Giuliani: 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Lead to More Terrorism

[rickjump1 0]

Giuliani: 9/11 Trials in NYC Will Lead to More Terrorism

Friday, November 13, 2009 10:09 PM

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani blasted the Obama administration on Friday for its decision to try five Sept. 11 suspects in New York, saying that such a trial would only encourage terrorists to target the city once again.


Earlier Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba would be transported onto U.S. soil to face justice in civilian court.


"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for that attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice," Holder said. "They will be brought to New York – to New York – to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.”


Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City at the time of the attacks, slammed the decision during an appearance on Fox News.


“I think this is a very dangerous decision, and an irresponsible one. And one that is absolutely unnecessary. Meaning, if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed couldn't be tried anywhere else but in New York, then of course New York would handle it and do it,” he said.


“New York is already a target for terrorists – we announce that every day and talk about it every day. To add something unnecessary to that makes no sense, and the president has made, I believe, an irresponsible decision.”


Other Republicans, like Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, and Rep. Peter King of New York, agreed with Giuliani, who said 9/11 “was an act of war. And one of the things I thought we learned from Sept. 11 was that we were in a state of denial before Sept. 11. We went through this once before – 1993. We had people, terrorists, attack the World Trade Center. We did not recognize it as an act of war. We tried them in the Southern District of New York. It did no good. We were attacked in Africa, we were attacked at those embassies in Africa, we were attacked on the USS Cole and then we had the worst attack in our history.


“And I hoped and prayed from that day on it would be the last Islamic terrorist attack in our history. And it was not the last, because a week ago we had another Islamic terrorist attack on our soil,” said Giuliani, referring to the shooting spree at Ford Hood, Texas, that left 13 people dead. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged in the attack, reportedly shouted “Allahu akbar!” (Arabic for “God is great!”) as he started shooting.


“Why this administration has trouble figuring that out when the man yelled out 'Allahu akbar' when he was murdering people – as a former prosecutor I find frighteningly incompetent,” Giuliani said.
...........................................................................

NYC is every terrorist's dream, and to pull something off during the trials of terrorists, what a prize: we look Stupid and they win again. If the terrorists are found innocent (fair trail and all), it will be just another sign of western weakness, and the attempts will continue.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

If the terrorists are found innocent (fair trail and all)

First of all it's extremely unlikely this will happen. An interesting statistic I heard was that, so far, the conviction rate is 100% for terrorists in the US public court system.

Second of all, I applaud the Obama administration for giving these 'people' a fair trial. Regardless of how I feel about these 'people' - everyone, no matter what, deserves a fair trial.

Now, when (and hopefully this turns out to be true) - they convict them and sentence them to the chamber, you won't hear a single complaint out of me.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Gawain 0]

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

F**king idiots. This isn't some criminal off the street. These are combatants off a battlefield. DA Holder and President Obama have set the stage for a circus.

The timing of the announcement is obvious, since the President is out of the country and it was a Friday morning.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

If the terrorists are found innocent (fair trail and all)

First of all it's extremely unlikely this will happen. An interesting statistic I heard was that, so far, the conviction rate is 100% for terrorists in the US public court system.

Second of all, I applaud the Obama administration for giving these 'people' a fair trial. Regardless of how I feel about these 'people' - everyone, no matter what, deserves a fair trial.

Now, when (and hopefully this turns out to be true) - they convict them and sentence them to the chamber, you won't hear a single complaint out of me.

Ian

No question these thugs should get a fair trail.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[yourmomma 0]

I agree these guys never received (nor should they) due process. Any judge doing his job will be forced to drop the charges.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

F**king idiots. This isn't some criminal off the street. These are combatants off a battlefield. DA Holder and President Obama have set the stage for a circus.

The timing of the announcement is obvious, since the President is out of the country and it was a Friday morning.

They committed an act of war against the United States so they are tried in a civil court? Bringing any detainees to the United States is not a good idea. The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be allowed to stay.

Circus or dog and pony show, and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

F**king idiots. This isn't some criminal off the street. These are combatants off a battlefield. DA Holder and President Obama have set the stage for a circus.

The timing of the announcement is obvious, since the President is out of the country and it was a Friday morning.

They committed an act of war against the United States so they are tried in a civil court? Bringing any detainees to the United States is not a good idea. The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be allowed to stay.

Circus or dog and pony show, and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

So, you're agreeing with me....right? As in, this is, so far, the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea to come from the White House...right?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

agree these guys never received (nor should they) due process.

I really can't agree with you there. If we start picking and chosing who gets due process - we're in for a hell of a ride.

Think about it: child molesters, murders, serial killers, terrorists?

These guys are not going to get away with it - don't let emotion cloud the issue.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

F**king idiots. This isn't some criminal off the street. These are combatants off a battlefield. DA Holder and President Obama have set the stage for a circus.

