Obama Gambles With Terror Trial In New York

Pat Buchanan has an interesting article out today that asks if America is at war. Then he goes on to say that if we are at war then why are we bringing terrorists who committed war crimes into our country to be tried in a court of law. He asks why we are granting Constitutional rights to people who are not entitled to them and who should be tried in military courts.

Buchanan’s opinion is that if things go badly with this trial it will be the end of Obama’s occupation of the White House.

I agree with this perspective. I have wondered why it is that these people are taking such a huge gamble. What happens if, for some reason, they are found not guilty or if the case is dismissed for some technical procedure?

It is not beyond imagination that some such thing could happen and some of the terrorists could walk out free men just like Obama’s pal Bill Ayers.

The other thing I wonder is, if they are found anything but guilty where will we send them? Will they be released into the general public? What else can we do with them? If we have had such a difficult time getting homes for those detained at Gitmo then what will change to make countries suddenly willing to take them? It is possible that the monsters who killed our fellow citizens could walk for one reason or another.

And if they walk, Obama can pack his bags because he will not get a second stint.

This is a huge gamble for Obama and if things work out he will look like a hero but if they don’t then things are going to get very ugly for him.

Treating acts of war as a crime issue is one of the things that led to the attack on 9/11.

Treating these terrorists as regular criminals is a big mistake that could have serious consequences both for Obama and for the country as well.

Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

37 Responses to “Obama Gambles With Terror Trial In New York”

  1. victoria says:

    It makes you wonder. You know these terrorists admitted doing it during interogation. So what is this all about?–except like some say putting Bush and Cheney on trial. It is a slap in the face of all the 9/11 victims and family members not to mention all our soldiers fighting these terrorists–to bring terrorists here and give them the same rights as American citizens. This is a train wreck coming down the tracks and I can’t wait for Obama to own it because own it he will.

  2. Schatzee says:

    I agree – it is a disgrace. In fact, since these cretins will be afforded all of the rights of a federal court, I believe Miranda warnings and such will apply and I seriously doubt that they were given such warnings before interrogation. Is this enough alone to throw out their admissions? They will also be entitled to a speedy trial and full disclosure from the prosecution. Isn’t this dangerous — providing more information to people who are already out to get us? I think this is beyond ridiculous and everyone in the country should look at the ramifications of doing something so stupid before blindly going along.

    I was appalled when the residents of GITMO were granted rights they are not entitled to receive (and that their forefathers did not fight and die for). In fact, these rights that we are affording them are far beyond what most people receive in their native countries and certainly more than they gave to their victims. This is a disgrace and I fear these displays of weakness and submission are going to embolden our enemies and endanger our country. God help us all.

  3. Adam says:

    The evidence against these men was good enough for you to justify endless detainment and torture to gather more but if this same evidence is presented in court you pee your pants in fear that the US Court system isn’t good enough? Get real, folks.

    We are talking about terrorist scumbags who murdered American civilians on American soil and they will be tried in an American court in the same city they committed their crimes in. What is not to love about that? What would you rather do about it?

    Conservatives may want to pretend this is the first time terrorists have been tried in federal court. That’s silly of course, we have had something like 107 terrorism cases at the federal level and with 145 convictions.

    Finally though, I cannot believe you would cite the opinion of a white supremacist like Pat Buchanan from an article on WorldNutDaily. Come on now. That man and that website have no credibility whatsoever.

    • Big Dog says:

      You have any evidence of endless torture? Now Adam, I am not peeing my pants because if these guys are ever released they will not bother me. You seem to lack some understanding of the difference between a war criminal and a run of the mill criminal. As for evidence and the idea of a slam dunk trial, I bet a lot of people felt the same way about OJ Simpson.

      Forget the evidence. What happens if the defense asks for a change of venue because the trial will be prejudiced in NY? What happens if the court rules that Miranda warmings were never given so all evidence is dismissed? What happens if any remianing evidence is ruled too harmful to national security to be released? What happens if the guys are found not guilty or the case is dismissed? What do we do with them then? Are you OK with releasing them to live next door to you?

      How will they ever find 12 people who have no opinion on 9/11 to serve on the jury and if you found anyone unaware of the events, are they qualified to serve?

      Of course there have been terrorists tried in federal court. Were they people captured in a war? As for your claim that no one views them as POWs, I suggest you search for some of my earlier writings on this where I said they were POWs so we could hold them until the end of the war and that people should quit crying about how long they have been held.

      The problem with you liberals is that you want to make these regular crimes and afford people who are not entitled the benefits of our judicial system. Suppose they use that system to get off?

      Will it be OK for them to live in the house next door to you?

      Better yet, can we put them up in the Lincoln bedroom?

      • Adam says:

        Are the 145 other folks convicted of terrorism in federal court any safer to have next door? What exactly is it is about the WTC attacks that makes it that much different?

        Oh gee. It’s a damn shame that the torture of these detainees may come back to haunt the United States now that we seek actual justice for the victims of 9/11. Who could have predicted…?

