The Trial of Terrorists in NYC vs. Gitmo

I do not care if they are tried by military tribunal or civilian jury, as long as they ARE given a trial.

Why do you prefer a tribunal? My guess is that there will be strict rules as to what is and is not admissable in court if clearance/confidentiality is an issue.

I do not want them to be court marshalled by a military tribunal. The undercurrent conversation in D.C. right now is the this is the way for Obama/Holder to indirectly further expose aspects of the criminality of Bush/Cheney regime, under oath and for the world to see.

An American public trial will sink both the 5 terrorist and possibly Bush /Cheney at the same time, and they will all get what they deserve! :angry:

Put them all on a drone aircraft that disappears in the Bermuda Triangle on the flight to NYC. Otherwise it's going to be the OJ trial on Roids for the media. They don't deserve the rights our citizens have and we should never have taken prisioners in this war!

I do not care if they are tried by military tribunal or civilian jury, as long as they ARE given a trial.

Why do you prefer a tribunal? My guess is that there will be strict rules as to what is and is not admissable in court if clearance/confidentiality is an issue.

You hit one of my concerns exactly and probably the most important one.
Too many times I have seen our military and intelligence operatives put in harm's way because of information leaked, given out unnecessarily or outright sold to those intent on doing us in. I am strongly suspect of what may come out in this type trial vs. what would come out in a military trial where there are more safeguards regarding classified information.
Whether you like to admit it or not, there is a place for classified information in our society. It protects those putting their lives on the line for our benefit, in many cases.

Didnt KSM already confess he was the mastermind????

OF course...he was coerced by Dick Cheney....

FIRING SQUAD!!!!

Honestly, I don't keep up with all of it. I do question why the Federal Government stripped our rights granted in the Founding Documents, (via Patriot Act) in order to capture "terrorists" who they can hold indefinitely according the Patriot Act, but then suddenly, they throw the "terrorist" into civil court. That doesn't make sense to me.

My understanding is that the other terrorists still on the loose, will be able to have access to evidence from which they can learn how to avoid capture. A military trial would not be released as public information.

I find it odd that we are entitling these people with the same right we all have under the Constitution. But generally I could care less, as long as the government doesn't screw up the case. If they do, it will be the end of Obama's short rein of power, the American public will impeach him for the mistake.

I do also agree with Alpha, this smacks of politics. When all hell is breaking lose in the country over the economy and all the debt, you need a good distraction, KSM or OJ will do just fine. I'm guess Holder had that in mind when he made the decision. (Which is pretty pathetic IMHO, risking these guys being set free for political gain is, well, selfish to say the least.)

I know this has been a difficulty for many who experienced a loss on that day.....it's hard for me to place myself in their shoes. Even those who did not directly have a loss grieved. We all felt a loss.

I agree with Andy from the respect of military tribunal and a lot of material from these trials should be classified. However, it wasn't a military event that took place. It was an attack on US Civilian life in every respect, but also an attack on our government. It's very complicated IMHO.

When my family had to relive a death through a criminal trial, we became stronger, more compassionate, but couldn't wait for it to be over. There was healing for all of us.

Let them face Judge Judy.

perhaps the accused will inform the court that his confession may have been coerced. what will the court do with the defendant being subjected to torture? how does the law speak to sanctioned brutality?

perhaps the accused will inform the court that his confession may have been coerced. what will the court do with the defendant being subjected to torture? how does the law speak to sanctioned brutality?

If the individual is an American citizen, it sets the accused free. Holder apparently feels these folks fit within that framework. The trial should be interesting. If you kill 3000 people, can you get off on a technicality? I suppose in our system you could.

perhaps the accused will inform the court that his confession may have been coerced. what will the court do with the defendant being subjected to torture? how does the law speak to sanctioned brutality?

death by teabagging!!!!

perhaps the accused will inform the court that his confession may have been coerced. what will the court do with the defendant being subjected to torture? how does the law speak to sanctioned brutality?

Maybe Cheney and Rumsfeld will have to testify..........under oath.

Boortz says that they should set the man free... in the north GA mountains, just after alerting all the rednecks.

Boortz says that they should set the man free... in the north GA mountains, just after alerting all the rednecks.

Maybe Cheney and Rumsfeld will have to testify..........under oath.

yeah maybe....

Boortz says that they should set the man free... in the north GA mountains, just after alerting all the rednecks.

Jon Stewart had a similar sentiment - worse case scenario is that the terrorists go free ................ and are released into the streets of NY!

Smart money won't take odds on anything over 1/2 a block!

It may be like one of those John Grisham books (A Time To Kill) where the defendant never makes it to defendant's table in the court room. There are probably more than a few million people that would like to do the job.

Maybe they could give him the option of 1) letting him go in the North GA mountains, after alerting all the rednecks, or 2) give him a bullet and a gun in a room with no windows.

Let them face Judge Judy.

They might as well because this whole thing is just a circus.

The camp that believes that liberty and justice are what we represent and that we are somehow taking the high road with a civil trial need to put down the hopium and see this for what it really is... an expose of Bush and Cheney's policies. First off, one must be tried by a jury of it's peers. How do we accomplish that? How many Tom Hanks are there from the movie Castaway? people who haven't read the papers and haven't formed an opinion about these men? Then you have the issue of KSM being waterboarded umpteen times and then a guilty admission. Also, with a military tribunal, witnesses do not need to be subpoenaed and heresay is admissible, from what I understand. Holder is delusional.

Then to rub salt in the wound, these terrorists will be held and tried within spit shot of the 9/11 site and given a worldwide forum to voice their defense. In addition, the costs to secure them and New York City will run in the millions of dollars, money that can be put to much better use, IMO. These men are dead men walking anyway you look at it, so why bother? Politics, put simply.

I agree - definitely having second thoughts about it after getting a taste of the potential drama and opinions on this thread.

Don't want to go after Cheney etc. I just don't want us holding people indefinitely without trials.

Military tribunal or Supreme court (so no chance for appeals) w/o media allowed in just might be the way to go.