Holding the 9/11 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial in NYC...

[Spiffy]

Weigh in.

Lets try and avoid 9/11 conspiracy theories, please, or even extended rants in either direction on Islamic Terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, or any of that stuff. This topic is about the choice of New York as the venue for this trial, the costs and risks of that, and the aspects of terrorism, U.S. policy, etc. which come directly into play of this specific trail. Not a referendum on all U.S. policy, all terrorist activity, etc. Obviously mentions of these things is key (including Guantanamo), but I hope we can keep the center of the discussion on the trial.

I expect this will eventually blow up, but hope we can get some intelligent discussion in first. I've lived and worked in the New York area for virtually my entire life, I SAW one of the two planes hit with my OWN two eyes (that's why I spit on 9/11 conspiracy theorists who try to claim there were no planes or crashes and all the "footage" was faked by the evil evil U.S government, because I personally am not a liar and saw what I saw). I had not one, but TWO people close to me in those buildings that morning (and had been visiting one of them precisely a week earlier, down to the second--I still have the guest pass with the timestamp). Both got out, but one was permanently injured, and a third person close to me worked less than a block away--so I had to deal with THREE people to panic over that morning.

So I'm certainly scared shitless of the possibility of someone making a spectacle of the trial via more violence. I'm also concerned, of course, that the very level of security necessary to hold it will also make things in the city fairly intolerable in another way (not that I'd rather the security WASN'T there, but the trial being elsewhere instead seems like it would be a lot more sensible).

Then again, we are a nation of laws. When we've slipped we've come along with the likes of Guantanamo instead. So there's a valid point of view that the trial needs to be in the jurisdiction the crime occurred in.

What do you all think? But PLEASE think before typing, I beg of you.

[Adam C]

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Not a referendum on all U.S. policy...

Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...

No seriously, I understand what you're getting at, but ever thinking of this clear-headed and straight-on any discussion of a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may turn into a referendum on U.S. foreign policy. Even if we don't get into the larger reasons for why the Middle East has spawned this sort of political extremism and who it has been directed against, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured by the Bush administration in a needless and rash belief that extraordinary measures were needed to combat terrorism. (One that I have yet to see an actual justification for beyond say-so and hearsay.) This simple fact will cast a pall over the trial, if it has already not tainted the proceedings themselves, as it has for many cases involved in the War on Terror. And it's a fact that readily calls a whole host of lamentable cases to my mind. The issue of U.S. foreign policy simply cannot be kept separate from the discussion of the trial. It's inseparable at this point.

[Electric i]

Will they be wearing their kangaroo suits?

[Charles RB]

He's got to be put on trial somewhere, and anywhere you choose there'll be someone objecting. The upside to doing it in New York is being able to go "look, here's the guy who did it, here's justice being done to him".

Originally Posted by Adam C

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured by the Bush administration in a needless and rash belief that extraordinary measures were needed to combat terrorism. ... This simple fact will cast a pall over the trial, if it has already not tainted the proceedings themselves

Cast a pall nothing, some of the evidence might have to be thrown out because of it - and what defence lawyer wouldn't capitalise on that?

Torturing him means it'll now be harder to convict.

[Cam63]

Will Entertainment Tonight be covering it ?

[Bob Violence]

They are criminals, nothing special. They need to be treated like criminals, given their rights as criminals, tried where their crimes were committed, etc. Once we start screwing up our system justice to put those people away(or let's face it, to death) we devalue our own freedoms.
What good are the guarantees of the Constitution if the government can call you a "terrorist", take them away and put you in jail?

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by Adam C

Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...

No seriously, I understand what you're getting at, but ever thinking of this clear-headed and straight-on any discussion of a trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may turn into a referendum on U.S. foreign policy. Even if we don't get into the larger reasons for why the Middle East has spawned this sort of political extremism and who it has been directed against, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured by the Bush administration in a needless and rash belief that extraordinary measures were needed to combat terrorism. (One that I have yet to see an actual justification for beyond say-so and hearsay.) This simple fact will cast a pall over the trial, if it has already not tainted the proceedings themselves, as it has for many cases involved in the War on Terror. And it's a fact that readily calls a whole host of lamentable cases to my mind. The issue of U.S. foreign policy simply cannot be kept separate from the discussion of the trial. It's inseparable at this point.

I don't believe in any shape or form that mistreating a prisoner magically makes the original crime go away. It diminishes the people who have custody of the prisoner, and it arguably lowers their illusion of moral superiority enormously, but disdaining that treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, under the twisted aegis of the Bush administration, is a separate thing from many of the other issues which are going to pop up over this trial.

The fairness of the venue is one such issue. The safety of both the prisoner in question, AND even more importantly the safety of the citizens of the venue. The cost, in both financial and human terms. And yes, the inevitable "bad press", because the world media will indeed get distracted by what happened at Guantanamo and act like it actually is just as important as laying out the facts in the original case.

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by Cam63

Will Entertainment Tonight be covering it ?

If they do, I hope 9/11 family members spot them in the crowd and instead of talking to them, dump buckets of urine over their heads.

Entertainment Tonight is staffed by the biggest collection of cocksuckers on the planet. The worst "journalists" anywhere, and I think I include the National Enquirer and The World Weekly News in that (and maybe even Fox News).

[Cam63]

Mary Hart shoulda been sent to Gitmo.

