McDonnell and Cuccinelli: Trying terrorists in NY is absurd
Normal people are scratching their heads this morning and have a few basic questions about Obama’s decision to try the 9/11 plotters in a New York federal court.
First, why bring terrorists to American soil for trial? Why not just leave them at Gitmo and use a military tribunal to try them as enemy combatants?
Why bring them here and give them American Constitutional rights as if they were citizens?
Why subject New York to terror attacks by sleeper cells?
Why subject the Americans who are sitting on the jury to terrorists who have no problem killing them and their entire families?
What if the judge throws out the interrogations, and the mastermind of 9/11 walks out the front door a free man?
Why do something like bring admitted terrorists to the United States when Americans oppose closing Gitmo by a margin of 2:1 and oppose bringing detainees here by more than 3:1?
Why try KSM at all given that he has agreed to plead guilty and die a martyr’s death?
Normal people wonder about these common sense things. And what answer does the Administration give? Hey, the crime was in New York; they should be tried in New York. A non-answer.
There are those who say this decision is designed to put the Bush Administration and the United States on trial. After all, defense lawyers’ main defense will be that the American government under Bush tortured the poor defendants. They will be able to probe into valuable national security details on cross examination which will allow al Qaeda to learn even more about how we track them. And, if they walk, then Obama will have administered the ultimate indictment of the hated Bush. Bush’s actions allowed terrorists to go free. Rest assured, millions of foaming-at-the-mouth moonbats walk around all day hoping beyond hope that such a day will come.
So it was refreshing to read the reactions from Virginia’s Governor-elect Bob McDonnell and Attorney-General-elect Ken Cuccinelli on Terror-gate.
For months, New York City and Alexandria, Virginia have been atop the list of possible locations where suspects could be moved – and tried – as part of the administration’s plan to close the controversial prison. And for months, elected officials in Virginia – namely Republicans – have hammered the idea, saying the prisoners should stay at GITMO.
“I remain against it, and will stay against it,” Gov-elect Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican, told Human Events today, alluding to Obama plan to close the prison.
It makes you wonder if an election as recent as last week can nevertheless already have had consequences. Did McDonnell call Holder and tell him he can forget about trying these murderous scumbags in Alexandria? Did Holder cross Alexandria off the list when the polls closed and then pick up the phone to give Bloomberg the good news?
And Cuccinelli, with a nice sarcastic flair, puts in his two cents.
The “whole point of having a place like Guantanamo Bay is to house and deal with people exactly like this, and to treat them like criminals, instead of opponents in a war, is absolutely absurd,” he told Human Events.
“This is a bad precedent and it is not going to go anywhere good. I’m sure the CIA is very excited that they get to talk about water boarding in open court.”
He later added, “I’m glad they picked Manhattan, but I don’t think Manhattan is going to be very happy about it.”
Normal people speaking common sense. How nice for a change.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Seeing you write that only ‘normal people’ are asking these questions makes me dismiss your arguments out of hand. People of good faith can have honest debates about how to deal with the alleged terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay. You’re not being one of them.
Michael, There are good solid debates about lots of issues, and most of them have the two partisan sides and all the gray in the middle. For example, there are two sides to health care reform based on differing political and economic philosophies. On this, I can literally see no upside benefit to the country trying them in New York City, especially given the other options, which can accomplish the same thing with absolutely no downside. So I believe the decision is illogical in the extreme.
In response to another comment. See in context »Don’t try to worm out of what you wrote. Saying that only people who agree with you are ‘normal’ isn’t the same as saying that you find the opposing side ‘illogical.’ One is an assessment of the argument, the other is demagoging a vast sea of people you don’t agree with. It’s offensive. It’s beneath you and suggests to me that you’re only interested in partisanship as bloodsport, not in offering your carefully reasoned point of view.
In response to another comment. See in context »There is no worming. I just don’t think, and still haven’t heard a cogent argument about why, these trials have been moved to New York for these guys, but not for others. It defies rationality and is not normal. It invites danger with no upside whatsoever. I stand by my assertion.
In response to another comment. See in context »Here are two more articles that highlight my point.
In response to another comment. See in context »If you’re looking for a cogent article, check out what Rudy Giuliani had to say about the trial of Zacharias Moussauri. He seemed to get it back in 2006 – although he has, conveniently, had a change of heart in 2009.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Duprey,
Can I re-frame your question? Why hasn’t KSM been tried at Gitmo? I mean we do want some justice in the matter of 9/11. We cannot sentence him to a life of water boarding by executive order can we? Or is that your argument?
