Republicans and former Republicans have been calling for a change of venue for the terrorist trial in lower Manhattan, one of the sites of the September 11th attacks.
Republican representative Peter King, and former Republican now independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg are calling the location for the trial be moved out of the city citing costs and security concerns.
This is really a ploy to try to get terrorists tried in military tribunals and it’s also an indication of being soft on terrorism.
Let’s take apart the arguments. First let's talk about the cost. Republicans had no qualms about ringing up record deficits during the Bush administration and sending volunteer troops into a country that had no links to the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Iraq). They then railroaded a bill stripping us of our rights (the Patriot act). Whatever the actual cost of a trail is, this is the price of a free society and the price of democracy. Bloomberg spent 200 million of his own money to bypass term limts and get re-elected.
Second let’s talk about security. Mayor Bloomberg is concerned about security risks of holding a trial in federal court in downtown Manhattan. Let me tell you that as one who commutes into Manhattan every day, New York City is at risk for a follow up attack.
When I take the 5:55 into Grand Central Terminal, I know there’s a risk of an attack there. Or of an attack on the subway. Or across the street from my office at Pennsylvania Station. Yes there’s risk in New York City, and it’s evident by the police and military presence everywhere we go. I choose to accept that risk by getting on the Metro-North train every weekday morning. It’s a different risk than the commuter who works in Lewiston, Maine or Lewiston, Idaho.
Security risk is a false argument. Cost is a false argument. It time to call out the Republicans for being soft on terrorism. Moving a trial because of a security risk or because of the cost is simply appeasement. It is telling the terrorists you win, and we lose.
It political expediency and here’s hoping that people will see it for what it really is. Call your representative on it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
OS Readers' Picks
Erica K
vanessa seijo
MichelleD
elizabethkirby
Shiral
Salon.com
Comments
Leslie -- the budget and security concerns are fatuous. This is about military tribunals.
MrsRaptor -- I think all are not guilty until proven otherwise. The DOJ has not been the most competent of late.
Steve -- I wish just one reporter would challenge King or Bloomberg on their position. They all are just freaking stenographers. Where are the victims families on this issue?
From Wikipedia: The son of George and Agnes, Eddie Haskell was the smart-mouthed best friend of Wally Cleaver. The character, played in the original series by Ken Osmond, has become a cultural reference, recognized as an archetype for insincere sycophants. Ward once remarked that "[Eddie] is so polite, it's almost un-American".[1] The archetype became so well known that the term "Eddie Haskell" was adopted into everyday use.
Leslie.. it is an ugly chapter in our history. I doubt however that we have enough untainted evidence to show anything other than that the people in question were "acting suspiciously" and if acting suspiciously automatically makes one guilty of a crime then we are ALL guilty.
The bigger issue for me is more about demonstrating to the world that life goes on and we will be bully or threatened. Based on the actions our elected officials of the past 9 years, the terrorists achieved their goals.
We need to let our criminal justice system proceed as would in any other criminal case.
MrsRaptor -- I would rather see a trial in US District Court than tribunal run under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may or may not be guilty of masterminding the Sept 11 attacks. There is a Muslim population that lives in the Southern District of New York. Perhaps they will serve on the jury.
Perhaps any jury member hearing this case will have a reasonable doubt. I'm not make a case to convict, I just want the trail held in the appropriate juristdiction. My point in my post is that the trial should not be moved from NYC. Lower Manhattan may be a poor location, in the eyes of some, but it is where the attack took place.
Akopsa -- Governor's Island, Ellis Island, Rikers' Island, anywhere within the City Limits.
Barry -- Could you imagine the US Navy moving its base from Pearl Harbor, because the Japanese had previously attacked them there? That's a fatuous argument, too.
Bonnie -- You could put that on Barack's tombstone.
It's bad enough we have tourists flocking to ground zero to take pictures and buy souvenirs at the sight of a mass murder.
Security becomes an issue when it is lacking - I cannot imagine NYC lacking for security anymore. Is it the most secure place? Probably not. But it sure as hell isn't the LEAST secure place, either.
We need to put an end to the tribunals. They serve no useful purpose except to justify an execution without an evidentiary trial.
Well said, Andy. Rated and nodding in agreement.
It would be nice if just one post on an important issue could survive the second paragraph without a reference to the Bush administration.
Of course Obama will cave. He's a craven pragmatic politician, but as a reasonably intelligent human being, he's capable of lucid intervals from time to time.
Peter King promotes fear! Isn't this what the terrorists want? If we are a strong Nation we protect ourselves, take appropriate security measures and go about our business.
Going about our business in this matter would be to hold trials in the proper venue. Following our laws, giving defendants their rights and holding to our principals shows strength.
Exactly! And cost be damned. This is America. We try criminals in court, NOT in front of a military tribunal.