The timing of the announcement is obvious, since the President is out of the country and it was a Friday morning.

They committed an act of war against the United States so they are tried in a civil court? Bringing any detainees to the United States is not a good idea. The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be allowed to stay.

Circus or dog and pony show, and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

So, you're agreeing with me....right? As in, this is, so far, the single dumbest-idiotic-retarded idea to come from the White House...right?

Yes, I agree 100%. Sadly, it looks like a done deal. Hope this doesn't literally blow up in their faces. This shit isn't good for the country. Maybe BHO will invite his bedtime buddies: Chavez and Castro to view democracy in action.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[yourmomma 0]

I understand your contention. That being said, I truly believe these people are enemy soldiers. Geneva convention rules apply, not the rights and freedoms granted to civilians.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Geneva convention rules apply

Fair enough, but we don't follow those anymore either to the best of my knowledge.

Regardless, the stage has been set - all we can do is see how this all pans out. Personally, I'm optimistic that they'll see justice and, likely, the death penalty.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The first thing the defense will do is demand a drop of charges since they were never miranda-ized.

They don't have Miranda rights until they enter the US. They will be Miranda-ized as soon as they enter.

[billvon 2,464]

>The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be
>allowed to stay.

Sure, let them try.

>and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

I guess you can keep praying for that.

I'm glad they are being put on trial in the US. I disagree with you that our justice system is a "dog and pony show." I think it's a pretty good one, and 99 times out of 100 accomplishes the goal of enforcing our laws.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be
>allowed to stay.

Sure, let them try.

>and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

I guess you can keep praying for that.

I'm glad they are being put on trial in the US. I disagree with you that our justice system is a "dog and pony show." I think it's a pretty good one, and 99 times out of 100 accomplishes the goal of enforcing our laws.

Moussaoui's trial lasted four years...and he admitted to his role. That was a circus, not a trial. Now, they want to do it again, times-five...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,464]

>Moussaoui's trial lasted four years...and he admitted to his role.

Yep, and was found guilty, and will spend the rest of his life in prison. Do you disagree with that verdict?

[Andy9o8 0]

First: They're not terrorists, criminals, or enemy combatants who did something bad.. They're accused terrorists, criminals, or enemy combatants, who are accused of doing something bad.

There really are only 2 lawful options as far as I see it:
- Consider them prisoners of war, and subject them to the Geneva Convention, or
- Consider them criminal defendants, entitled to the Constitution protections and due process that any other person charged with assault, homicide and weapons charges would be entitled to.

There is no third category. This is crucial: it simply does not exist under American law.

In my professional, non-emotional opinion, this hybrid category of "enemy combatants", in which they get military tribunals subject to fewer Constitutional rights than you and I get, is completely unlawful and a violation of the US Constitution. Long-term history will eventually put those proceedings in the same category as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War (in which, for example, newspapers were shut down and their editors imprisoned without charge), and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

>The ACLU would gladly defend these thugs with the hope they would be
>allowed to stay.

Quote

Sure, let them try.

Quote

They will, and they might be successful

>and some terrrorist incident happens, this administration is done.

I guess you can keep praying for that.

Why would I pray for the death of innocent civilians Bill? You sad little person.

***I'm glad they are being put on trial in the US. I disagree with you that our justice system is a "dog and pony show." I think it's a pretty good one, and 99 times out of 100 accomplishes the goal of enforcing our laws.

Yeah, like enforcing immigration laws. You must have pulled those figures, like most of your emotional outbursts, right out of your ass. Your neighborhood organizer wants to showboat democracy to his pals. Once again, I'm sure Castro and Chavez will get a ringside seat.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

First: They're not terrorists, criminals, or enemy combatants who did something bad.. They're accused terrorists, criminals, or enemy combatants, who are accused of doing something bad.

There really are only 2 lawful options as far as I see it:
- Consider them prisoners of war, and subject them to the Geneva Convention, or
- Consider them criminal defendants, entitled to the Constitution protections and due process that any other person charged with assault, homicide and weapons charges would be entitled to.

There is no third category. This is crucial: it simply does not exist under American law.

In my professional, non-emotional opinion, this hybrid category of "enemy combatants", in which they get military tribunals subject to fewer Constitutional rights than you and I get, is completely unlawful and a violation of the US Constitution. Long-term history will eventually put those proceedings in the same category as Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War (in which, for example, newspapers were shut down and their editors imprisoned without charge), and the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.

We are at war with these thugs, therefore they have no protections under the constitution. People caught doing terrorist acts and not wearing any kind of uniform were usually shot without question in previous wars; what's the difference here.

In another light, were the Nuremberg defendents granted constitutional rights? Don't think so.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Moussaoui's trial lasted four years...and he admitted to his role.