Additionally if you know there are Sleeper Cells in New York you should share this with the NY Terrorist Squad and the FBI or maybe give the NSA their phone numbers.
It was the US Supreme Court that ruled on Habeas corpus rights. You know that “It is so ordered” stuff that some attorney generals might take seriously.
The Gitmo is the Twilight Zone opinion turned out to be a pretty good fantasy episode.
Gitmo is US territory under the Platt amendment of 1903 and while this arrangement changed to a lease under FDR, the Supreme Court noted that While the government had made an issue over the fact that the original lease agreement for Guantanamo Bay reserved “ultimate sovereignty” to Cuba, the court pointed out that the agreements between the United States and Cuba grant the United States “complete jurisdiction and control” over Guantanamo Bay, and that if it chooses to do so the United States may continue that exclusive control of Guantanamo Bay permanently. Therefore prisoners have rights and one is the right to trial and that trial should take place where the crime occurred. We do want to apply some justice to these assholes, no?
Any testimony given under torture will be thrown out. You do know that torture does not work…the North Koreans may think that John McCain gave up his fellow fliers…but they turned out to be the defensive linemen for the NY Giants…didn’t work on John too well…and KSM gave them nothing. But maybe you do believe that torture should be applied in capital cases and testimony accepted under habeus corpus?
An observation: Don’t juries worry about their risk in Mafia trials? Are you saying Americans are too ah…terrorized to sit on a jury? It is my understanding that a NY jury has already sent an Al Queda member to prison. Don’t insult the courage of New Yorkers.
Lastly prosecutors don’t use polls when applying the full force of law in capital cases.
Curious but you must as an attorney, be bound to the writ of Habeas corpus and the rulings of the Supreme Court who included this in their ruling, just in case people are fuzzy on the principle:
Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runneymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land…
Works for me.
Why hasn’t KSM been tried at Gitmo?
Good question.
If I were president, a military tribunal would have been instructed to take his guilty plea and he would have already seen the business-end of a firing squad.
In response to another comment. See in context »Man…this is one of your strangest arguments yet. I can certainly appreciate that you may see this differently than I, but to claim the mantle of “normalcy”? Apparently, you’ve now moved the argument from those on the ‘right’ being the only ones who can be correct to those on the right being the only ones who are normal.
You got some pair of cahones, bud.
What’s remarkable is that your list begs everything we know to be correct and important about American justice.
Let’s just have a look at some of your assertions that add up to normalcy-
Why bring the terrorists to American soil for trial?
For one thing, the way our law is supposed to work, they are still ‘alleged’ terrorists.
Why are they being given American Constitutional Rights?
What rights would you give an alleged criminal that has not yet been convicted of anything? Apparently none if they happened to be born in some other country.
I’m curious how you propose to deal with a Canadian who robs a liquor store in Des Moines?
‘Why subject the Americans who are sitting on the jury to terrorists who have no problem killing them and their entire families?
Why subject Americans sitting on a jury to an alleged 5 time murderer in Los Angeles who would have no problem killing them all and their entire families? Of course, given your lack of commitment to American justice, you would probably fry even those who are simply accused of murder.
‘Why do something like bring admitted terrorists to the United States when Americans oppose closing Gitmo by a margin of 2:1 and oppose bringing detainees here by more than 3:1?’
Because, unlike you, American justice doesn’t work on polling data- it works on a system of law.
‘Why try KSM at all given that he has agreed to plead guilty and die a martyr’s death?’
Because we have this pesky requirement that pleas must be entered in court, before a judge and voluntarily given. Come ‘on…you remember this from first year Criminal Law, don’t you?
I do, however, appreciate your cited that noted authority of Constitutional and Criminal Law, Governor- elect Bob McDonnell. After all, all those things you warn against happened in that Alexandria, VA terrorist trial. Whatever happened to those poor families who lost all the people sitting on that jury? Oh..wait a second nothing happened. Nevertheless, we are wise to take the advice of McDonnell rather than both the Mayor and Police Commissioner of New York who both agree that these trials belong in the city where the alleged crimes took place. (Bet you hate that I say ‘alleged’. Sorry – I actually have use and respect for the American system of justice. My bad.)
Really, Bill – haven’t you earned your talk show yet? I mean, how much anti-American stuff you do you have to spew before they give you your wings and let you cash in on scaring the crap out of people for the big money?
Why bring the terrorists to American soil for trial?
For one thing, the way our law is supposed to work, they are still ‘alleged’ terrorists.
