Sept 11 suspects to face U.S. military tribunals

The families of those killed in the Sept 11, 2001 attacks have waited almost a decade for justice, and “it must not be delayed any longer,” Holder told a news conference.

Really? Because 10 years has not been that long?

So we wasted two years waiting,all the while knowing Obama would go Full Waffle (or pick up the Bush playbook)on this as well?

At this rate HRC is definitely thinking of mounting a challenge in the primaries.

Good. They belong in military tribunals. I suspected Obama would reverse his position on this and I'm happy he did.

I do not see how the military gets this. It was a civilian crime commited by civilians. I say ship them to Texas where they will most likey given the death penalty. And, unlike California, it will most likely be carried out.

Why military tribunals? Because conservatives have been trained since birth to salivate over the word "military"?

Get ready for the drum head trials that will further damage the reputation of the U.S. Truth and justice have given way for the new American way, which is "whatever suits our political fancy".

"Why military tribunals? Because conservatives have been trained since birth to salivate over the word "military"?"

Mangaman - Read the papers or followed the news these last,oh,seven years or so???Obama is not a conservative.And this was his personally- appointedd AG's decision.Think about it.

Lieberman2012, how about you read the first four words of the article right in front of your face?

Yielding to political opposition

Big words, I know. Dictionary handy?

Obama has not been the president for the last seven years either. These trials should have happened a long time ago; in civilian courts where they belong. This train wreck started under Bush, and conservatives have whined liked children in the back seat to get their way despite all sense.

Mangaman - Yes, I read the article.That is why I commented on it.My question still stands.Have you read the papers these last seven years?Or do you actually believe the AP would call this flip-flop for what it is?They helped get Obama into office.They are not about to second-guess their choice,and certainly not the same week their chosen one announces his bid for re-election.Think about it.

Holder is a joke.

2 years after the campaign, and we're back to where we were before the campaign. Boy this administration sure is smart! And such great speakers too!

At this rate HRC is definitely thinking of mounting a challenge in the primaries.

I sincerely hope so, depending on who the Republicans put up, I could see myself voting for her. I would have voted for her over McCain in the last election, so its not that big of a stretch. And certainly she would be far and away a better President then our current one. Hard to believe she could possibly be any worse.

Good. They belong in military tribunals. I suspected Obama would reverse his position on this and I'm happy he did.

I agree. It took em 2 years, and strong opposition from Democrats as well, before he finally realized he wasn't going to get his way on this.

I do not see how the military gets this. It was a civilian crime commited by civilians.

It was an act of war committed against civilians. This falls under the heading of war crimes. How does this equate to civilians against civilians? Add to this the fact that they don't fall neatly under either the Geneva convention or the civilian statues. It makes sense that if you are going to charge them, that it be done in a military court.

Lieberman, if you want me to answer questions, then ask sensible ones please. I am not claiming to be an expert on Obama's position on this nor Holder's.

I said it was a conservative postition, and it is. Its you pointing out specific people, and specific people represent neither side. You want to accuse Obama and Holder of being flip-flops and turn coats, go ahead. There is no real left in America anyway, its just right and far right. I got no faith in either man.

But nothing you say will change the very simple point that this does not belong in a military tribunal and it will discredit America.

But how typically conservative of you to make this about names and not answer the simple question: Why a military tribunal? Its just the crux of the matter so I understand why you avoid it and desperately change the subject to Obama. Typical Republican playbook. You guys just don't want us to figure out that you are playing political football with this issue because its all just a game to conservatives. So keep avoiding the questions that matter. What is principle when you have agenda, eh?

I said it was a conservative postition, and it is. Its you pointing out specific people, and specific people represent neither side. You want to accuse Obama and Holder of being flip-flops and turn coats, go ahead. There is no real left in America anyway, its just right and far right. I got no faith in either man.

This smacks of desperately trying to shift Obama to the center, even while maintaining his extreme left wing positions. In regards to this particular issue however, you are completely off base. If Republicans were the ones pushing for this, it wouldn't have happened. This has broad bi-partisan support. This is not a left or right thing, nor a Republican thing, this is an American thing. Last I heard, something like 85% of Americans support military trials for these guys. That includes a whole hell of a lot of libs. So try again, this time with something a little less far fetched please.

This smacks of desperately trying to shift Obama to the center

This smacks of desperately trying to make it look like this is about Obama! Could you put politics and tactics down for a second and stick to the issue?

Last I heard, something like 85% of Americans support military trials for these guys.

I heard 59 percent, which hardly changes the fact that you make the ad populum logic fallacy. Besides, justice is not a majority rules event. And last I wrote:

There is no real left in America anyway, its just right and far right.

What little left there is in America knows a military tribunal at Guantanomo only props up the image of America as self-righteous and justifies hate of America. Of course, this is good for people who relish conflict over truth and peace.

I want a civilian trial because 9/11 was an attack by civilians on civilians for starters. Its naught to do with the military as no war was declared in any official capacity. Very basic priciples of law dictate a civilian trial. And if you ignore them, you have no principles.

Now, why do you want a military tribunal? And note, I am not asking you to skate around that question, but rather answer it honestly and head on if you please.

Mangaman tells me and Molenir that "I got no faith in either [party] man." And then goes on to say

"...nothing you say will change the very simple point that this does not belong in a military tribunal and it will discredit America."

You already wrote America off.Why would the country supposedly further discrediting itself matter?Earlier this week in comments about Afghanistan you were referring to America quite distinctly as if it were foreign to you("When will the Americans learn...").I think you are a troll of some sort.Are you eleigible to vote in the US?You don't come off as particularly informed to me.Maybe it's all the manga...

Mangaman: not answer the simple question: Why a military tribunal?

Well I thought you demonstrated clear knowledge with your previous answer: It's because conservatives are evil! heh.

There are actually quite a few reasons why a tribunal makes sense. The biggest is the conflict between presenting evidence and national security. If you're not even mentioning that then my guess is that you didn't really know about it which means you really haven't done any kind of research.

The problem is that the courts in the US aren't set up to handle that situation. The US would be required to openly show intelligence gathering techniques, describe overall strategies, show how they got information (such as providing the names of informants or the location of wire taps), etc. You'd basically be giving terrorists a blueprint of what the US does specifically to combat them, the resources that are being used, the people involved, the techniques involved, etc. At that point they're better off just letting the guy go if they think tipping their hand might actually increase the chances of a future terrorist attack. It actually makes prosecuting terrorists counterproductive.

So it's really not a cut and dry issue of "evil conservatives." There has to be some kind of balance between national security and the right to a fair trial. It's a very real balancing act and the US is still trying to figure out the best way to do it. It's new territory for the courts and there's no perfect answer. Personally, I'd rather have someone who has confessed to being a terrorist and who has requested the death sentence not be used to expose the US and put us more at risk. I guess that makes me evil or something.

the image of America as self-righteous and justifies hate of America

Since you arrived, I don't think a day's gone by where you personally didn't try to drag down the US and justify hatred. You have to be pretty silly if you think we'd believe your motivations have anything to do with protecting America's image. Saying it just shows that you say things you don't really think in hopes of winning the debate. In all reality if you really did care about justice and America's standing it would be better to remove yourself from the issue because you're doing nothing but damaging those who want to see terrorists in US courts because of a legitimate concern for rights. My guess is that those people would rather not be associated with someone who tells us all about the "honor" of suicide bombers.

I voted for Obama but I knew this was one promise he couldn't keep. And he probably did as well. Or maybe he really thought a trial on US soil was the best method before getting elected but he's probably changed his mind after seeing the full spectrum of information that he has now.

Lieberman, I am proud to be American. As proud as I am embarrassed by many of my country's politicians, my government, our neo-empire and even quite a lot of other Americans embarrass me too. What I am I proud of? The principles that the above are destroying is a good place to start. I am also proud of the American Founding Fathers.

Maybe its my pride why places like Guantanamo anger me so much?

So much worry Superlib! Blowback? Revealing of methods? Getting off? National security? Not set up for it?

Too late. Remember Aafia Siddiqui, now serving 86 years? Yup. Federal court. Her trial appears to be a bad joke, even our lapdogs the British say so openly, but at least we can research it and find out why it was such a bad joke instead of having the cloud of very very unAmerican secrecy we will have with a military kangaroo court.

If I thought you were clever, I might accuse you of just wanting to hide the dirty laundry, because if Aafia Siddiqui can get 86 years with none of your darkest fears fulfilled, by God, giving KSM 5 consecutive life sentences is going to be a snap!

It sounds like you're mostly proud of spouting crap that sounds good but has little substance to it.

The best of a bad situation.

Taka

I would prefer a civilian court with full rights for the defendants. I know these guys are scum but if the US govt can take their rights away (the same way the terrorists took away the rights of their victims, of course) then what stops the government from taking away my rights? What about your rights? How do the people who support this claim to be patriots and sons of liberty?

The real issue for a lot of the Gitmo detainees is that there isn't a good case (for some there is) to prove all of them have committed crimes. A tribunal is easier to control than a civilian court. It is also possible to stop publicity of the accused making comments about the US that would likely be less than favorable. And more likely that a death penalty would be carried out quickly.

But a civilized country would respect the rights of the accused. The US is stooping to the level of the terrorists by doing it this way.

I voted for Obama but I knew this was one promise he couldn't keep. And he probably did as well. Or maybe he really thought a trial on US soil was the best method before getting elected but he's probably changed his mind after seeing the full spectrum of information that he has now.

My earlier point, that this is not a left/right thing, that its not just Republicans supporting this, but many, many independents and Dems as well has been more then proven.

The best of a bad situation.

I agree with Taka. (Have to get my head examined after this.) Whole thing obviously isn't a good situation, but we are stuck with doing whats best, in a crappy situation.

Shame no mention of NY mayor BLOOMBERG on the article. Unfortunate too that a truly New York story got turned as left-wing, right-wing minefield.

(My head aches reading some of the posters on this thread)

But the decision was a triumph for New York, and those that lobbied hard for the 9/11 trial to be far, far away from the city.

For more than a year, New York City officials complained loudly about the hundreds of millions of dollars that security for a Sept. 11 trial would cost. Their public lobbying torpedoed the plan to ever bring the suspects to a U.S. court.

On Monday, Mayor Michael Bloomberg called it "more appropriate" to try avowed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a military tribunal.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says a military commission is a "more appropriate" choice than a civilian trial for avowed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

"While we would have provided the security if we had to here in New York City, you know - being spared the expense is good for us," he said.

But the expense went well beyond the cost of security - the mayor and local business leaders said the city would have lost business for years if it had to barricade its downtown to protect the suspects.

"Holding the terror trials in Lower Manhattan would have undermined the progress and rebuilding of this neighborhood, and it would have eroded the economic development efforts and successes over the last 10 years," said Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York.

(Via AP)

ca1ic0cat: I would prefer a civilian court with full rights for the defendants. I know these guys are scum but if the US govt can take their rights away (the same way the terrorists took away the rights of their victims, of course) then what stops the government from taking away my rights? What about your rights? How do the people who support this claim to be patriots and sons of liberty?

Oh I'm betting that there has been and will be a much, much greater number of Americans wrongly convicted in American courts then there ever will be terrorists wrongly convicted in tribunals. If you're worried about what might happen to you then you should worry about things like false accusations and convictions for rape or trials where DNA evidence could have cleared your name. Worrying about being in a situation like the people at Gitmo is like worrying you'll win the lottery twice.

Mangaman: So much worry Superlib! Blowback? Revealing of methods? Getting off? National security? Not set up for it?

So you're not even willing to admit that there are legitimate national security concerns in play here? You don't even have to agree that tribunals are the best option, but it would do you some good to at least admit that you can understand that it's a difficult legal area at best, and a situation that our legal system has never had to face before the introduction of international jihad. Believe it or not there are situations where there is compelling evidence on both sides and you can still stick to your position without coming across like a hot-headed radical just spewing nonsense.

There is a very real chance that we could wake up in the future and read a headline about a successful terrorist operation in Los Angeles and learn that they were able to cover their tracks and change tactics based on what they learned during the discovery process of a previous terrorist in an American court. It's not a situation where anyone enjoys seeing an erosion of rights, it's a situation where extending our rights to these individuals might actually help them harm us. That specific wrinkle is something that is foreign to the court system because, like I said before, it could mean bringing one person to justice ends up creating a situation where the government is actually working against the people by opening them up to greater threats. It turns the entire legal system upside down by making it an accessory to terrorism.

What's to stop a terrorist from willingly turning himself in just to gain intelligence gathering information? We could see "legal jihadists" in the future whose sole purpose it to sacrifice themselves in order to make their cell more effective in carrying out attacks. He could simply demand to see the evidence against him then through his lawyer hand over all of the information to his cell operating overseas. The laws were made at a time when that specific situation just wasn't possible.

If AG Eric Holder doesn't like his hand supposedly being forced he should resign in protest.The 9-11 trials only interfere with his now well-known crusade to help 'his people.'

The Mangaman - - - - "I am also proud of the American Founding Fathers."

Then maybe you are aware George Washington's administration held military tribunals.

And FDR would later call for military tribunals.

It's not like they started with Bush.

Yet another instance in which reality forces the Obama administration to follow the Bush administrations policies on terrorism. Obama wasted two full years for what? Some naive campaign pledge that he used to get elected but was rejected by even his own party. The people in charge of the US government are no more than babes in the woods - wandering aimlessly around looking for something to do and mumbling incoherently about a world they know nothing about.

So now President Obama has endorsed Bush's wire-tapping policy, is following Bush's Iraq draw-down timeline, followed Bush's surge strategy increasing troops in Afghanistan, and will put KLM and other terrorists on trial at Gitmo instead of New York. Obama said that tribunals were wrong and detestable but will go ahead with them anyway. At this rate, he will be water-boarding before the end of his first term.

Oh yeah - Eric Holder should resign as Attorney General. He has been putting the 9/11 families through hell for absolutely no reason.

Where did I say military tribunals started with Bush or anyone else? Who cares where they started? This is not a military case! Therefore, a military tribunal is NOT appropriate! That is the point? Why do you always want to make this about the who?

"This is not a military case! Therefore, a military tribunal is NOT appropriate!"

An attack on the Pentagon is not a military matter?????

The unfortunate truth is opponents of the decision could well cite minor cases whereas defendants can claim their Miranda Rights had been violated-- and was not served-- if these trials are conducted on a civilian court rather than a mil. tribunal. And that would have been very disrespectful to the families of those killed on 9/11.

But imagine the city-wide shutdown during the duration of these terror trials. The multimillion losses to small businesses, and the inconveniences to ordinary people of NYC.

HOLDER was probably more concerned of setting precedents--initially appeasing the human rights bunch, "while legal reps for the accused will almost certainly try to have charges thrown out--within the boundaries of legal court-- based on the rough treatment of the detainees at the hands of U.S. interrogators".

But I think in the end the people of New York was right to rebuff and complaint against holding these trials in their city.

An attack on the Pentagon is not a military matter?????

I second that. A recent parallel case would be the Lockerbie bombing civilian suit vs a foreign gov't (Libya). But as argued above, I think it's appropriate that these trials proceed under US mil. tribunals.

Miranda rights? Well maybe next time more care should be taken for crap's sake! If we have to read KSM his Miranda rights next time, its the cost of justice. But I don't think it stopped Aafia Siddiqui getting 80 plus years.

An attack on the Pentagon is not a military matter?????

Not one for a military tribunal, no. From wiki:

A military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings.

Come on. This is basic stuff here.

Why not just tell us what your real angle is, Manga? I suspect you believe less than half of what you really say...

Obama will be the one who signs the order to execute these murderers. Democrats need to get fully behind him on this.

Agreed, and let me quote from the senior Senator from NY before the announcement:

"The most logical, best place to start is the Justice Department (re. Khalid Sheikh MOHAMMED, etc). They haven‘t said if they are going to do it or not."

The Atty General have made the decision, and it would be crucial for Dems to support that decision.

Holder and Obama are so hopelessly out of touch.