5 Extremely Compelling Reasons Not To Hold Terror Trials In New York City [Comic]

Then why was Moussaoui tried in NYC during the Bush years for the same terrorist act? Why was it a criminal matter then but an act of war now?

and to capitalize in the snarkiest way possible on your confused sentence structure....no, I haven't heard any good reasons to not hold them in the USA, let alone NYC either...sorry, I couldn't resist...I'm a prick sometimes

International terrorists can't be war criminals. Pretty much by definition, terrorism is a violent act that differs from an act of war because it was not committed by a sovereign state.

You state what I've thought all along, but international terrorism doesn't necessarily fit into a generic criminal category either.

Then you have to let them go. If it's not an act of war, it's a crime. BUT... Whose law did they break? Under what authority and jurisdiction did the US military arrest them AND under what authority and jurisdiction are they being tried? The American Military cannot conduct law enforcement operations (first hand, hands on experience) to enforce US law, but can only act a an assistant (transport, detection, etc) to law enforcement agencies. Since these terrorists were "arrested", by American military (if at all) then it violates US law (Posse Comitatus) and the scumbags will get off scott free.

My point being that I feel terrorists need to be caught, tried and convicted (Not necessarily under the criminal code of the US) - no argument there. I do not agree that they should be brought to the US to do it.

While I agree that what they did was heinous and they should be tried and punished accordingly (something to do with eating pork with their left hands for eternity comes to mind). But my point goes to under whose authority and jurisdiction were they arrested? And for what crime because international terrorism is what since it is apparently not covered under our criminal code but neither is it a war crime (yes,yes, I agree - it's not a war crime, I only said that being sarcastic). Since there are things like extradition agreements, etc. that must be followed to have them arrested in a foreign country and handed over to the USA, were those protocols followed? Add to this that last we heard was that none of the families that lost someone (that has spoken out) in the 9/11 attacks want the trials to be tried under our criminal code or in the USA. Since when were we talking about the arrest and trial for the dead terrorists? They are not the ones we have been commenting about they are dead. We are talking about the living terrorists that were captured outside the USA and detained in Guntanamo Bay. The bottom line is that some bleeding heart lawyer that wants to make a name for himself, and is sympathetic to the terrorists cause could get these dirt balls off on a legal technicality. Why do it here and with those possibilities? We need to hope they get 12 jurors that think "Bring the guilty bastard in..."
BTW, are you from Reno? I grew up there - caught more big trout under the Virginia St bridge than most people thought was in the Truckee river.

However, one compelling reason for not holding the trials in New York; it makes NY the terror target of the world.

So, IV, please tell me what happened around 2001 that made New York the terror target? Did they hold trials for Al Qaeda terrorists? I am curious. Newsflash: New York is always a terror target. No special events needed.

SpoxLogic; I was about to say the same thing. From my experiences abroad, New York and L.A. have always been targets. Not only for terrorists, but for visitors and immigrants. It's the two places everyone wants to go when they think of coming to the United States. The comic however, was completely absurd. It often amazes me just how stupid some liberals can be. Not all.....but some! They try to make the right look like idiots, but it only reflects back on them. The topic of the seed, a trial in New York for the five confessed terrorists is another show for the Obama team. To hell with the security of the people of New York, as long as it is a good show.

it makes NY the terror target of the world

What else is new? The best reason for trying Khalid Sheik Mohammad in the court system is because that's the courts' job, justice is not the job of the military!

Rita-900543

The topic of the seed, a trial in New York for the five confessed terrorists is another show for the Obama team. To hell with the security of the people of New York, as long as it is a good show.

No it's not. It's about America (finally) returning to the rule of law regarding terrorism. The only people making a show of it is the very people the comic is referring to: the folks that are scared stiff of following the law when prosecuting these criminals.

Rita, you do understand, don't you, that Federal trials are not televised? No cameras of any sort are allowed. Which means that the defendants can grandstand all they want to the people in the courtroom, but it won't be a "show" of any kind. It will, however, be a demonstration that we believe in our own system of justice.

trex; yes, I know it will not be televised and no cameras of any sort. But, it's already getting plenty of media attention and has been heard about around the world. The defendants don't have to grandstand, they only have to be present. A demonstration showing that we believe in our system of justice? Who are we trying to demonstrate this to? These men are our enemies that were captured outside of the United States by the military. They should be handled by the military and not given the same rights as American citizens. Do you think they'd give us an inch? No, immediate beheading without a trial would be our sentence. We don't have to prove anything to our enemies!

But you think it's okay for us to act like them?

I'll tell you to whom we need to demonstrate our belief in our own system of justice, Rita. The entire rest of the world, which has been watching in horror for eight years as the world's biggest superpower acted like a tin-pot dictatorship, torturing people, sneering at the Geneva conventions, starting wars of aggression on the basis of lies . . . you get the picture.

A political consideration for not doing so; If KSM walks because of the decision to try him in a civilian court.. Obama, Holder and Dem party are finished.

I'm confident that they've though about their political ruination if he is acquitted. For that reason, I'm sure they are VERY certain they will get a conviction.

Do you think they'd give us an inch? No, immediate beheading without a trial would be our sentence. We don't have to prove anything to our enemies!

We aren't them. We shouldn't strive to be just one hair above them. We are the US and we have the best justice system in the world. We aren't proving it to them, we are proving it to ourselves and we are providing an example to the rest of the world.

We are a nation of laws and we are bound to live by our laws when they are convenient and when they are inconvenient. To do otherwise is to soil our justice system, our Constitution, and everything our nation was founded upon. I am not willing to sacrifice what makes us great because of any man. Maybe you are, but luckily you are not running the country.

Rita-900543

They should be handled by the military and not given the same rights as American citizens. Do you think they'd give us an inch? No, immediate beheading without a trial would be our sentence. We don't have to prove anything to our enemies!

How To Motivate The Jihadist Movement 101: give them plenty of proof that you're a devil, just like the Al-Qaeda recruiters said you were.

Er..how about, the reasons why our military assets are dying in Iraq and Afghansitan. That is to protect the American way of life and doing things. And what are those American values? If you can't answer those, then maybe you really should go back to your civics class and re-learn what it means to be an American.

Nowhere in my life has it been said that part of being an American is to cower in fear, yet, it seems that is what Conservatives are doing now (acting probably) and want the rest of us to do as well. (Fearmongering does have its payoffs, after all.)

Where is all the bravado that used to be the Conservatives mantra? Where is all that chest thumping? That cowboy, attitude? the "Don't Tread on Me" way of thinking? The "Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death" bravado?

Instead, all I hear from that side is that trying a criminal is somehow going to destroy America. Please, spare us the melodrama.

You have given a better reason than Holder has yet to give.

However, it is a big political gamble. If KSM walks....the Democaric party is finished.

Instead, all I hear from that side is that trying a criminal is somehow going to destroy America. Please, spare us the melodrama.

It's not trying him, it's how we go about it. For me personally I'd rather not set a precedent of picking up terrorists (and yes obama thats what these people are) in different places in the world, reading them Miranda rights then shipping them over here to give them a trial in our public court system. I don't want that and there's nothing wrong with me not wanting that.

With how messed up some of our judges are I don't like the possibility of some of these terrorists getting off scott free (or in two years down the road) due to some technicality in our legal system, which there are just a few. I mean if thats not a big deal to you then so be it, for me it's a concern.

the military tribunals have already let a terrorist off with 5 months, 2 years would be a real deterrent compared to that

2 years was an example thrown out there, might as well been 2 weeks, 6 months 1 year. i don't want the precedent of putting this in our public court system with some of these judges we have.

The precedent has already been set, from the '93 bombing to 9/11. Ramzi Yousef and Zacharias Moussaoui are both rotting away in prison right now, serving sentences handed to them by the civilian court system located in NYC, where's the problem?

IV, I think it's extremely unlikely that he will "walk." He's already confessed, which means that the best he can hope for from a trial is to hope for conviction on a lesser charge of some sort. If he doesn't plead guilty, it will probably because he wants to spout off in court about the Great Satan, but since the TV cameras won't be rolling, it won't accomplish much.

was moussaoui captured overseas? im trying to remember off the top of my head.

ah now im refreshed..he trained in norman oklahoma at a flight school and was arrested in minnesota. so yes that is normal for him to have been tried in our public court system. that is not what im talking about.

Where is the line drawn when it comes to us nabbing up a terrorist in afghanistan, reading miranda rights then deciding to put them in our public court? That is a whole different story in my mind, maybe not yours i guess.

Ira Einhorn killed a woman in Philadelphia, skipped bail and went on the lam for 20 years in Europe, was apprehended in southern France, but extradited and brought back to Philadelphia for trial. He's now serving a life sentence in a Pennsylvania slammer. So no, being out of the country after committing the crime doesn't change the venue.

when it comes to us nabbing up a terrorist in afghanistan, reading miranda rights then deciding to put them in our public court?

People don't deserve the rights under our Constitution when they are not on our soil. If someone commits a crime in the US and they are captured overseas, the capture must follow the laws of the land they are in, or if it is in a war zone, should follow the rules of our Military. Once they are back in the US for the trial, they deserve Constitutional rights.

Why would we want to go through that production, you might ask? It's because we are a nation of laws and justice. We must honor our system of justice and laws because we are bound by our Constitution and to set an example for how things are done fairly and justly to the rest of the world. I think that is more important than the slim chance that one or two terrorists will get off on a technicality.

trex i agree with that..again im talking about the dude who lives in afghanistan, never been over here, plotting to blow people up and we decide to give him Miranda rights and put him on trial in our public court system because we want to be nice to everyone.

I'm talking about the terrorists in other countries who have never been on our soil but pose a threat to our national security and plotting terrorism acts. I don't feel they deserve the same treatment as someone who commits a crime in our country, is that so wrong of me?

What is the fixation with Miranda rights?!??! I read this way too much, where are you all getting this from? Do you know what Miranda is? Do you know when it applies?

because it automatically gives them the right to an attorney if they are caught on the battlefied during a war, which obama would like have read to anyone captured. Can you imagine our military in WWII reading miranda rights out to nazi's they captured. im sure they would of been all over that. that would of been so nice of us though..gosh i wish we were a nicer country to these people.

yeah i know when its applied and im hoping it stays that way.

um....the Nazis were afforded counsel at Nuremburg.

yeah, im sure they all were so fortunate. actually the nice thing to do would of been to bring them all over here and try them in our court system. that would of been soo nice of us, we need to be more nice.

Your argument is flawed and you either are being willfully obtuse or do not understand the situation (or both). Miranda did not exist prior to Miranda v. Arizona in the 60's, but under the Constitution, we allow the accused to have counsel represent them in a criminal trial. Being that the terror suspects (terrorists) are criminals, as opposed to members of a foreign army with allegience to a foreign state, we have the right to bring them to our country to face justice for their crimes. As that is our right, we must play by our rules, meaning that they are to be provided a competent defense attorney and the ability to face evidence/hear charges against them....they do not have the right to a trial in the media, nor do they have the right to make a mockery of the proceedings (they can be removed if need be), but they DO have the right to remain silent when in a custodial interrogation (THAT is what Miranda is about), they cannot be forced to testify against themselves and they do have the right to have the state prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same would be true in a military court, but unlike the Nuremburg trials, these men are not uniformed soldiers answering to a Commander in Chief of a foreign country.

There is no harm in providing them the basic rights we afford everyone in this country and there is no basis to deny them. The Bill of Rights applies to ALL persons, not just US citizens and being that the crime was committed in whole or in part on US soil, we need to do things the right way (as some of us have been arguing since 2002). The legal precedent is there (we have tried, convicted and executed/imprisoned terrorists before and we are very well equipped to do so).

my bad my bad..we should just round them up and because they are not wearing a uniform of any specific country put them in our court system. that's cool

jkrystof, do you really not understand the situation of a POW captured on the battlefield and a suspect arrested for a crime? In the former case, the POW doesn't need to hear his Miranda rights, because he is already protected from any form of questioning beyond "name, rank and serial number." That, of course, was why Bush/Cheney called the POW's "unlawful enemy combattants," a category that gave them neither the Geneva convention rights of POW's nor the Miranda rights of persons arrested for crimes, and then sent them to a law-free zone in Cuba for any form of abuse that Cheney could dream up, in the hopes of coercing information out of them about the (non-existent) WMD in Iraq. You notice that the torture really ramped up right around the time when it was becoming embarrassingly obvious that we wouldn't find any? Torture is good for one thing and one only -- fake confessions, which are great for propaganda, even if useless in a court of law.

LOL! Go Blue!

Well, the London Underground bombers were tried in London, and I didn't notice the British quivering with fear about it. But then, they've been dealing with terrorist bombings for decades, from the IRA as well as various Middle Eastern groups, and before that they survived the blitz. So they don't whine like babies the way Americans do about suddenly discovering that, horrors, they're part of the larger world and are not safely isolated from danger.

trex

We should just get used to it?

"Terrorism is a manageable action. It can be lived with" - Oliver Stone.

Yeah..we should not whine over 3000 of our citizens being murdered.....Yeah no big deal.

Israel lives with terrorism on a nearly daily basis, so do the Iraqis since Sadaam's ouster. The English did against the IRA, so Oliver Stone's comment taken IN context is understandable....WE CAN live with terrorism, that doesn't mean we do nothing about it, do not pursue justice or be cease being proactive/vigilant.

Well, as bad as 3,000 American lives lost is.... at least it's not 46,000. That's the number who die in this country every year because they lack meaningful health insurance.

That is probably the dumbest comparison you have ever made.

No it's not. We could insure every person in America for what we're paying for the two wars.

Why? Are those Americans not just as dead? Are their families not just as bereaved?

So are people of car accidents. Are you going mandate that everybody must walk?

We could simply get the lowest IQ people on the jury.

I imagine both the prosecution and the defense will conduct voir dire very carefully, looking for people who have no personal axe to grind; people who lost relatives on 9/11 will undoubtedly be screened out, and probably so will Muslims. So the paranoid fantasies on both sides -- that the jury will be packed with Arab-American jihadis or with vengeful firemen -- are totally unrealistic. What the attorneys will try to find are people who say they can be fair-minded about assessing the evidence, and seem believable when they say so.