Spokane7
25°
Have we really come to this? Both the President and the Attorney General have stated, Question: Do you have concerns re: the possible unfairness or location of this trial?
unequivocally, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and his co-defendants will be found guilty and executed. What an appalling statement. It’s not just the fear a lot of Americans have about these terrorists being brought to New York City to be tried in Federal Court. It’s what the rest of the world is seeing. The reason behind this faulty exercise is to showcase how wonderful our justice system is. How the United States is the shining beacon on the hill of fairness. Well, perhaps at one time. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? Even the most heinous of criminals, those we know are guilty, are given that right/Dogwalk Musings. More here.
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
Stickman on November 19 at 6:23 p.m.
I guess I must have a moment of silence here, though I don’t know why. If I had my way, and a rifle, I would solve this problem, though I may fear the wrath of many of you.
Stickman on November 19 at 6:29 p.m.
And since you all know that I would never again own a weapon, I guess you will have to take that as my answer to all this.
JamesBond on November 19 at 7:06 p.m.
The irony of moving the trial into a federal court in New York City and having the Chief Executive and Attorney General make these comments, under the banner of some amorphous, partisan-ized concept of fairness, is not lost on me. A complete joke.
sue on November 19 at 7:09 p.m.
If only this had been handled correctly from the start. Therein lies our current dilemma. Were they war criminals?, and if so, from what country? Are they free-lancing warriors waging an incomprehensible war against innocent US citizens? I think it’s finally sinking in that it’s the latter. We can’t impose sanctions against any country for sponsoring these individuals, and it doesn’t fit our definition of military justice. They ought to have been tried years ago. But they languished, without due process, and if the US is about anything, it’s due process. Sadly, many horrific crimes go on all around us, and we only have to turn on the news to see it, and become depressed. If our courts can handle the likes of duncan, it can handle the likes of the gitmo detainees. Trying to skirt our constitution leaves the door open for justified criticism. The president ought not to have said what he did, in my opinion, but it was drivien by the partisan politics that divide us all. Republicans are afraid to try them on US soil? How is it different than a military trial wherever it’s held? Isn’t that giving in to the fear mongering they’re trying to foster? Let’s just get it all over with, and stop the assault on all our rights.
Bigguy on November 19 at 7:57 p.m.
Let’s try them in Hardin, MT.
Me on November 19 at 8:33 p.m.
Sue - the last administration, in my opinion, was at a loss too - doesn’t make it better, or worse, just that it was left for the next administration. So now they will get flak because they are taking action. Previous will get flak for NOT taking action. It’s a a lose -lose.
I too have been very bugged by people saying things like “it will be good to try them here and they will be found guilty I’m sure”. We are SO used to hearing innocent until proven guilty that to hear those kinds of things from high up officials takes one aback. But I can understand that they are in a very strange position - defending bringing them here and at the same time reassuring us that justice will be done (in the way that we want it to).
spokelooneh on November 19 at 8:41 p.m.
There’s no such thing as “innocent until proven guilty.”
There is a legal construct where-by before a court of law, the accused is PRESUMED innocent until proved guilty or pleading out. Big difference.
In any case, this is a pretty messed up situation all around.
As as friend of mine said:
“In fact, the “confessions” of guilt are already in place so why a trial? All they need is to stage a public sentencing and a handy gallows, headman’s ax, firing squad or medical recliner for lethal injections.
Script:
scene 1: sentencing,
scene 2: public televised execution (variety of methods)
scene 3: fireworks,
scene 4: dancing in the streets, shooting off guns in celebration.
If the lawyers wear neckties, the whole world will understand that we’re not barbarians.”
brentandrews on November 19 at 9:50 p.m.
I appreciate Dogwalk’s sense of fairness.
Nick_Adams on November 20 at 1:21 a.m.
This is a great move by our President. Of course, the Attorney General is a prosecutor so his statements are spot-on. However, I find it odd that conservatives, who were content leaving these terrorists in limbo and never formally prosecuted, are now screaming/whining/crying about the process that will finally bring them to justice.
Conservatives=hypocrites.
Ninch on November 20 at 7:14 a.m.
Uh… “conservatives” is an ideological term (albeit irrelevant) used to politicize and polarize discussions about terrorists/Gitmo. Note that after several higher court decisions against the Bush administration’s version of military tribunals (which was the real hold-up), Congress passed bi-partisan legislation to “fix” the problems and thus military courts are ready to go. In fact, the Obama administration will be using these military courts to try others. There is not doubt that using the federal civilian court in New York to try the 9-11 terrorists is based on political motivation. And as already posited, the real hypocrites are those (e.g. Obama) who want to “display” American justice but guarantee death for these terrorists. (And does not that also guarantee martyrdom for these guys?)
P.S. Such shallow polarizing statements above regarding “the great move by our President” also denigrates the large number of families of 9-11 victims who strongly disagree with the New York venue. Again the term “conservatives” is irrelevant and the term “hypocrites” was misdirected based on ignorance of the facts.
Sisyphus on November 20 at 7:36 a.m.
