The Terrorist Trial in NYC? Ten Reason’s Why Not
The following artice is written by Marshall Frank and it gives the most compelling argument of why a terriost trial should not be held in NYC or for me, any US city.
Either this Attorney General is stupid, naive, hasty, a poor gambler or he's working for the other side.
It is beyond outrageous.
I could understand it, if there was no choice. But there is a choice, a much better choice, a saner choice, a choice that would not risk acquittals, a cost savings choice and a safer choice. There is a common sense choice: A military tribunal. It's legal and it's more efficient. It's designed for war criminals. After all, these men committed war crimes, and were rounded up in foreign soil as "war criminals."
The ill-fated decision to hold the trial of five terrorists, war criminals, in a civilian New York courtroom is a grievous mistake that could conceivably bring humongous consequences in a myriad of ways. The Justice Department has unnecessarily put the cases at greater risk, not to mention the security of this nation, and the people of New York City.
Here's 10 reasons why it's plain stupid: Pay particular attention to item number 10:
1 - Showtime for Radicals. We can now expect a circus of a trial, a la O.J. Simpson, further exacerbated by monstrous demonstrations/disturbances by radicals in the street who bear a seething disdain for the United States and its foreign policies. A military tribunal is far more controlled.
2 - Raises Threat Level for Violence. Osama Bin Laden and his warriors, many of whom are aliens or stealth residents of this country, would be following the will of Allah by sending the defendants to glory if a suicide bomber detonated a truck or missile within a couple blocks of the courthouse. Remember what one truck bomb did in Oklahoma City.
3 - Protections to Criminals. It allows foreign war criminals all the entitlements and protections of our domestic criminal justice system, just like a U.S. citizen, to and including legal representation at the expense of American taxpayers.
4 - The Wrong Message. It sends a clear message to terrorists and jihadists around the world, that targeting civilians in America ensures protections in the civilian justice system.
5 - Enhances Their Stage. It's exactly what the jihadists want, and we're giving it to them, an internationally televised forum for Islamic haters of America to espouse radical rhetoric, with pro-Jihad signs and repeated shouts into the cameras, including threats and intimidation of Americans if the defendants are convicted.
6 - Major Security. Measures for security of massive proportions will be needed by the city of New York, driving the (unnecessary) costs to the taxpayer beyond millions. Military tribunals are held in the secure confines of a military base.
7 - Intelligence at Risk. National intelligence will be seriously compromised by a legal process that require release of all information that led to the arrest and apprehension of the suspects. Such revelations about American intelligence - and the intelligence of our allies - including background, investigations, names, and methodology can jeopardize our national security, and further require unveiling of classified information for the public record. (Our enemies must be partying)
8 - Suppression of Confessions. Admissibility of any confessions by defendants will be at risk for a host of reasons, to and including the absence of reading Miranda rights, which would not, and should not, apply in a battlefield situation, or at a war crimes trial. Defense attorneys stand a good chance of winning this issue in a civilian court with the confessions thrown out. The jury will never hear them.
9 - The Torture Issue. All forms of enhanced interrogations used (so-called torture) will be subject to scrutiny, not only jeopardizing the admissibility of evidence, it could put the United States intelligence operatives more on trial as being the bad guys. Much like the famous "N" word issue in the O.J. trial, which had nothing to do with his guilt, such an issue can easily become the spotlight for a jury, rather than the totality of the evidence.
10 - Fair Jury? This is the whopper. Pressured by CAIR and other Islamic power organizations, the defense will argue vehemently for jury panel of "peers" and they'll get it.That means, one or more Muslims will be seated on the jury. Some of my readers will say "so what, it's just a religion." Here's the so what:
Even the most moderate of Muslims are bonded by strict loyalty (sometimes blind) to their God, and to fellow Muslims. I have had "moderate" Muslims tell me they will not pledge allegiance to the American Flag because their only allegiance is to Allah. I know of one Muslim FBI agent who refused to wear a wire because it meant taping another Muslim. (Yes, he kept his job). Over one-fourth of American Muslims polled under the age of 28 consider Osama Bin Laden a hero, and the 9/11 attack justified. Another poll revealed that one-third of Muslims believe America's response to 9/11 is a war on Islam.
Fact is, radical Islamists and jihadists often pose as "moderates" in order to achieve their goals. "Taqiyya" is an Islamic term which allows militants to conceal their intentions, or violate the Koran, if it advances the cause of spreading or protecting Islam. All it would take, is one Muslim juror practicing Taqiyya, one closet jihadist, or yet, one basic sympathizer, to hold out on a verdict. Not only that, families of jurors could be subject to threats if the wrong verdict comes down.
That is not far fetched.
Considering the certain omission of evidence and the seating a "diversified" jury, convictions will be hard to come by.
It only takes ONE out of twelve to create a hung jury.
That risk would be totally eliminated in a military tribunal. It's a matter of choice within the Obama administration.
I can only imagine the horror in the hearts of families of 9/11 victims.
This is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. The fury is spilling from both sides of the aisle, condemning this outrageous decision. "Unconscionable," said Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas. "Do not belong in our courts," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia. "Dangerous," said Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City. While some politicians and pundits can't see the proverbial forest through the trees, (like Mayor Bloomberg and Geraldo Rivera) most will eventually see the clouds open up very soon and amend their thinking. That is, if they have a brain.
These men are accused of war crimes. They should be tried as such. President Obama said this was a prosecutorial decision, but that's a tap dance. The Buck Stops Where? Eric Holder would never have pursued such a volatile and high profile issue without first consulting his boss.
