NYC mayor: No terror trial here

Another setback for the Obama administration: Unexpectedly, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has raised objections to the Justice Department’s plan to try accused 9/11 terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at a federal courthouse just blocks from where the World Trade Center stood. Bloomberg’s objections have nothing to do with concerns about trying KSM in a civilian court.

He says that the massive security would block traffic and harm businesses in an already-buy part of downtown Manhattan: the Wall Street corridor.

The dispute over a trial location, touched off when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York complained of costs and disruption, threatened to reopen the divisive question of how those accused of plotting the murder of more than 3,000 Americans should be brought to justice.

Republicans in the Senate and House said they would try to block financing for civilian criminal trials for the alleged terrorists, seeking to force the administration to place them on trial before a military commission in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, or on a military base elsewhere.

Opponents of civilian trials said they hoped new doubts about a New York trial and increased fears of terrorism since the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day would win more Democratic support for such measures.

The apparent collapse of what had seemed since November to be a settled decision to hold the trial in Lower Manhattan was clear when New York’s senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, said on Thursday that he was encouraging the Obama administration “to find suitable alternatives.”

Even though Bloomberg’s concerns have nothing to do with the controversy over trying KSM in a civilian court, nevertheless, his objections will give Republicans another reason to attack the Obama administration’s decision. In fact, the GOP has already signaled it will do so.

89 comments Add your comment

Turd Ferguson

January 29th, 2010
7:42 am

“Another setback for the Obama administration”

Set back after set back after set back after set back after set back. Obama was for quite some time the “golden boy” now he seems to step from one pile to the next.

TnGelding

January 29th, 2010
7:59 am

We can talk the talk but not walk the walk. Why not just let’em rot in jail awaiting trial? They wouldn’t be the first. I hope Obama doesn’t cave on this. But it would be expensive, and quite frankly we can’t afford it.

Rick Boyd

January 29th, 2010
8:00 am

You must be kidding me…your city is attacked again and you do not have the guts to have a trial
for your attackers ?
where is your backbone? cowards are the most pathetic people i know.

call new jersey….they will do your dirty work for you. new yorkers are spineless.

Bob

January 29th, 2010
8:17 am

Obama wants the public to see the trial,of Bush, he will cough up more money to cover it.

Joey

January 29th, 2010
8:24 am

I hope President Obama gives Bloomberg whatever it takes to persuade him to allow the trials in NYC. Not because I support Criminal Court Trials for these Terrorist, but because it will be just one more major and very public error by the Obama team.

Helen

January 29th, 2010
8:31 am

Finally someone is standing up the this so called President. It’s starting to sink home that Obama has never shown any evidence he was even born in the USA so is not legally President. This makes it difficult to follow him knowing his decisions will be null and void when he’s finally outed. We need real politicians like Sarah Palin who aren’t afraid to fight for important Constitutional issues like this.

Jethro

January 29th, 2010
8:35 am

The problem as I see it is that trying him in a federal courthouse provides rights afforded to
American citizens to a noncitizen. KSM has no respect for those rights; why should they apply to him?

Yes, there’s a point to be made in show casing American jurisprudence for all the world to see. KSM, however, did not commit a civil crime; he commited an act of war against a sovereign nation. A military court is a much more appropriate venue in which to try the charges. He hasn’t the rights afforded to American citizens.

quod erat demonstrandum

January 29th, 2010
8:45 am

It might be a setback for the administration, but it is a victory for the people of New York. Now they don’t have to pay for another boondoggle.

Since these slime balls did not commit a crime, but an act of war, the venue should be the military.
Then a quick trip to a dirt nap.

RicS

January 29th, 2010
8:58 am

POW’s have never been tried in Federal Court. Is Obama in bed with them?

One term’s looking good! | Orange Juice

January 29th, 2010
8:58 am

[...] the heat on bring terrorism to justice via New York City. The pressure from the governor and the mayor and others is so intense the President has ordered Justice to look for other places to hold the [...]

dom youngross

January 29th, 2010
9:00 am

The reality of LDO* is setting in, as evidenced by increasing awareness of the costs associated with him. It only took a year.