This is a curious move by the administration and one that causes me no small amount of consternation. The idea that these defendants, denied due process for years and subjected to repeated ‘rendition’, can now be accorded a semblance of the ‘fairness’ inherent in our constitutional system by trying them near the scene of the crime seems counter intuitive. I expect the very first motion will be to change venue, but where in America could they get an impartial jury? Voir dire alone could take months. I disagreed with the whole concept of Gitmo and military tribunals to begin with but once that process was settled, the procedural die was cast. I’ll be curious to read more about the thought process that got us to this point.
Cabbage Boy on November 20 at 8:16 a.m.
Great point in the original article. I saw that statement and thought, wow, why have a trial? Pretty careless statement by our president.
redman on November 20 at 8:38 a.m.
We are all Hypocrites Nick Adams, you as much as the next person. That’s life
redman on November 20 at 8:42 a.m.
The concept of treating these people as American citizens is ridiculous. Simple formula that should have been followed. Capture, Jail, Military Tribunal, Sentencing, carrying out of sentence.
Let me see does it violate the ALLEGED terrorist’s constitutional rights to be plucked out of a combat zone without correct extradition papers, then flown with a bag on their head to Gitmo and held. What a can of worms President Obama and his lackey Holder have put on the American justice system.
Perhaps we should OR these guys in New York during their trial. Maybe they can go spend the night at your house Nick.
redman on November 20 at 8:44 a.m.
I find myself in agreement with Sisyphus yet again. BTW sis how is the back doing?
Norther on November 20 at 8:56 a.m.
What I guess I don’t understand is how we are going to try them in our justice system and they weren’t mirandized. Sounds like a simple open/shut dismissal of charges.
Phaedrus on November 20 at 8:58 a.m.
Where was the outrage and fear over trying a terrorist in civilian court on US soil when Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted, sentenced and executed? What is different this time?
Norther on November 20 at 9:00 a.m.
the difference was Timothy McNutcase was an American Citizen
Phaedrus on November 20 at 9:04 a.m.
Northerner, true. But I imagine that we put non-American citizens on trial in this country all the time, right? Illegal immigrants? So why the fear factor? We tried and convicted the Blind Sheik for bombing the WTC.
Norther on November 20 at 9:07 a.m.
Phaedrus, I think the problem I have with this is that due process was not followed from the beginning. I am not enlightened enough to know whether this should have been a strictly military matter or a civil/criminal one, but I do know it is not a good thing to mix the two.
If we are going to give civil rights in the way of a jury trial, then due process would have to have been served throughout the investigation, etc.
As the rules were not followed, this is a defense attorney’s dream. No Miranda, No conviction.
poolman on November 20 at 9:15 a.m.
This is a very interesting debate for lots of reasons. If a terrorist is involved in a plot to cause devastation on US soil what difference does it make if that person is Islamic or some anti-government redneck. I personally don’t see it as a “military” situation and I don’t see place of birth, race or country of origin as being a factor in the judicial process.
I’m most interested in who is against a trial in a US federal court. This is the first trial of any alleged conspirator of the 9/11 tragedy. I’m interested to see what information comes out. Who really was involved? What stones can they turn over to provide more information on what really happened? I think there are people in our government that are nervous as hell about what might come out. Look at the botched explanation that was given by the NIST for the collapse of the towers, particularly 7 World Trade Center or why NORAD had ZERO protection over the entire Eastern seaboard for a convenient 4 hour window that morning. I predict these guys never make it to trial.
Removing tinfoil hat now…
MatthewRoot on November 20 at 9:15 a.m.
“The concept of treating these people as American citizens is ridiculous.”
They are not being treated as American citizens. They are being treated as people who committed a federal crime on American soil.
Mirandized or not, evidence can still be brought to trial to prove him guilty. We don’t need his confession to prove him guilty.
Norther on November 20 at 9:21 a.m.
As obtuse as this makes me sound, I wish the whole doggone thing had been handled by the Marines in a battlefield trial. No Muss No Fuss.
But I know they wanted information or some such stuff.
Just sayin it would have been easier if the men in the brown boots dealt with it.
redman on November 20 at 9:44 a.m.
Great Chip, so we can sign you and your family up for the Islamic Terrorist host family and parole program?
Phaedrus on November 20 at 9:48 a.m.
Redman, yesterday you won the coveted Pirate Award and today you garner the Jump the Shark trophy. Why do conservatives hate logic?
redman on November 20 at 12:18 p.m.
Phaedrus I wont read too much in to the Pirate award and I like shooting more than jumping so it should be shoot the shark award. Anyway you do bring a good point up that I did not think of …the blind sheiks trial did take place on US soil.
redman on November 20 at 12:19 p.m.
Again logic says Capture, Jail, Military Tribunal, Sentencing, carrying out of sentence.
Whippersnapper on November 20 at 10:00 p.m.
Following our rules of evidence in a trial, any evidence taken without Miranda, without a lawyer present, through torture or via hearsay will be thrown out. If that leaves the prosecutors empty-handed, Holder and the administration will have some heavy questions to answer.