Interesting to think that only a couple of weeks ago ago, New York City was going to be the place where the man accused of organizing the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center met American justice. We could handle it. We wanted to handle it.
Now, that's all over.
So, perhaps, is the Obama administration's plan to end the Bush-era assault on the Constitution. If so, New York City will have been the critical player in turning back the tide.
New York City is good at trying terrorists. While that might not be the skill everyone was hoping to perfect, we've got it down pat. Most notably, the men who carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center were convicted here.
When the Obama administration announced New York City as the site for the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted chief architect of the 9/11 attack, it seemed both appropriate and doable.
The mayor, our senior senator, and other top officials all said the city could and would handle the challenge. The loudest naysayer was Rep. Peter King of Long Island, the area's lone Republican in Washington. But these days, Peter King complains about everything.
Then, a few weeks ago, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly let downtown business leaders in on his plans for security. Everyone went nuts.
Kelly envisioned a "soft perimeter" between Canal Street and City Hall Park, full of cops, dotted with unannounced vehicle checkpoints. The "hard perimeter," surrounded by barricades, would enclose three courthouses, police headquarters, the correctional center, a church and an apartment building housing 600 families. Nothing was getting into the hard perimeter until it was scanned or searched.
The local community board was already up in arms, and now virtually every real estate mogul, Wall Street honcho and business interest below Canal Street began howling. Kelly put a price tag of $200 million per year on the effort. That freaked everyone out even further, since no one had been imagining a trial that went on into infinity.
Mayor Bloomberg made a fast turnaround and expressed the fond desire that the feds move their trial somewhere else. Senator Chuck Schumer did likewise. The Justice Department blanched at the cost, and the sudden resistance from the city's powers that be.
By the end of last week the trial was homeless. "Any community in America is going to object in the same way New York finally did," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch O'Connell with obvious satisfaction.
The Republicans' deep interest in this matter has virtually nothing to do with the comfort of New York City and everything to do with their desire to brand Obama as soft on terrorism. They want to keep the Guantanamo prisoners where they are, and restrict any trials to military courts.
Senator Lindsay Graham quickly announced he was re-introducing a bill to block civilian trials for the five alleged 9/11 plotters. King wants to bar civilian trials for anyone at Guantanamo. Others believe that all accused terrorists are soldiers, and therefore the business of the military and the military alone.
No one has actually made a good argument for why Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other accused plotters can't be handled by our courts, too. The theory that they would use the court as some kind of bully pulpit to convert the unwary to terrorism hasn't held up in any of the previous cases, which included true believers whose powers of persuasion were far greater. The judges, juries and lawyers all handled their duties well.
The Republicans' most powerful argument is actually the worst - that Americans would be too frightened to meet the challenge. They terrified small, rural towns with maximum security prisons into believing that the Guantanamo prisoners would be a clear and present danger. (If the prisoners couldn't escape, the argument went, their presence would still attract terrorist friends and families into the area.) Now they're doing the same thing with the judicial process.
Not only did the city rebel at playing host to the 9/11 trial last week. It also set of a series of not-in-my-town dominoes that make it increasingly unlikely that any community will be willing to assume the responsibility of taking on the trial. (The notable exception was the mayor of Newburgh, NY, who has a courthouse that needs paying off. But so far, no one seems to be taking the offer seriously.)
All in all, it's not a pretty picture for New Yorkers.
As the ninth anniversary of the WTC attack approaches, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. The city has emerged as a key architect of the too-scary-to-handle response to terror. The replacement of the World Trade Center remains years away amid endless bickering between developer Larry Silverstein and the Port Authority. And thousands of brave men and women who rushed to ground zero to help on 9/11 - the construction workers and the emergency responders - continue to suffer from illnesses that almost surely were caused by their long exposure to toxic air at the site.
Not what we were hoping for.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed likely to be 'executed' if convicted, says ...
Is the Case Against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Strong Enough? - TIME
The war on terror's legal battle
Seriously, regarding the distinction between the words "enemy combatants" and "citizens", there isn't any. Try reading the 5th Amendement of the United States Constitution. It clearly only refers to "person(s)" and in no place in the entire document do "combatant" or "enemy" exist. Therefore, the trial process applies to these civilians (meaning, "non military") . In fact, try finding where the Constitution gives the military, a government body, the right to tribunals. But hey, who's needed that "old piece of paper" for the past nine years anyway?
http://bit.ly/aTWT71
1.) These are not "soldiers" of a state. They are not domestic terrorists or assasins. They are "Enemy Combatants" of no particular sect, state, religion, or country. They are the true definition of terrorists. Their goal : ambiguous general and overwhelming and partially successful.