Yep, and was found guilty, and will spend the rest of his life in prison. Do you disagree with that verdict?

If he admitted to doing it, why was there a trial at all, and why did it take four years???!!! THAT's my point...

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

We are at war with these thugs, therefore they have no protections under the constitution. People caught doing terrorist acts and not wearing any kind of uniform were usually shot without question in previous wars; what's the difference here.

In another light, were the Nuremberg defendents granted constitutional rights? Don't think so.

It's almost as if you're simply ignoring what I wrote. I'll try to answer; although I'm not willing to keep repeating myself.

>>We are at war with these thugs, therefore they have no protections under the constitution.

Sorry, you're simply wrong. An arrest is not a conviction. Your personal passion does not rule the day, so you don't get to decide guilt or innocence. That's why there are courts. And courts, if they are to be legitimate, cannot be mere rubber stamps of a presumption of guilt.

If they're charged with violation of criminal statutes they most certainly are entitled to the protection of the laws of the country they are charged with breaking. If they're being charged and tried by the United States, they're protected by the US Constitution. Either that, or they're prisoners of war subject to the Geneva Convention. Or if they're accused of war crimes under international law, the UN can set up tribunals to try them under international law, like the Yugoslav war crimes defendants. (Reference.) Your emotional reaction (see, "passion and clamor of the time", discussed below) does not negate any of that.

>>People caught doing terrorist acts and not wearing any kind of uniform were usually shot without question in previous wars; what's the difference here.

If/when that was done by American troops, it was in violation of American law, the US Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention, to the extent that those codes existed at the time. In any event, this is now; and past wrongs to not make a present right.

>>In another light, were the Nuremberg defendents granted constitutional rights? Don't think so.

See above re: "past wrongs." But don't just take my word for it. Read this:

Quote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_trials#Criticism

Chief Justice of the United States Harlan Fiske Stone called the Nuremberg trials a fraud. "(Chief US prosecutor) Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg," he wrote. "I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."

Associate Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas charged that the Allies were guilty of "substituting power for principle" at Nuremberg. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled," he wrote. "Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."

What you're engaging in is exactly "the passion and clamor of the time" that Justice Douglas was warning against. The post 9/11 passion and clamor should not rule the day - the rule of law should.

At this point, you either understand this, or you don't.

[shropshire 0]

P.S Nuremberg is not in the US of A so 'Their' Constitution does not apply.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rhys 0]

Quote

These guys are not going to get away with it - don't let emotion cloud the issue.

Differences of opinion aside, these people were tortured by the us government, reputedly waterboarded up to 183 times...

Now if someone is wholeheartedly confessing to such a crime, why would waterboarding be necessary?

It can never be confirmed beyond reasonable doubt now, that these guys are actually responsable, torture is enough for the case to be thrown out is it not?

The actions of those that ordered the torture of these men is unlawful and this trial will end up as a a trial to expose the real truths, of the American Terrorists.

I am glad, so much speculation and assumtion and bullshitting has gone down since 9/11 from both sides of the story.

This trial will be one of the testing trials of the legal system of the united states of america.

What happened at GTMO or what ever you abbreviate it as, will be exposed and used as evidence as all that is in the past now...

I bet Rudy Giuliani and his corrupt neo con mates will be shitting their pants.

Of course they are against the decision to have the trial there.


Rudy Giuliani Seems Quite Concerned About NYC 9/11 Trial -clicky-


How many years do you think this is going to take?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[TrophyHusband 0]

this has trouble written all over it.

first of all, i think the intention here is to put the bush administration on trial. many on the left want to see this, but it is being done at the risk of either letting these guys walk or making a mockery of our legal system.

if we are going to put them through our legal justice system, we have to follow the law. this means that if the the charges should be dropped, then we have to drop the charges. the rules for what evidence is allowed must be followed, etc. they also need to have an impartial jury. they need to get a fair trial. this is where you can shed some light on this andy. how do they get a fair trial? how do they find an impartial jury? if a judge should throw this case out for whatever reason, how does he do that? if he doesn't do what he's legally obligated to do, the whole trial becomes a farce. if he does throw it out, his life is in immediate danger.

i just hope that there is enough legally* obtained evidence to convict these guys.

*reguardless of whether or not it was "legal" at the time, i highly doubt any information gathered under "inhanced interigation techniques" will be allowed.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

P.S Nuremberg is not in the US of A so 'Their' Constitution does not apply.

Facepalm.

[rhys 0]

Quote

if we are going to put them through our legal justice system, we have to follow the law. this means that if the the charges should be dropped, then we have to drop the charges...

You're a genious bro!

Quote

i just hope that there is enough legally* obtained evidence to convict these guys.

So if he is proved innocent even though he is admitting guilt, via overwhealming evidence that they did not do it.

That would be bad?

Do you simply want closure without justice?

or do you want plain old justice?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix