Comments on: New York Is Tough Enough for Terrorist Trials (Guest Voice)

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:06:47 +0000

Yeh, well, we will have disagree about your interpretation of Holder's motives and his answer.
And, puhleez, if Holder is “not a politician”, then, I am Jiminy Cricket

By: merkin

merkin — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 22:39:38 +0000

"You and Holder ducked (ahem) the Kyl question."

No, I didn't . I said --

"I think one of the primary reasons Holder decided to try these people in the United States Criminal Courts was uncertainty over the outcome of the mandated appeals after the military tribunals."

" . some tribunals are going ahead where he doesn't have strong enough evidence for criminal court."

Holder would duck this question because someday he or another United States Attorney has to stand in front of the United States Supreme Court and argue that the military tribunals are without a doubt constitutional. And they will not want the opposing attorney to say that in sworn testimony Mr. Holder answered a question from John Kyl saying that he was so concerned about the constitutionality of the military tribunal system that he decided to try as many cases in criminal court as possible where they had firm enough evidence to prosecute there. This means the United States Attorneys office not only wasn't sure of the constitutionality of the tribunals but also felt that the evidence against my client was so weak that they couldn't prove his guilt in criminal court.

Holder is a prosecuting attorney, not a politician. He has to answer questions about pending prosecutions very carefully to avoid tainting his case. John Kyl can make up any random thing he wants to and get his face on the nightly news and applause from the partisans.

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:43:56 +0000

You and Holder ducked (ahem) the Kyl question.

By: merkin

merkin — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:27:54 +0000

I think one of the primary reasons Holder decided to try these people in the United States Criminal Courts was uncertainty over the outcome of the mandated appeals after the military tribunals. They have been twice to the Supreme Court and both times thrown out. The Court said they have to come back again. He is not trying to remove the stain of Bush, some tribunals are going ahead where he doesn't have strong enough evidence for criminal court. He is trying all of these cases in the best venue to get convictions, which is, after all, his job. And something his predecessors didn't get done.

By: dduck12

dduck12 — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:59:46 +0000

Just can't win Department: Bush started the war in Iraq for the wrong reason, and I agree with that.
What I don't agree with, is having the KSM trial in NYC, and no I am NOT a conservative. However, I do have common sense. This is being done for the wrong reasons.
Holder mumbled something about KSM's present thinking when Sen. Kyl nailed him with: how is this a better venue when you got a guy who would plead guilty in a military court (and save 75mil) and take the death penalty?
Another wrong reason, just like Bush's, a trial against the Bush administration to make some Dems happy.
And, I live in Manhattan, so get outa my face.

By: DLS

DLS — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:10:28 +0000

There really isn't fear and whining, of course. Criticism has been correct: This is an emotionally-oriented PR stunt, and likely is a perverse political maneuver to appear to be “cleansing the Bush stain” to satisfy extremists here and protestors abroad (all of whom should be ignored, at best). Seeking a change of venue is obvious to any defense, as well as introducing the specter of torture. (Was this also perversely sought by the Obama administration, in a “safe” manner that would still permit conviction? Probably.)

Far more important, and the real (as opposed to bogus) example of fear and whining, and more (worse), is the fearful and NIMBY posturing against relocating the terrorism suspects from Cuba to the USA, by Dems often as well as Republicans (who also want to obstruct progress by the Obama administration as an end in itself). This includes Michigan, where Standish was a national-class example and embarrassment (though shared by other sites). Obama actually did the right thing in seeking a solution, and to house them in Chicago (with pork-stimulative hints, as well as likely PR appeal). I suspect that once there is a (first) site chosen in the USA, the money going there will induce the NIMBYs and the other obstructionists in Michigan and elsewhere to possibly reconsider their positions and even express anger that their own states were slighted by Obama “favoritism” (maybe so, but where were all of you?).

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:33:22 +0000

Good editorial! The fear and whining about trying a terrorist in NYC strikes me a just that. Are we a nation of ninnies now? I'd like to think Americans are a bit tougher than that – and have more faith in their justice system. As for Bogart's reply to the Nazi major, the advice would easily apply to many areas in my home state of Michigan as well. Heck, I'm not sure I even know anyone here who doesn't own at least one gun… much less several.