Even just another never-ending campaign visit by LDO to stop by somewhere in flyover USA, set up a photo op eating at a local burger joint and give another rah-rah speech can shut a city’s normal daily business and happenings down. Such was the case recently in Elyria, OH. School for the kids that day was cancelled — buses couldn’t run because of LDO’s visit. And it reportedly cost the city of Elyria around $20-30K through extra local security details. And that was just for a fly-by half-day in-out speeching by LDO. How much do PR stunts like that cost US taxpayers? Who knows. We should be asking though.

New York would be one big honking year-long porch light for terrorist moths should KSM be tried there in civilian court. Now that Bloomberg has nothing to gain by siding with sinking-ship LDO over a civilian trial for KSM in NYC, Bloomberg can default to what he should have done in the first place — look out for the best day-to-day interests of New Yorkers, meaning, try KSM elsewhere.

So take your pick. Claim that “Bloomberg’s concerns have nothing to do with the controversy over trying KSM in a civilian court” or claim that they do. The end result will be the same, because with LDO, it’s all about inevitably getting the bill for his self-aggrandizing and selectively-rewarding agenda — regardless of whether you recognize beforehand the size of that bill.

——————-

LDO* Lame Duck Obama

ATLshirt.com

January 29th, 2010
9:01 am

In our Court System, Money can buy the best lawyers.. and Money can buy your freedom.. would you really want him to be tried in our court system ??

Whacks Eloquent

January 29th, 2010
9:13 am

IMO, the trial should be held in an undisclosed location, in a dark room, with all of the participating members covering the majority of their heads, and with a large picture of the President sitting clearly visible behind the judge. Broadcast it on the internet…

joan

January 29th, 2010
9:14 am

Those terrorists should be dead by now, having confessed years ago.
But try them in military court, in Guantanamo. If Obama wants this whole spectacle to be a photo op, (which tends to be the only thing he really cares about) then it can be televised. I wouldn’t watch it.

Scout

January 29th, 2010
9:25 am

I say we have it here. Right next to the AJC building.

TnGelding

January 29th, 2010
9:28 am

It would be a non-event if handled properly. And New York knows how ti do it.

This is what I think

January 29th, 2010
9:29 am

Obama is a whack-o!

TnGelding

January 29th, 2010
9:29 am

He sure whacked the GOP! It’s about time a Dem stood up to the bullies!

resno2

January 29th, 2010
9:30 am

These pieces of garbage do not deserve to be afforded the same rights as those afforded to American citizens. They committed an act of war against the US, and should be tried accordingly in a Military court. After conviction they should be dropped into solitary confinement for life with nothing but a bible.

Peadawg

January 29th, 2010
9:36 am

Why not try them in a military court?

resno2

January 29th, 2010
9:46 am

no publicity for those involved.

Csquared

January 29th, 2010
9:52 am

I see we’re getting very reasonable points in this morning’s discussion and then there’s this: “We need real politicians like Sarah Palin who aren’t afraid to fight for important Constitutional issues like this.”
Sarah couldn’t spell constitution if she had a flash card, and who likes a QUITTER anyway? This commercial break brought to you by Corporate America, sponsors of your next Presidential election, now back to our regularly scheduled ranting session.

Turd Ferguson

January 29th, 2010
10:00 am

dom youngross

January 29th, 2010
9:00 am

Agreed…as Flounder would say “This is Great!!”

Intown Lib

January 29th, 2010
10:03 am

Why don’t they just try him in a less densely populated federal circuit?

So What, Who Cares?