You didn’t answer the question. Also, they are self-proclaimed terrorists.
Why are they being given American Constitutional Rights?
What rights would you give an alleged criminal that has not yet been convicted of anything? Apparently none if they happened to be born in some other country.
They are not criminals. They are enemy combatants captured on a foreign battlefield. They are entitled to be tried my a military tribunal, not a civilian court.
I’m curious how you propose to deal with a Canadian who robs a liquor store in Des Moines?
He’s a civilian who would be entitled to a trial in the Des Moines Circuit Court.
‘Why subject the Americans who are sitting on the jury to terrorists who have no problem killing them and their entire families?
Why subject Americans sitting on a jury to an alleged 5 time murderer in Los Angeles who would have no problem killing them all and their entire families? Of course, given your lack of commitment to American justice, you would probably fry even those who are simply accused of murder.
Just a whiff of hyperbole in that last part Rick. Again, the guy in L.A. is not an enemy combatant. A jury has to hear that case if the guy wants one. Mohammed and the boys can be tried by a military tribunal (just Holder plans to do with the others) without the needless exposure of a jury.
‘Why try KSM at all given that he has agreed to plead guilty and die a martyr’s death?’
Because we have this pesky requirement that pleas must be entered in court, before a judge and voluntarily given. Come ‘on…you remember this from first year Criminal Law, don’t you?
Yes, I not only recall that from law school (is that where you picked it up?) but I know for a fact that a plea can be accepted by a military tribunal as well. If the guy wants to plead to a federal judge, fly one down to Gitmo (court is where the judge sits, the structure he sits in is irrelevant) and have him accept it there.
In response to another comment. See in context »I suppose that the questions cannot be answered without taking on the elephant in the room – the extent to which the Bush Administration ‘pushed’ the laws and traditions of this country to effectuate his desires that anyone alleged to be a terrorists be tried and convicted in secret. To illustrate that I don’t see this as a GOP vs. Democratic issues – but rather as an assault on the most basic of American principals- I do feel Obama has taken advantage of Bush’s behavior when it has been convenient to do so. The reality is that -pre-Bush- to be an enemy combatant, one had to actually serve in the fighting forces of a foreign nation. While its a snappy phrase to dub our difficulties with foreign terrorists as a ‘war on terrorism, at the end of the day it is no different than J. Edgar Hoover’s “war on organized crime.” It is not a war at all. It is a police action intent of bringing those who would conspire to commit criminal acts and act out on those conspiracies.
In response to another comment. See in context »You know, when the British were experiencing about 3,000 deaths a day as the Nazis rained bombs down on their heads, they never gave up on the fundamental principals of their society. Yet, it only took one horrendous act on American soil to send us running for the hills, ready to trade all the principals that made us a great nation if only we could stop another terrorist attack.
I want to get the bad guys as much as you do. But I will continue to believe that as long as we are ready to cash in our legal principals to keep us a bit safer, the terrorists have, indeed, won.
You know, I was trying to figure out why you would focus on two elected officials in Virginia in crafting your post. After all, even you would agree that this issue and story is a lot larger than Virginia.
Then, it hit me. You practice law in Virginia and there is a new, Republican administration coming in.
No chance you are kissing a little but in the hopes of getting a job in the administration are you? Or maybe just looking for State of Virginia business?
Hope you get it.
Hey Rick, I really don’t think it’s necessary, or your place, to question the motives of another contributor to True/Slant.
In response to another comment. See in context »Hey Bill,
I wanted to ask you a question. In your profile, it says that you are a lawyer with a consuming desire to analyze and “debate” politics.
Yet, I haven’t really seen you debate anyone in response to any of your posts.
That might be a way to help educate those of us who, by your standards, aren’t “normal.”
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I would like to see you respond to some of the people who respond to your initial posts.
I debate all the time. Ask Roston and Ungar, they’ll vouch for me.
In response to another comment. See in context »You debate all the time, you don’t start off your blog posts with the implied invective that everyone who disagrees with you isn’t normal all the time. Only apparently when you want to maximize the offensiveness of what you’re saying.
In response to another comment. See in context »I get that you are offended and I am happy to have you speak for the offended, but you are focusing on style, not on substance. Rick Ungar routinely uses high-octane snark in his comments to my posts (just look at the ones on this post), but he also gets into the merits.
In response to another comment. See in context »As I pointed out Bill, your style makes your ’substance’ irrelevant because it makes it clear that you’re more interested in demagoguery and preaching to your screechy choir than you are in honest, good faith debate on this issue. The fact that you cling to calling people you don’t agree with abnormal rather than simply illogical is proof that you’re more interested in bloodsport than honest deliberation about news and politics. It’s pretty disappointing, and it’s a lot worse than snark.
