Justice Dept. makes the right decision on terrorist trials-GOP quivers with fear
Despite the Bush Administration’s coining of the phrase, “The War on Terror”, the fact remains that the terrorist crimes that took place in New York on September 11, 2001, were just that – horrible, violent crimes committed within the jurisdiction of the New York courts. A catchy phrase does not a war make. Like it or not, we were not attacked by a nation on that terrible day. This was not the work of the leadership of Iraq or any other recognized country. The crimes that took place in New York City were carried out by a bunch of violent, criminal thugs, each arriving in our country from a variety of nations and each sharing the common goal of murdering as many innocent people as they could to make their meaningless point.
So, why is the GOP, and their pet independent, Joe Lieberman, so vehemently opposed to trying these criminals in the Federal District Court of New York? It appears that it’s a fairly simple matter of these leaders -all of whom have been quick to send American soldiers into battle- being scared of having to confront the bad guys on their home turf, even if it’s in the safety of a federal court room.
As reported in the The Guardian, Republican Senate Whip, Senator Jon Kyl believes, “It is an unnecessary risk to bring the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to downtown Manhattan.” Minority Leader John Boehner, obviously not a big believer in American justice, fears that the defendants may be exonerated due to some legal technicality while Senator Joe Lieberman finds it “inconceivable” that the alleged terrorists would be returned to New York City to stand trial.
Inconceivable? Was it inconceivable that the Ramzi Yousef, the convicted terrorist responsible for the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, was tried and convicted in the Federal District Court in New York? Was it inconceivable that 9-11 conspirator Zacharias Moussaoui was tried and convicted in a Federal Court in Virginia, even as he stood before a federal court judge at his sentencing and proclaimed, “God save Osama bin Laden — you will never get him.”? Was it inconceivable that Timothy McVeigh was tried and convicted of his terrorist crime in a federal courthouse in Oklahoma?
What is inconceivable is that so many of our nation’s leaders have so little belief in the American system of justice. Still more inconceivable is that these American ‘leaders’ pretend to stand up for the American system of laws yet are terrified by these very laws that make America a great nation.
In the United States, we try our criminals where they are alleged to have committed their crimes. We require defendants to face a jury from the very community that was impacted by their alleged criminal deeds and to do so in full view of the families and friends of those who were victims of their alleged crimes. We provide all who are charged with certain Constitutional protections designed to protect those who may be innocent. Why? Because in the United States, we believe it is better that nine guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. That’s who we are as a people. And for all of you strict Constitutionalists who may not like it, this is precisely the way the founders of our nation wanted it to be.
It is time for these Republican leaders – and Joe Lieberman who should just come out of the closet already and assume his rightful place among his Republican peers – to grow a pair. American justice – like American citizenship – is not for the weak of heart and you guys just don’t seem to possess the necessary courage to defend our way of life.
Fortunately, the people of New York do. Those who suffered the most are not afraid of justice being meted out in their community against those who would attack their home and their neighbors. In fact, they welcome it.
Says New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg-
It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered.
Via The Associated Press
The AP also reports that New York Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, the man who will be responsible for the security of New Yorkers during the trials, also said that holding the trial in the city most devastated by the 2001 attack is appropriate as he pronounced the Police Department prepared to meet any security challenge.
These are men who are not afraid to stand up and face those who did them harm. These are men who prefer to confront the killers and look them squarely in the eye as those who may be found guilty meet American justice.
So to Joe Lieberman, Jon Kyl, John Boehner and the rest of those who prefer the safety of secret, closed door trials – sorry, but that’s just not the way we do it in this country.
My advice to you fellows is that you go hide under your beds so you don’t embarrass yourselves further. And don’t worry, we’ll call you when its all over.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Are these cowards afraid that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to attack them with box cutters? If Americans are going to stand for justice in the world, we have to offer it to everyone. I believe the words are: ” … with liberty and justice for all”
Perhaps the Republican pledge of allegiance would end with ” … with liberty and justice for Republicans”
Now we know why we should have never taken any “live” prisoners in afghanistan.
What about the gay muslim terrorists….do they get 35 virgin boys when we execute them?
Ah, Mr. UngAr, yet again you’re not giving a full view of the issue. What a pleasant surprise to see that some things don’t change.
To see the broader implications of this decision, I recommend you read Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/news/guantanamo/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/13/guantanamo
I thought the Greenwald piece was well-reasoned; I don’t see it as contradicting what Rick says here. Rick is saying that these trials should go forward without the fear-mongering; Greenwald says that not only these trials but all the other terrorist trials should. I can see a fundamental difference between the 9/11 acts and the USS Cole acts – one was against civilian targets and the other was against military targets. I’m OK with attacks on the military (ie Fort Hood) being tried in military courts – the laws of war obviously are different than the laws of peace.
In response to another comment. See in context »BTW to answer the question posed by Greenwald:
any district attorney worth his salt will try a case in the venue he believes will give him the best chance of conviction – that’s just doing his job.
Thanks for that, misterb. Clearly there is nothing inconsistent with respect to my piece and Eric. Josh likes to try and take me on because he thinks it helps to boost his own website. Either that or he is just incapable of seeing the distinctions. Just because an article is on the same issue, doesn’t mean the same issue is being addressed in every piece written on a topic.
In response to another comment. See in context »Still, nice that it didn’t have to be me pointing this out to him on my own.
Ah, Josh who is always attempting to use my page to promote his own website -
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m afraid you are mischaracterizing Eric’s piece in Salon. he does not speak to the ‘broad implications” of the decision at all – he speaks to the fact that the decision has not gone far enough to restore the American justice system too all terrorist suspects. He notes this because we still plan to try those accused of attacking the U.S.Cole using military tribunals.
On one level I very much agree with Eric – however, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point made in m post to which you are suggesting is incomplete. However, it should be noted that the suspected terrorists who will face military tribunal attacked a military target – the Navy’s U.S. Cole not a civilian target.
As the New York Times pointed out this morning in its editorial, the government needs to go further in restoring the system that Bush &Co. sought to dismantle – however, trying the 9-11 suspects in NYC is a damn good start.
I have to say that you tend to read into articles what you like in the hopes that you can somehow ‘challenge me’. Seems like a waste of time to me, but if that’s what gets you off, have at it. On the other hand, I suspect all the readers would appreciate it if you could focus your comments on what is actually written, rather than referring us to your website or whatever you think you can make a point which is actually not a relevant point at tall.
But I do appreciate your spelling my name correctly.
Oh, mr. UngAr, I don’t come to your blog to simply promote my own. I come to yours, well, primarily because you were on the front page today, but also because you are so disturbingly middle of the road, so predictably milktoast that taking a look at your blog gives me a broader look at the establishment “progressive” Democrats.
I’m not sure who you’re referring to by “Eric,” but I put up a link to an article by “Glenn Greenwald.”
Here is the key part of Greenwald’s post that you don’t make mention of:
“So what we have here is not an announcement that all terrorism suspects are entitled to real trials in a real American court. Instead, what we have is a multi-tiered justice system, where only certain individuals are entitled to real trials: namely, those whom the Government is convinced ahead of time it can convict. Others for whom conviction is less certain will be accorded lesser due process: put in military commissions, to which most leading Democrats vehemently objected when created under Bush. Presumably, others still — those who the Government believes cannot be convicted in either forum, will simply be held indefinitely with no charges, a power the administration recently announced it intends to preserve based on the same theories used by Bush/Cheney to claim that power.”
Of course, you don’t neglect to praise Obama who has used the same or more extreme arguments than Bush when defending torture and secrecy in general.
As you mention, I’m sure it’s no use trying to give you factual articles to challenge your views, but you know, mr. UngAr, some of us like the truth to get out there anyway.
Oh, and promoting my own website? In case you didn’t notice, I posted a link directly to the article, although I did post an excerpt from it on my own website. The only thing here that is promoting my website is my name. And why shouldn’t I promote my website? It is after all, truthful and complete. That is more than I can say about many others.
Pretty interesting analysis – if this article is ‘middle of the road’, I can certainly accept that, particularly when compared to the paranoid, wing nut writings on some sites that I believe would be very familiar to you.
“Of course, you don’t neglect to praise Obama who has used the same or more extreme arguments than Bush when defending torture and secrecy in general”
Uh…try as I might, I can’t even find the name “Obama” in the post I wrote. You sure you read the right article?