January 29th, 2010
10:07 am

If the crime was committed in NYC, then the trial should be in NYC. Having the trial there does not make the city any more of a terrorist target, it already appears to be number 1 on their hit parade. Actually, I think it is pretty gutless of the city to be declining to bring the terrorist responsible for 9/11 to justice in the city of their crime. But that is how I picture NY, talk tough until they have to put up, then run like little girls on the playground when the hair pulling boys come around. Run, NY sissies, run.

sam

January 29th, 2010
10:09 am

funny, the first i heard of bloomberg’s concerns were on the radio yesterday. the way it was ‘reported’ was that even the mayor of nyc agrees that ksm should be tried by military tribunal. of course I have to read the paper to get the truth. funny how some radio folks twist things to fit their world view. it confuses me that people dont mind being lied to on a daily basis by their radio gods. of course if the lie fits their ideology, whats the difference?

So What, Who Cares?

January 29th, 2010
10:10 am

I agree C**2, Sarah is the worst possible candidate for the Republicans, she is ignorant, uninformed, highly opinionated, sure she is right in all things, and a religious fanatic from the far Christian right wing, not to mention a quitter. Lets hope the Republicans run her in the next election.

kayaker 71

January 29th, 2010
10:15 am

The greatest concern in this whole mess? Most of the evidence against this animal was obtained while waterboarding him and is not admissible in court. No judge would allow testimony on evidence obtained under “torture”. And what does that leave us? A confession obtained under other than politically correct methods would also be thrown out. Then throw in a hung jury because one person will not vote for a guilty verdict. I can see it now when the headlines read, ” Judge throws out case against KSM…. prisoner free to walk”. Another Bozo “setback”? I am surprised that Bozo would take the chance. Let’s see how his approval ratings survive this scenario.

ctucker

January 29th, 2010
10:16 am

Let’s not forget that Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in a federal court in Alexandria and convicted without incident. By the way, Jethro, you remember these words, don’t you: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Lori in Decatur

January 29th, 2010
10:21 am

Has anyone noticed that all Hannity ever has on his radio show are people like Helen who are “afraid” of how things are going, and who keep repeating what they hear him say on the radio and what their friends regurgitate in their fearful social circles? Radio talk show hosts thrive on building up these fears in their listeners, increasing dissent for whatever might change (even if it is ultimately for their own good), and putting the stupidest sounding persons on air, especially if they are women who are scared or if they are liberal with a certain dialect. Please God save me from Hannity’s followers!

sam

January 29th, 2010
10:34 am

dont worry lori they just bounce the same catch phrases and talking points back and forth off each other day after day…eventually they’ll bored.

Jess

January 29th, 2010
10:35 am

There is a lot of federal money to be made by lawyers in this case. With various estimates that the trial could last up to two years, some law firms will get rich. If he is tried in the military system private lawyers will not make any money. Its just pure coincidence that the firms being mentioned to handle his case are all very close to our attorney general Holder. One is even his ex employer. Wonder if this will go out for bids?

Also just named to a top spot in the justice department is one of the attorneys who defended Gitmo detainees. Think there may be a conflict of interest?

sam

January 29th, 2010
10:38 am

case in point lori…see jess’s comments

kayaker 71

January 29th, 2010
10:44 am

All men are created equal …. I think that this was meant to apply to Americans, not foreign combatants in a war. Or do you not believe that we are at war? When you infuse our judicial system with foreigners who want our head on a pole and allow them the same rights as Americans, you have certainly stretched the word equal, Cynthia.

Lori in Decatur

January 29th, 2010
10:50 am

But that is my personal rant…thank you for indulging me. With respect to Cynthia’s op ed, I reviewed a great Newsweek article on whether Obama is delivering on his campaign promises. Out of his top 16 promises, he is still working on 14, compromised one 1 and broken one. One that he is still working on pertains to terrorists and how they should be tried.

Obama “will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S. to circumvent Geneva Conventions in the handling of detainees. He will develop a fair and thorough process based on the Uniform Code of Military Justice to distinguish between those prisoners who should be prosecuted for their crimes, those who can’t be prosecuted but who can be held in a manner consistent with the laws of war and those who should be released or transferred to their home countries.”

