miranda rights apply differently to non-citizens abroad than they do to citizens questioned here (different standards for what is barred and different standards for how defendant needs to be warned). Additionally, it's only been stated that certain Miranda requirements apply to American law enforcement officials abroad-not clear if the same standards would apply to non-law enforcement (e.g. CIA or military) officials. Also, there is no clear precedent regarding enemy combatants except Eisentrager, where the facts of detainment and prosecution (though maybe not questioning) were significantly different. If anyone is interested in taking a look, the case I saw was U.S. v. Odeh, 552 F.3d 177 (2nd Cir. 2008) |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Nov 16, 2009 13:54:38 GMT -5
Perhaps we should up the threat level to maroon.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Nov 16, 2009 18:01:37 GMT -5
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. Being a resident of NYC, I support the trials being held here for many reasons, but three are the following: 1) It was our city that was most severely attacked by the terrorists on 9/11 (a fact that seems to be all too often forgetten when we are left out of the definition of what constitutes a "real american"), and I think it would be fitting for us to sit in judgment of them; I also find it incredulous considering the very personal direct wound the attack made on NYC that you would suggest we would somehow feel/act more liberal/lenient/sympathetic towards them than say a jury in Iowa or Fort Worth; 2) the SDNY, EDNY, and 2d Circuit are made up of some of the most respected, experienced, professional and reasoned judges in the country; 3) placing the trial anywhere else would create a logistical and security nightmare for that city, because remember despite what happened on 9/11 no city in America is better prepared to handle a circus like these trials - trust me, it wouldn't pose half as many headaches as the regular UN meetings that snarl up the avenues with the security details of 100 different heads of state. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 16, 2009 19:48:56 GMT -5
"3) placing the trial anywhere else would create a logistical and security nightmare for that city, because remember despite what happened on 9/11 no city in America is better prepared to handle a circus like these trials - trust me, it wouldn't pose half as many headaches as the regular UN meetings that snarl up the avenues with the security details of 100 different heads of state."
Guantanamo Bay would be the ideal place.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Nov 18, 2009 13:33:34 GMT -5
KSM and his lawyers will do their best to hijack the process and make as many accusations as possible. This has been modus operandi for al Qaeda in the past - and previous false accusations in a variety of instances have led to riots and made the US job of strategic communication much more difficult. This would be modus operandi regardless of where or in what type of court KSM is tried. It's a lose-lose situation for the United States. Try him in a court behind closed doors where his rantings can't be heard, and we get accused of railroading the guy. Try him in an open court, and he gets a stage for his insane rantings. I have a slight concern that said rantings might be believed and absorbed by some impressionable and directionless youth reading following the trial from Brooklyn or from Yemen. In general, however, I think the rantings of a mass murderer attempting to justify a mass murder will be viewed as unsympathetic and idiotic. Failure is not an option here. Partial success is not an option. If KSM is convicted and if the trial does not become a mockery of justice, then Holder will have succeeded. But if either (or both) of the above don't come to pass, then Holder won't only be fired, but he and Obama will have blood on their hands. What makes success more or less probable based on whether the United States prosecutes this case behind closed doors? Does the government's burden of proof disappear behind closed doors? There's been a great deal of public disclosure WRT September 11, 2001 itself (see: the 9/11 commission). I'm speculating, but my guess is that the fear of others (who are also speculating) that we couldn't/wouldn't/shouldn't give up classified information to obtain a conviction is overblown. (Also, as others have pointed out, the court can also protect against public disclosure of classified information.) WRT future terrorist attacks, what DOESN'T make the probability of a terrorist attack in NYC more likely? Does playing a World Series game in New York make a terrorist attack more likely? Probably. Does the convening of the United Nations General Assembly make a terrorist attack more likely? Probably. We can wring our hands over what would make New York "safer" every day. (Should we close down the subway, too?) The fact remains that New York has been the world's most successful city for over a century because it is the embodiment of an open and free democratic society. Jury trials and "government in the sunshine" are part of that free and democratic society, IMO, and I don't have any problem with the government's decision. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 18, 2009 13:36:01 GMT -5
I am troubled only by Eric Holder's flat-out lie that he only consulted his wife and brother before making this decision. That statement is both ridiculous and offensive.
|
|
CTHoya08
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Bring back Izzo!
Posts: 2,954
|
Post by CTHoya08 on Nov 18, 2009 13:39:17 GMT -5
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. Being a resident of NYC, I support the trials being held here for many reasons, but three are the following: 1) It was our city that was most severely attacked by the terrorists on 9/11 (a fact that seems to be all too often forgetten when we are left out of the definition of what constitutes a "real american"), and I think it would be fitting for us to sit in judgment of them; I also find it incredulous considering the very personal direct wound the attack made on NYC that you would suggest we would somehow feel/act more liberal/lenient/sympathetic towards them than say a jury in Iowa or Fort Worth; 2) the SDNY, EDNY, and 2d Circuit are made up of some of the most respected, experienced, professional and reasoned judges in the country; 3) placing the trial anywhere else would create a logistical and security nightmare for that city, because remember despite what happened on 9/11 no city in America is better prepared to handle a circus like these trials - trust me, it wouldn't pose half as many headaches as the regular UN meetings that snarl up the avenues with the security details of 100 different heads of state. I almost never post on B&G, but I usually follow a few of the threads. I'm surprised that it took so long for someone to make these points. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on Nov 18, 2009 13:54:52 GMT -5
Guantanamo Bay would be the ideal place. Sure, if you want a sideshow trial that tells the whole world we still don't respect the rule of law. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Nov 19, 2009 14:09:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 19, 2009 14:16:02 GMT -5
I am troubled only by Eric Holder's flat-out lie that he only consulted his wife and brother before making this decision. That statement is both ridiculous and offensive. Did he consult you or someone you know? |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Nov 19, 2009 14:18:20 GMT -5
The 5th and 6th Amend issue he raises is not quite as open and shut as Sen. Graham makes it seem. There is precedent for a court to find that the Constitution simply doesn't apply the same when dealing w/ aliens and conduct abroad as it does w/ citizens and U.S. territory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez |
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 19, 2009 14:28:38 GMT -5
The conservative response to this falls under the same theme they've used to respond to terrorists since 9/11: terrorists are somehow superhuman and thus all our current laws (re torture, trials, etc.) need to be broken in order to contain them. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. Al Qaeda aren't a bunch of supervillains, but as Eddie Izzard put it, they're bunch of mass-murdering f---heads. I think it only serves to glorify al Qaeda to treat them any differently as we would any other murderer.
As to the "KSM will make a bunch of haranguing speeches" point, well, I wish a motherf---er would. If KSM wants to conclusively show that al Qaeda is made up of crazy people, well we should just let him. Besides, I don't see a jury of New Yorkers taking too kindly to what he'd have to say.
Finally, to the "NYC will become a bigger target" point, I say you're a bunch of cowards. As we've been told so often, terrorism succeeds when fear of it drives us to change. By embracing torture and extra-legal detention, conservatives have let fear be our guiding light. Well f--- that. I'm not afraid of Jihadist loons. You're all so quickly to denounce the "crime option" for fighting terrorism, yet you're all so quick to concede the point to al Qaeda that blowing up civilians is somehow a legitimate act of war. F--- that.
Also, ed, really? "The WTC trials caused 9/11" is perhaps the greatest example I've ever seen of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy I've ever seen. Didn't they teach logic when you were at Georgetown?
|
|