      • Adam says:

        For instance did the terrorist Timothy McVeigh not deserve a jury trial because he might have been found not-guilty? Heaven forbid. Then he would surely have come and lived next door to my family so I would have to pee my pants in fear like you conservatives…

        • Blake says:

          I don’t pee in my pants- I am all grown up- you might need to empty your bladder- I think you are flooding your brain here.
          McVeigh got everything he deserved, and I hope Hasan does also. Paralyzed? Good. I hope they convict him and kill him.
          Perhaps I could watch- it’s in my neighborhood, so to speak, and I can use the entertainment- it would be a restful break from all the leftie bias and propaganda they keep on working into the plots of the sitcoms and other “shows” on TV nowadays.
          It’s enough to make you puke.

        • Schatzee says:

          Timothy McVeigh was tried in a criminal court because it was not related to an act of war against the country. And he WAS a US citizen and entitled to those rights. Completely different scenario – apples and oranges here.

          Terrorists – citizens of other countries – should not be afforded the protections of our court system but should be tried in a military tribunal where the goal is to address the people and acts committed rather than the protection of Constitutional rights and procedure.

          It’s obvious that someone not a citizen of this country has no standing in a federal court and should not be afforded the same considerations as one who belongs there.

        • Adam says:

          You say it’s obvious that someone not a citizen of this country has no standing in a federal court, but yet we prosecute non-citizens in federal courts all the time such as with cases involving illegal immigrants.

          Federal courts have precedent of dealing with non-citizens, of dealing with terrorism cases, of dealing with mass murder like with McVeigh.

          I get why you think a tribunal would be better, but I’m not really getting what is so wrong with it being a federal court matter instead and why so many conservatives are scared to death of it.

    • Big Dog says:

      Murdered American citizens on American soil IN AN ACT OF WAR.

      As for Buchanan, you call him a white supremacist and say WND is not a worthy site. Do Buchanan’s views (and I am not agreeing with your assessment) mean he has nothing worthy to say? As for WND, you read and often cite the Huffington Post. Touche’

      • Adam says:

        Yes, Buchanan has nothing worthy to say. Of all the sources critical of these trials you pick a white supremacist writing for a trashy website like WorldNetDaily?

        HP may be similar to WND in that they are equal but opposite in bias. Yet HP is different in that WND is run by liars and morons. So, I don’t think that qualifies as “touche” so much.

    • Blake says:

      We are not talking about people who were caught burgularizing a home- these are not criminals in the sense of our judicial world- they were fighting a “holy” WAR- and many were captured on the battlefield.
      It makes no sense to give them a forum in any sense of the word.
      A trial, and then if they are found guilty, a quiet execution, and burial in an unknown place, preferably in a swine slaughterhouse- that would fit their crimes.
      If acquitted,they should be sent to whatever country can make the rest of their life uncomfortable.

  4. Adam says:

    Conservatives argued these detainees are not prisoners of war, so pretending we are at war and that means we don’t have to send these men to federal court is just another confusing set of arguments to me.

  5. Adam says:

    But to all the folks critical of the trials in New York let’s hear your thoughts on what we should do instead.

  6. Big Dog says:

    McVeigh was a US citizen and afforded the rights of such. The terrorists are enemy combatants and not US citizens.

    Think of the circus this will cause in NY. Traffic jams, security, increased chance for terror related to the defendents…

    They should have been tried in a military tribunal like others in history.

    I do find it interesting that all the anti death penalty libs want the death penalty for these guys. Now they have no standing when they oppose that punishment in the future.

    • Adam says:

      Well, I for one want to see any person found guilty of taking part in 9/11 to rot in prison for life, but that’s just me.

      • Schatzee says:

        Great – so we can pay for them to live out their lives in our prisons? They should be blown up – and sent to Allah as quickly as possible. I know – hateful and nasty. Sue me.

        • Adam says:

          Have you ever visited a prison or know of anyone who has spent time in one? If you think killing these men will do anything to make up for the 3000 Americans lost then you’re sadly mistaken. Let them rot in jail for the rest of their miserable pathetic lives. Don’t let them off so easy and martyr them for their cause.

  7. Adam says:

    Folks laughed at Kerry when he said the war against terrorism should be a law enforcement matter. Yet, we have found the most success so far through our federal court system and through our law enforcement agencies working together.

    Conservatives ignore the facts on this and pee their pants over putting murderers on trial because they might be found not guilty? Military tribunals are a stretch. We are not fighting soldiers. What is your case for this to qualify?

  8. victoria says:

    They declared war on us, they qualify as soldiers or enemy combatants but then we can’t call it a war anymore but that doesn’t change it from what it is. Military tribunals are not a stretch.
    And yea, let them sit in prison using up more of our tax dollars. (sarc)

  9. Adam says:

    Amended values to the counts of
    terrorist cases in federal courts I cite above:

    In total, we have analyzed 119 cases with 289 defendants. Of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009 (charges against 75 defendants were still pending), 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. This is a conviction rate of 91.121%, a slight increase over the 90.625% conviction rate reported in May of 2008.

    In Pursuit of Justice makes the case that the fears about putting these terrorists on trial are unfounded and irrational.

    Frankly the fears seem also to be highly partisan in nature. There is no better example than with Giuliani’s flip flopping from 2006 to 2009 on the issue of trying terrorist suspects.

  10. Adam says:

    From the conclusion of that document:

    The evidence collected in this 2009 Report confirms what was demonstrated in In Pursuit of Justice; that is, that the justice system, while not perfect, continues to adapt to handle all manner of terrorism prosecutions without sacrificing our national security interests or our commitment to fairness and due process for all. As we move forward, using all our available military, intelligence, diplomatic, and economic resources, we should continue with confidence to call upon the criminal justice system as a potent tool to combat terrorism and to demonstrate the character of American justice.

  11. victoria says:

    I am sorry Adam, you are not funny. This is not about being afraid. This is about respect for the victims and their families and for the citizens of America.

    • Adam says:

      That implies that giving these men a trial in a US court is somehow disrespectful to the victims and their families. It is far from it and no firm case has been made for why you feel that way.

  12. victoria says:

    Here is an excerpt from Michelle Malkin today–“Culture of Corruption: Holder, Terrorists, Covington & Burling”–This is speaking about Eric Holder and Covington & Burling where he is senior partner.

    Putting on the best terrorist defense is a Covington & Burling specialty. Among the firm’s other celebrity terrorist clients: 17 Yemenis held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The law firm employed dozens of radical attorneys such as David Remes and Marc Falkoff to provide the enemy combatants with more than 3,000 hours of pro bono representation. Covington & Burling co-authored one of three petitioners’ briefs filed in the Boumediene v. Bush detainee case, and secured victories for several other Gitmo enemy combatants in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Falkoff went on to publish a book of poetry, Poems from Guantanamo: The Detainees Speak, which he dedicated to the suspected terrorists: “For my friends inside the wire, Mahmoad, Majid, Yasein, Saeed, Abdulsalam, Mohammed, Adnan, Jamal, Othman, Adil, Mohamed, Abdulmalik, Areef, Adeq, Farouk, Salman, and Makhtar. Inshallah, we will next meet over coffee in your homes in Yemen.”

    • Adam says:

      Malkin is very dishonest as usual and you are adding do it.

      First of all Holder is not and never was a “senior partner” as you call him (they don’t even have such a thing there as far as I can tell) but rather just a partner for 8 years until he left the firm and become Attorney General.

      Second, notice it is not that Holder came to the defense of the 17 Yemenis but rather the firm he was partner for. This same firm has also represented Halliburton and Phillip Morris. Is Holder on the hook for those clients as well? Covington & Burlington is one of the top legal firms in the world.

      Third, Malkin seeks to make it seem as if representing GITMO detainees is an endorsement of any evil actions by alleged terrorists. John Adams represented the shooters in the Boston Massacre. If Adams was running for office today I’m sure Malkin would be blowing hot air about it trying to smear him as if he endorsed the actions of the shooters.

  13. Schatzee says:

    Yes I have visited a prison and known people who have been there. I think it is too good for terrorists (hell, I think prison is too good for criminals – it should be more like punishment than a retreat but that is another story all together).

    It’s a waste of my money to feed and house these people that do not deserve to live. No, it will not bring back the people who have died but it will make sure that these indigents don’t kill another 3000 or help or encourage others to kill by their mere presence on this earth. This should make most libs happy – we are giving them what they want. Sending them to Allah fast quick and in a hurry.

    • Big Dog says:

      Not only have I been to a prison, I worked in one. Does that qualify Adam?

      Funny how liberals will fight to the death to allow abortions, the murder of innocent beings, but will fight even harder to keep murderers alive.

      What kind of message is it to say that the innocent should be murdered and the guilty should live?

      • Adam says:

        Well, since you worked in prison surely you understand that a life sentence is a far harsher treatment than simply losing your life.

        Funny how for conservatives life begins at conception and ends at birth.

        • Big Dog says:

          Well Adam, your little saying is a funny thing because it demonstrates how little liberals understand things.

          Life begins at conception, yes we believe that.

          It does not end at birth, it ends at death. Your ilk finds it hard to understand how one can oppose abortion and sanction the death penalty.

          An unborn child committed NO crime. Some crimes merit the death penalty which is a punishment for doing something really bad. There are instances where a person should have to pay with his life. That is the problem, you cannot understand the difference between innocence as in the unborn and guilt as in the murderer.

          You side would rather murder the child that has done nothing wrong and fight to keep the murderer who has done something wrong, alive.

          I have no problem with a life without parole sentence for some crimes but that means WITHOUT. Not letting them loose in 20 years because the jails are crowded. But for these guys I want the death penalty. I do not want them in jail converting simple minds to their cult. I do not want them communicating with the outside world. The best way to do that is to put them to death.

          It is funny that libs like Hillary and Holder are pushing for the death penalty. They have to show how tough they are I suppose.

  14. carter says:

    I’m looking forward to jury selection. These fellows will either walk or go to jail, I’d bet on it. There will be no lives lost here, there will be no justice.