I for one still support him and remain loyal. I think he is correct in developing a fair process for these “alledged” terrorists. I abhored Cheney and Bush for allowing torture to elicit confessions. I believe that New York, or Chicago or whatever American city is deemed fit should host these trials. Please Obama proceed with your plans!

Joey

January 29th, 2010
10:52 am

Cynthia:
What behavior would result is someone forfeiting some of those unalienable rights, like liberty and life?

resno2

January 29th, 2010
10:59 am

“Host these trials”? What is this, putting out a bid similar to the Olympics? These animals do not deserve the same ‘rights’ unalienable, or otherwise, as those of the people they helped slaughter.

RAMBLE ON!!!

January 29th, 2010
11:06 am

Um, I guess the 400 to 500 million dollars to try this Terrorist isn’t a factor, eh Cindy?

funny, no mention of the cost.

sam

January 29th, 2010
11:15 am

“Um, I guess the 400 to 500 million dollars to try this Terrorist isn’t a factor, eh Cindy?
” haaaa, hhhaaaaaa, hhaaaa…..

Ridgerunner

January 29th, 2010
11:25 am

Ms. Tucker:

Let’s just suppose for the fun of it that green “Martians” landed in Cleveland, Ohio (correction, let’s make that Washington, D.C. starting on your street) and began eating people alive.

Do they have Constitutional rights?

ctucker

January 29th, 2010
11:26 am

Ramble on, you’re so far out of line that you are banned.

ctucker

January 29th, 2010
11:29 am

That’s what our framework of laws is all about, Joey — a system to determine when people have forfeited those rights. As for costs, do you think killing KSM on the battlefield would have been cheaper? WArs are extremely expensive. The cost of maintaining a US soldier in Afghanistan for a year is about $500,000, according to the Pentagon. Now, mob justice is cheap — at least in financial terms. But it is extremely expensive in terms of our reputation. Does reputation matter? Yes, it does — if we want other nations to cooperate with our war on al-Qaida.

Kevin

January 29th, 2010
11:33 am

Cynthia, regarding your comment back to Jethro-

Do you believe that, an American citizen subject to the Constitution, US citizens extend the rights and responsibilities contained in the Constitution to all non-citizens? I’ve never thought about it that way, and I’m not sure I agree with it.

It surely sounds like a nice thing to do for humanity, but being is American citizen (and the benefits/responsibilities associated therewith) is a priviledge; not a right.

resno2

January 29th, 2010
11:33 am

Zacarias Moussaoui, isn’t he the one’s whose attempt to kill Americans failed? Just like this clown in Detroit? He should have been tried in Military court too, just like captain underpants should be, but there’s a difference. They only tried to kill people. For those that succeeded there should be no question.

ctucker

January 29th, 2010
11:33 am

That is fun, Ridgerunner. Suppose, instead, that they got stranded in our space, sick and hungry, and we put them in ghettoes. like in District 9

ctucker

January 29th, 2010
11:37 am

Kayaker 71, constitutional scholars argue about what the framers meant, but many say they meant all people, not just Americans. As for people who want to kill us, we helped put Nazis on trial at the Hague. What’s so different about al-Qaida?

Ridgerunner

January 29th, 2010
11:37 am

Ms. Tucker:

You didn’t answer my question. I’m still waiting.

However, I will answer yours. If they were peaceful, we should do our best to take care of them and then send them on their way. I don’t want them on welfare or voting Democrat.

Lori in Decatur

January 29th, 2010
11:39 am

my apologies ms. tucker for stooping to their level…you may delete my Hannity post if you like.

Scout

January 29th, 2010
11:40 am

Headline: “On the eve of the fullest moon of the year, NASA scientists are told they will no longer be able to visit, as Obama eliminates space program’s manned moon missions.”

Question: Has a black man ever been to the moon? Maybe Obama would like to go?

This is what I think

January 29th, 2010
11:41 am

You think Repubs are bullies . . . just who is shoving the healthcare bill down the throats of Americans (not to mention all their other RADICAL policies)! I’d say that tells everybody who the “bullies” are. I think Chicago should “host” the trial!