In response to another comment. See in context »In every post I have written on T/S, on every issue, there are two sides (and all of the sides in between) and I debate my side and vigorously disagree with the other side. So, as I am sure you would agree, to lump everything I have written into the following comment, is an overly-broad critique.
On this issue, it is my belief that there aren’t two legitimate sides. You can have the belief that every issue has two legitimate sides and I would agree with that in nearly every instance. But every so often, it is, in my view, simply not the case. On this issue, the president’s decision is reckless folly for no arguable purpose.
But Michael, I don’t expect you to change your opinion of my opinion.
In response to another comment. See in context »Snark- sure, from time to time. But I certainly would never suggest that you were somehow not ‘normal’ for your political points of view. I would have hoped that you would simply have copped to going too far on this rather than defend your approach with Michael Roston – the guy who gets on me when he feels I’m being unreasonable with my comments.
In response to another comment. See in context »Thanks.
Must just be the couple posts I have read.
In response to another comment. See in context »So basically you want to say screw you to the families that WANT to see these terrorists face punishment. In a military trial, victims wouldn’t have the opportunity to witness the trial whereas a civilian trial would allow them to witness it. It also sends a louder message if the trial was publicized saying “If you do this to our country, this WILL happen to you.”
Conservatives…all they care about is making themselves richer and being stuck up. Quit your job and try living a year making less than $25,000 a year. THEN you will realize why we have it so difficult in this country.
So basically you want to say screw you to the families that WANT to see these terrorists face punishment. In a military trial, victims wouldn’t have the opportunity to witness the trial whereas a civilian trial would allow them to witness it.
I am not sure which families you are talking about.
In response to another comment. See in context »To be fair, I’m not entirely sure how I, personally, feel on this issue. So, I’m going to pose this question for Bill.
What’s the legal definition of an “enemy combatant?”
I’m not a legal guy (IE I work in the financial world) so I guess my personal definition would be that an enemy combatant is someone from a country with whom we are at war with.
And since “terrorism” is not a country we are at war with, I guess I would like a better clarification on this.
Is an enemy combatant defined by the country he/she is from? Is it a general, broad strokes label?
Thanks in advance.
Bill,
IF they are convicted, they’ll be executed or serve out life sentences in prison. If something goes wrong and they aren’t convicted, they’ll spend the rest of their lives in prison unless Sean Penn gets elected president.
Hey Rick, you are being unreasonable with your comments, as I wrote above.
And Bill, I didn’t mean to say that that ‘everything’ you’ve written is bloodsport, and I apologize that what I wrote might have given you that impression.
But look at how you just distinguished what you wrote in this comment – that the President’s policy is reckless folly, that you just don’t see the merit of the other side’s argument – from your blog post that resorted to the cheap and lazy invective of ‘normal people’ that you apparently use when you’re trying to maximize the offensiveness and minimize the persuasiveness of what you have to say.
Obviously, you’re capable of making your points without resorting to that dross. I hope you’ll do so in the future.
First, point taken.
But you misquoted me.
You said that my comment was, “that the President’s policy is reckless folly, that you just don’t see the merit of the other side’s argument.”
On this issue, I actually said, “On this issue, the president’s decision is reckless folly for no arguable purpose.”
My not seeing merits that may or may not be there is different from there being no arguable purpose.
But I think we are getting into semantics . . .
In response to another comment. See in context »NYC is already THE target for AQ, so I don’t see this trial changing much. There was a very interesting interview this morning with Mayor Guilliani in which his past comments on the trials of the 20th hijacker (Moussaoui) and the mastermind of the WTC bombing (Ramzi Yousef).
Put bluntly, unless you have taken similar stands against Yousef or Moussaoui, going after Holder and Obama on this smacks of hypocrisy. I live in the City of Alexandria, so I am in a potential target zone. And one that isn’t on the radar unless there was a trial.
By the way, if you’re going to quote VA politicians, how about Mayor Bloomberg himself? Or is that simply because it doesn’t suit your thesis?
BB
Mr. Dupray,
I disagree completely with your opinion on this situation. Our forefathers would measure America’s greatness by the rights that we would offer those least likely to deserve it, and by that measure, you fail utterly.
[...] Gitmo. In separate interviews with Rudy Giuliani and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) we can hear the nearly limitless potential pitfalls of New York trials and none for [...]