[Op-Ed By Yossi Gestetner] The Obama Administration, NYC Boss Bloomberg, and Liberal bloggers say that terror suspects need to stand trial in NY because where else if not in the city they committed their crimes should the terrorists be brought to justice?
This – that the perpetrators should stand trial just blocks of where they committed their acts – is the main talking point that we hear from those who support bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to NY to stand trial in a civilian court. But if this is really the underlying reason for bringing KSM to NY, the Defense Department should set up a military commission in the pit at Ground Zero in a temporary building, and place KSM and his buddies to trial there. Why try KSM in a civilian court with all the rights that the court gives?
The answer is simple: bringing KSM to “the place of HIS crime” is NOT the real reason why he will get a day (perhaps years) in the civilian system; it’s just a tactic to get more people on-board this crazy plan by making them feel-good that the process is taking place “just blocks away” of ground zero. The real reason why KSM is being brought to NY is a dangers approach from President Obama and his team to go back to a pre-9/11 setting, and to “show the world” that we America try terrorists – who want to destroy the American way of life – the same way we treat regular American citizens.
One more thing: why do I keep hearing “the place of their crimes?” Using the word “the place of their terrorist acts” comes across more accurate.
NOTE: The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of YWN.
To contact the writer send an email to [email protected]
(Yossi Gestetner – YWN)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
8 Responses
Any defense attorney with any sense will move for a change of venue, and any judge with any sense will grant it. There will not be a trial in NYC, except possibly for a few preliminary motions.
That being the case, why bring them here in the first place?
I agree 100%. Right on!!!
They pleaded guilty allready, why put them on trial at all.
Let’s keep in mind that the USSC has twice already rejected the way the military tribunals are set up.Additionally, this gives the whole world, including those 9/11 deniers, an opportunity to see the transparency of the American legal system.
I actually applaud the decision.
According ammendment 7 and 14 all “persons” tried in the u.s have the right to a trial by jury of his peers. Military tribunals are only legal outside of the US. this is why guantanamo was created in the first place.
Are you afraid that a bunch of New Yorkers will be overly sympathetic with the terrorists? Is there any chance that after a decade in prison any secrets will emerge? Is there a concern that in an open trial, it will turn out their confessions were all faked and their only crime was hanging out with the Taliban after they were chased out of Saudi Arabia?
It is time for the US to show the world why they should prefer us to alQueda!!!
#6 akuperma – Did you ever think….
1. Maybe we’re afraid that they’ll get released on a technicality.
2. Did we read them their Miranda rights?
3. Will the publicity of their cases make it impossible for them to get a fair trial?
4. Wait, some of them will they get released and apply for permanent status here.
I’m sure a criminal defense attorney will find a lot more things they can throw at a wall and see if it sticks. This is insanity! Is this presidency all about finding favor in the eyes of the rest world or about protecting us???
You should join Obama on his next “I’m sorry the America is a horrible country, I apologize” tour.
There are practical reasons for choosing NY as the venue for the trial. The NY Federal Court has tried major terrorists before. It has experience in the legal issues, national security issues, as well as the basic security issues. It’s the most experienced court for trying alleged terrorists.
As for the question the “place of their crimes” is used because “terrorist” is a political designation. In a strange way, being a “terrorist” is better than being a “criminal:” you were a soldier in a war by other means.
The message: “You want to think you’re some sort of honorable fighter? You’re just a criminal who murdered a lot of innocent men and women.”