2.) These terrorists do not deserve the FULL extent of our laws as they apply to CITIZENS. They are treasonous to the country they were born in and treasonous in the face of humanity. They committed crimes against humanity by targeting civilians. We used to just have a military tribunal and shoot the bastards or behead them IN THE FIELD. I say we do it again.
3.) New York has shouldered our attack enough. Bring them to Texas and hold a military trial with limited media access. Trust me when I say, Texas would LOVE for something to get out of hand. We have the death penalty here and we like it that way. Hell we don't even need evidence to execute.
Their presence in America was not to study; do business or visit relatives. It was to plan and carry out an attack on the people of the US… specifically civilians. Even with the millions available to them in funds provided by well-to-do Saudi’s, there was no attempt to redress any perceived perturbations of the west on their culture. No, through some sociopath interpretation of the Koran decided to carry out a vigilante Jihad that has to be abhorrent to any Allah fearing Muslim.
I have not noticed any comments from the Saudi monarchy as to what we should do with these people. I have not heard any cries that a military tribunal would be some sort of “kangaroo court” and an affront to Saudi sensibilities.
Maybe we should get out of the middle-east for a couple of decades. That gas station will be open to who ever needs to fill up. We can still defend Israel…defend them…not fight their wars for them.
Go back to school America! Apply for a library card and read books.
The U.S. should not act according to Jack Bauer's handbook, but according to our Constitution!
True traitors spit on the U.S. Constitution.
But, alas, there is an obvious answer. It's more important to restore "America's image" in the world.....well not exactly. It's MORE IMPORTANT FOR OUR PRESIDENT TO HAVE A QUINTESSENTIAL IMAGE IN THE WORLD.........oops, I've just been reminded of the words of that great American personality and statesman, Barack Obama: " IT'S NOT ABOUT ME".
http://wcbstv.com/national/Barack.Obama.Dick.2.965981.html What are Miranda rights?
nor has America a tradition of star chambers where we try people in secret. The little 'point' that you refer to, is in fact, the only worthwhile point there is: that we are different from terrorist and despots and tyrants, we are not gratuitously cruel and try never to be unjust, because that's un-American.
There are plenty of Timothy McVeigh's white supremacist fear mongers out there still, but we didn't kowtow to them and nor should we bow to others out of being afraid now!
As I recall, TM was tried, convicted, and executed in fewer years than some of those that have been languishing in Gitmo. What seems shameful is that tribunals were not held there years ago. One of the hallmarks of American justice is that it should be swift. All we have provided for ourselves in not handling the justice issue in a timely way is a clear definition of “rendering” to the rest of the world.
The Bush administration's parlance of the term "enemy combatants," as well as the construction of Gitmo off our soil, were convenient niceties that psychologically coddled public fear while justifying American military action abroad.
If the of our military invasions in the Middle East goal was to simply capture and punish suspects, we could have lined up the captives and shot them spot on. But, since we claim to be of higher and mightier ilk than common street thugs, we should follow the edicts of the very laws that we hold so sacred as a nation.
Yes, the New York politicos have been quick to play the fear card. Yes, the cost and inconvenience are tremendous. Yes, the negative attention the KMS trial would foist on the entire NYC area is worrisome.
But, to label the Prez "soft on terrorism" because he is considering New Yorkers' perspectives, is a shortsighted kneejerk response. We need to trust that he will work with the DOJ to find an exemplary alternative site that honors the integrity of our Constitution.
A few days after THAT DAY, President Bush went on TV and told we the people to “GO SHOP!” If we wanted to HELP and that “They hated us because we were free!”
I did NOT react with FEAR to THAT DAY; but curiosity and I did NOT want to shop!
I wondered if ‘They’ hated us so much to target and murder innocent people had something to do with Americans mindless over consumption of the world’s resources and apathy towards the poor and oppressed.
Up until THAT DAY we call 9/11, I was your typical self-satisfied, self-centered, uninformed, misinformed comfortable American.
THAT DAY, changed everything!
“Another thing is that acting out of fear makes one do stupid, irrational things...never ever react out of fear, for fear drives out compassion and hardens the heart.”
http://wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=640&Itemid=176