We have emboldened our enemies. What could be worse?
Either this Attorney General is stupid, naive, hasty, a poor gambler or he's working for the other side.
It is beyond outrageous.
I could understand it, if there was no choice. But there is a choice, a much better choice, a saner choice, a choice that would not risk acquittals, a cost savings choice and a safer choice. There is a common sense choice: A military tribunal. It's legal and it's more efficient. It's designed for war criminals. After all, these men committed war crimes, and were rounded up in foreign soil as "war criminals."
The ill-fated decision to hold the trial of five terrorists, war criminals, in a civilian New York courtroom is a grievous mistake that could conceivably bring humongous consequences in a myriad of ways. The Justice Department has unnecessarily put the cases at greater risk, not to mention the security of this nation, and the people of New York City.
Here's 10 reasons why it's plain stupid: Pay particular attention to item number 10:
1 - Showtime for Radicals. We can now expect a circus of a trial, a la O.J. Simpson, further exacerbated by monstrous demonstrations/disturbances by radicals in the street who bear a seething disdain for the United States and its foreign policies. A military tribunal is far more controlled.
2 - Raises Threat Level for Violence. Osama Bin Laden and his warriors, many of whom are aliens or stealth residents of this country, would be following the will of Allah by sending the defendants to glory if a suicide bomber detonated a truck or missile within a couple blocks of the courthouse. Remember what one truck bomb did in Oklahoma City.
3 - Protections to Criminals. It allows foreign war criminals all the entitlements and protections of our domestic criminal justice system, just like a U.S. citizen, to and including legal representation at the expense of American taxpayers.
4 - The Wrong Message. It sends a clear message to terrorists and jihadists around the world, that targeting civilians in America ensures protections in the civilian justice system.
5 - Enhances Their Stage. It's exactly what the jihadists want, and we're giving it to them, an internationally televised forum for Islamic haters of America to espouse radical rhetoric, with pro-Jihad signs and repeated shouts into the cameras, including threats and intimidation of Americans if the defendants are convicted.
6 - Major Security. Measures for security of massive proportions will be needed by the city of New York, driving the (unnecessary) costs to the taxpayer beyond millions. Military tribunals are held in the secure confines of a military base.
7 - Intelligence at Risk. National intelligence will be seriously compromised by a legal process that require release of all information that led to the arrest and apprehension of the suspects. Such revelations about American intelligence - and the intelligence of our allies - including background, investigations, names, and methodology can jeopardize our national security, and further require unveiling of classified information for the public record. (Our enemies must be partying)
8 - Suppression of Confessions. Admissibility of any confessions by defendants will be at risk for a host of reasons, to and including the absence of reading Miranda rights, which would not, and should not, apply in a battlefield situation, or at a war crimes trial. Defense attorneys stand a good chance of winning this issue in a civilian court with the confessions thrown out. The jury will never hear them.
9 - The Torture Issue. All forms of enhanced interrogations used (so-called torture) will be subject to scrutiny, not only jeopardizing the admissibility of evidence, it could put the United States intelligence operatives more on trial as being the bad guys. Much like the famous "N" word issue in the O.J. trial, which had nothing to do with his guilt, such an issue can easily become the spotlight for a jury, rather than the totality of the evidence.
10 - Fair Jury? This is the whopper. Pressured by CAIR and other Islamic power organizations, the defense will argue vehemently for jury panel of "peers" and they'll get it.That means, one or more Muslims will be seated on the jury. Some of my readers will say "so what, it's just a religion." Here's the so what:
Even the most moderate of Muslims are bonded by strict loyalty (sometimes blind) to their God, and to fellow Muslims. I have had "moderate" Muslims tell me they will not pledge allegiance to the American Flag because their only allegiance is to Allah. I know of one Muslim FBI agent who refused to wear a wire because it meant taping another Muslim. (Yes, he kept his job). Over one-fourth of American Muslims polled under the age of 28 consider Osama Bin Laden a hero, and the 9/11 attack justified. Another poll revealed that one-third of Muslims believe America's response to 9/11 is a war on Islam.
Fact is, radical Islamists and jihadists often pose as "moderates" in order to achieve their goals. "Taqiyya" is an Islamic term which allows militants to conceal their intentions, or violate the Koran, if it advances the cause of spreading or protecting Islam. All it would take, is one Muslim juror practicing Taqiyya, one closet jihadist, or yet, one basic sympathizer, to hold out on a verdict. Not only that, families of jurors could be subject to threats if the wrong verdict comes down.
That is not far fetched.
Considering the certain omission of evidence and the seating a "diversified" jury, convictions will be hard to come by.
It only takes ONE out of twelve to create a hung jury.
That risk would be totally eliminated in a military tribunal. It's a matter of choice within the Obama administration.
I can only imagine the horror in the hearts of families of 9/11 victims.
This is not a Republican versus Democrat issue. The fury is spilling from both sides of the aisle, condemning this outrageous decision. "Unconscionable," said Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas. "Do not belong in our courts," said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia. "Dangerous," said Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City. While some politicians and pundits can't see the proverbial forest through the trees, (like Mayor Bloomberg and Geraldo Rivera) most will eventually see the clouds open up very soon and amend their thinking. That is, if they have a brain.
These men are accused of war crimes. They should be tried as such. President Obama said this was a prosecutorial decision, but that's a tap dance. The Buck Stops Where? Eric Holder would never have pursued such a volatile and high profile issue without first consulting his boss.
We have emboldened our enemies. What could be worse?