Cool that this on the cover my Dog.
That is the price of a system of justice like ours.
Perhaps the best way to handle this is to try ‘em…and if found not guilty (not the same as innocent)…tell the marshals to escort them to the courthouse doors and send them out into the streets.
Maybe a different form of justice is what is needed in this particular instance.
Precisely.
You bet! Just as with OJ.
Bill S -thanks
Gordon -- I waited until paragraph 4 before mentioning the Bush administration. From the New York Times this morning,
"The dispute over a trial location, touched off when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York complained of costs and disruption, threatened to reopen the divisive question of how those accused of plotting the murder of more than 3,000 Americans should be brought to justice.
Republicans in the Senate and House said they would try to block financing for civilian criminal trials for the alleged terrorists, seeking to force the administration to place them on trial before a military commission in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, or on a military base elsewhere.
Opponents of civilian trials said they hoped new doubts about a New York trial and increased fears of terrorism since the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day would win more Democratic support for such measures."
Granted NYC dems are questioning this as well but two of three you mention are up for election, Gillibrand and Paterson.
What does OJ Simpson have to do with terrorism? This is a non-sequitur
sg2292 -- It's the job of all Republicans pol to foment fear and hatred.
Trig -- Correctamundo as the Fonz used to say.
Frank -- the incompetence within the DOJ means that a conviction is not a walk in the park.
Stim1 -- Thanks.
Surly -- Thanks.
Cartouche -- I appreciate that very much.
It's wrong to dismiss the emotional component (not to mention the huge cost to New York): the symbolism feels a bit too potent, the anxiety potential a bit too high. Moreover, the potential for a media circus actually makes my stomach hurt. I mean, really. Does it never end?
But one has to come down somewhere, I suppose. Truly this is hard. But I am the daughter and granddaughter of attorneys whose honorable practices and love of the law I have always and will always respect.
It's gotta be a civil trial. And if it's gotta be there, then...whew, I guess that's where it's gotta be.
Ray Kelly is a man I admire, but his speech was out of line.
Now we step away from the money (ha!). In my humble opinion, the institution and malformation of military tribunals were a blatant attempt by the Bush Admin. to wrest away any judicial input and throw a full metal blanket over all proceedings.
We were born as a nation of freedom - of speech, of thought, of action. Any limits on those freedoms come in the form of protecting the public, and those limits have been painfully achieved, as well they should be. A sovereign right of the populace is the right of the victims - and the perpetrators, the accused - to air their grievances - and their defenses - in a public court of law. Transparent accountability is the only right path.
This case should be tried in a public court. I know Foley Square can handle it. The issue will be, and the reason Holder, et al. may want to fold, is the accountability to which the U.S. Government may be held.
Precisely my point. Thank you.
You and yours are granting these enemy combatants all the protections that were necessarily granted to OJ. THAT's the non sequitur, not to mention the insanity.
As for civil versus military court? We likely disagree on that one.
The terrorist plot had Three targets: the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the White House (or possibly the Capitol building). That they didn't destroy the Pentagon is their failing and our good luck. We all know about the courageous passengers who foiled the other DC-area planned attack zone.
It was an act of war against America, not a lone attack on New York City. I don't like it, but that sure seems military to me. And I say with deep respect for all that I don't think New York city, as horrendous as the destruction was, has any higher claim to 9/11 grief than the less visible victims and families around the country.
We for sure shouldn't cower, but we shouldn't provoke either. I'd like to see them tried publicly, via TV and Internet, from a more secure location. They attacked all of us. If we bring New York to a standstill for security reasons, they will have won another victory.
Rated.
Personally, I have no objection to Gitmo in and of itself, and the argument about it being an recruiting tool for Al Queda is specious at best -- does anyone seriously believe Al Queda wouldn't use "freedom-fighters" being imprisoned on US soil as a recruiting tool?
What I do object to is indefinite imprisonment of people without charges -- regardless of nationality. Clearly, there a number of people being held at Gitmo who are not guilty of anything but being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And sad to say, if they weren't enemies of the US before, the actions -- and inaction -- of the previous administration have likely turned them into enemies.
The actions of the previous administration have also made it impossible to bring many of the guilty to trial, since as far as I'm aware coerced confessions are not admissible even in military courts. You can bet that Dick Chainey and Rabid Addington do not want trials for any of these defendants -- unless they are kangaroo courts.
Say, maybe would should pay Australia to try them.
this is a show trial, chosen for political reasons while others rot in prison uncharged, much less tried. american people want revenge, politicians want votes, and ksm wants a chance to tell the world why he and many others are willing to die in commission of violence against america. potential for great televisinon here, careers will be made.
i wonder if there was ever any intention to actually go through with the trial in manhattan? obama has scored his lefty points, now he can choose a more practical place, this is a television event after all.