Since you only appear capable of finding articles that are on the front page, you might test those searching skills of yours to find the piece I wrote immediately prior to this piece. That would be the one where even you would have trouble suggesting that I’m praising Obama.
“As you mention, I’m sure it’s no use trying to give you factual articles to challenge your views, but you know, mr. UngAr, some of us like the truth to get out there anyway.”
In one paragraph you accuse me of being ‘middle-of-the-road’ and ‘predictably milktoast ” and then suggest you are gracing me with your fact to ‘challenge my views’. Either I’m down the middle – which would imply I have no views- or I have views that require challenging. Feel free to pick one or the other but I’m not sure you get to have it both ways.
It’s always interesting when someone points out that their references represent ‘the truth’. Apparently, the truth is what Josh has to say or possibly Mr. Greenwald. As it happens, I agree with Greenwald (sorry for the Eric thing – I have a writer friend named Eric Greenwald and I got confused –or maybe it was a conspiracy.) But, as has been noted by another commenter, there was nothing I wrote that was inconsistent with Mr. Greenwald’s piece. It just happens to have been what you determined was ‘the truth’ and wished to use it to disagree with me, no matter how ‘off point’ your disagreement might have been.
In response to another comment. See in context »Sorry – we have a pretty smart bunch of people who read and comment on this page and you’re going to have to do better than just attacking me foolishly. By the way, what was it that I said in this piece that was untrue???? I’m curious.
The title of your piece:
“Justice Dept. makes the right decision on terrorist trials-GOP quivers with fear”
The title of Greenwald’s piece:
“Detainees to get the “state-always-wins” system of “justice”: Obama’s announcement to try 9/11 defendants would be commendable if it applied to all, rather than some, detainees.”
Hmmm, I wonder how they could disagree.
Where do you praise Obama? You praise the DOJ which is ultimately controlled by, under the authority of Obama. Do you not think that Obama is responsible for the actions of the DOJ? Especially major decisions such as this one?
Also, being “middle of the road” does not imply that you have no views, and it certainly does not imply that you have no views to challenge.
Well there you have it! Why actually read the pieces when you can just get it all from the titles!
In response to another comment. See in context »PS Nothing is necessarily untrue that I saw, however what you give is incomplete. You fail to mention that this, which you should know since you’re apparently a lawyer, is a tiered system of justice.
But, I thought you were criticizing my version of the truth, as you put it. Now, you say there was nothing untruthful in the piece. Pardon me for being confused.
Still, in your considered option, and as the arbiter of ‘the truth’, I should have written a 40 page legal brief on this despite the fact that what Greenwald choses to write about is simply different than what I chose to write about.I, apparently, have this obligation because, as you feel it necessary to point out, I am a lawyer. .
Ok. Of course, you’ll forgive me if I ask why Greenwald is permitted, in your learned assessment, to stop where he did? I mean, since the point he is making involves the terrorists who attacked a US Naval ship – and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the military tribunes prior to they were expanded by George Bush in a way that the Supreme Court found necessary to pare back (I suppose you want a court citation here, but sorry, I don’t feel like digging it up.) – why are not holding him responsible to tell the full story on his topic? Maybe it’s because he isn’t a lawyer? Of course, maybe he is and, like me, doesn’t know we have some higher obligation to go beyond our points when writing an article rather than a legal brief.
In response to another comment. See in context »Again, if you want your criticism to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to think it out a whole lot better than this.
I’ll let you comment back and have the last word. I’ve been hanging out watching the football game so was available for this rather meaningless chat with you. But now, unfortunately, I have some work to do. So criticize away, comfortable in the notion that you shall have the last word.
I don’t care if you take criticisms seriously or not, because you don’t care about the truth and you’re intractibly locked into your position no matter what facts might contradict it.
Is everything said in the title? Well, the title in both of these cases is the thesis, how the author feels about the decision, so yes, I think that says a lot.
You are not being entirely truthful, considering you know about the tiered system of justice and disagree with it, because you willfully omit it. Call that not being truthful, call that not showing the full picture, I simply don’t like it.
“What Greenwald chooses to write about is different than what I choose to write about.” I just saw that. Charming. Yes, Greenwald chooses to write about the whole picture.