Imagine sharing a cell with that voice.

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by Cam63

Mary Hart shoulda been sent to Gitmo.

Imagine sharing a cell with that voice.

As annoying as she is, she's far preferable to that Steines guy, who's just about the dictionary definition of "slimy".

[Adam C]

Originally Posted by Charles RB

Torturing him means it'll now be harder to convict.

Hence "cast a pall". There are now serious questions about the legal and ethical legitimacy of the trial thanks to the Bush Administration's unethical and short-sighted conduct.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

I don't believe in any shape or form that mistreating a prisoner magically makes the original crime go away.

And yes, the inevitable "bad press", because the world media will indeed get distracted by what happened at Guantanamo and act like it actually is just as important as laying out the facts in the original case.

Where did I even say anything like that in the original post? It's simply an elementary fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's torture will affect the trial. This isn't a matter of "distraction" but an issues that will affect the legal dynamics of the trial of a man who's clearly guilty as sin and would be easily convicted under a normal trial if he had been subjected to the standard and legal means of interrogation used by U.S. intelligence agencies. As Time Magazine notes beyond the inadmissibility of evidence obtained through his torture there are other issues as well:

But even if the government can make a strong case without the tainted evidence, Mohammed's treatment could cause problems. It's possible — though not likely — that a court could rule that the government doesn't have the right to prosecute someone who has been severely abused in custody. (Previously, suspects have been released even when their abuse didn't prejudice evidence against them, but there's no clear precedent for terrorism cases.) Other issues likely to be raised by the defense, says Dratel, are finding a jury that can be considered impartial, especially blocks from the World Trade Center site, and whether Mohammed's rights to a speedy trial have been violated.

I admit, I didn't consider the point about "right to a speedy trial" but the legal limbo the Bush administration set up for a lot of detainees is going to play a role in things as well. And these issues are not going away, even though all the evidence outside of waterboarding points to KSM being guilty as sin in his role plotting the 9/11 attacks, because they cannot be separated from the legal proceedings at hand.

[Spiffy]

So I guess you don't have any opinion on the venue itself? That WAS supposed to be the starting point here, not the admissibility of evidence in the trial.

[Puppetmaker Grae]

I think that putting them on trial in a criminal court seems to be the right move. Security will obviously be tight, but I don't think that there is much chance of Al-Qaida ninjas dropping through the courtroom skylights in some mad rescue attempt. Any 'claimed' reprisals would be elsewhere in the world (eg. a bombing in Afganistan). I also think that the US government will be working hard to prevent any home-grown revenge attacks (on the accused).

What will be interesting is how badly has the torture issue hamstrung the prosecution evidence, and how the defence will work the jury selection.

[mgs]

Originally Posted by Bob Violence

They are criminals, nothing special. They need to be treated like criminals, given their rights as criminals, tried where their crimes were committed, etc. Once we start screwing up our system justice to put those people away(or let's face it, to death) we devalue our own freedoms.
What good are the guarantees of the Constitution if the government can call you a "terrorist", take them away and put you in jail?

I think this is a step in the right direction to hold the trials here. Showing that our Government will follow the laws it apparently upholds.

But Bob, you underestimate the seriousness of the 'criminals'. They are special. Lots of them had their own special holding areas in the Federal Jail right next to where the trials will be held. And now, there is even more protection in that area than was in the beginning when we (I worked with the gov't then, that's all I'll say) had to start setting up protections around the Federal Prison, Courthouse and Attorney's Office. That whole area is very well protected now, and though a large bomb could hit the area, I think with today's precautions, none will get close enough. It was a serious and unsettling time, even before 9-11 with them right there.

This will be interesting, but knowing how this will probably end, everyone will be a bit on edge for a while.

[Adam C]

As for the other issues at hand? Well in terms of the logistics of security for the trial, I really can't add that much. Supposedly trying such a high profile suspect might attract nuts looking to make a name for themselves (be it terrorists of KSM's ilk or guys looking to smoke KSM), though the logistics of this sort of thing and what opportunities there will be to pull this sort of thing is something I know little about. I suppose it depends mainly on crowds outside of the courthouse and the routes used to bring in the suspects and legal officials into the courtroom, how far security measures have to go beyond the ones usually used for a criminal trial in a courtroom.

An Associated Press article on the issue notes that Republicans (big shock) are protesting this because it poses "an unnecessary risk" (Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky) or in the case of the Bush administration's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, who thinks that "The plan seems to be to abandon the view that we are at war," and that a trial in open court "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried,". He prefers military tribunals instead. Frankly after god knows how many years of listening to this nonsense, with nothing for actual supporting evidence beyond rhetoric to back this opinion I consider it scarcely worth considering outside of a vicious heckling. The military commissions are a joke as far legal fairness goes, a fact I learned from reading an article about Omar Khadr's lawyer, a conservative Christian and straight Republican voter who entered into the system fully believing it would be fair and just. So quickly was he exposed to gross unfairness and inadequacies to the point that he's been trying to publicize the nature of the commissions to the Canadian government to get Khadr sent back to Canada since he believes that's the only way he will face a fair trial, irrespective of his actual guilty or innocence or the charges brought against him.

The Obama administration is doing the right thing by bringing some of the suspects to trial in an actual court, whether or not New York is the best venue for it.

Shame it doesn't apply to all the defendants.