This stupid Obama/Holder trial against "alleged" terrorists will hurt downtown

So you think you are smarter than Michael Mukasey? Actually, I had better grades in school than Obama. Smart has nothing to do with it. This is a product of his far-left political philosophy, which in my opinion can do a lot of harm to this country.

I'll take this slow for you. youtube is a website with videos of various things. Some of those things, like a video of a leading economist discussing the Obama administration's economic policies, is substantive and on point to a discussion about those economic policies.

I really didn't think that would be hard to understand, but given that you just argue stupid points for no reason, I see that it is a little too difficult for you.

Obama is very intelligent, so was Jimmy Carter. Being president is more about having the highest IQ. There are plenty of morons with PHD's from Harvard,Yale etc who can't even tie their shoe laces.

LICC, your love affair with RS seems relatively new. i do believe you missed some very fine youtube moments.

good to see you have someone to converse with. you seemed so lonely for so long.

correction

Obama is very intelligent, so was Jimmy Carter. Being president is more THAN having the highest IQ. There are plenty of morons with PHD's from Harvard,Yale etc who can't even tie their shoe laces.

speaking of YCC...

Obama is really into constitutional law. It's a bit hard to understand for FauxNews-hang-them-by-their-balls-24-style people, but I respect that. In the long term, our Constitution is the thin line between a democracy and hell on Earth. Mistakes were made, and things are hopelessly fucked up. Fine, how do get up and dust ourselves?

Interesting point about Obama and constitutional lawyer. I can only surmise the politics of Guantanamo and his coalition with the left is getting in the way. That and he's definitely trying to change the focus of u.s. relationships in ways that may not be entirely positive.

I get where this was going to start but I don't know where this is going now the last 50 posts. Is Columbiacounty a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer?

@columbiacounty
so...really pissed..what would you do? public lynching?

Can you explain how this can possibly be a criticism? How is a public lynching of the people who conspired to fly planes into our World Trade Center, and the resultant deaths and damage and wars and hell that we are in ... how is that a bad thing?

I think the military commission option is the right one since this is a war act and we just don't need it here either. There is not a reason to reward terrorists and hurt New Yorkers again.

As a New Yorker, I'd like to see Kahil, Osama et al be given a choice between burning up or jumping 100 stories. As an American, I know what makes us superior is our constitution, laws and system of justice. Sucks but it is what we stand for. Just as people die in the name of what they believe, so does America have to live with our belief in trials etc even if it hurts us. That being said, and I know this is 1005 hypocritical, they just better not be found innocent. Or maybe they should be. And let go scott free with no protection in downtown Manhattan. I'm sure the NYPD, PAPD, various other New Yorkers of all races, religions and walks of life from messengers to masters of the universe would make sure their "freedom" was as long and pleasant as deserved.

One question about having the trial here. If I'm (God forbid) a defense attorney, isn't my first move going to be a change of venue? Not that these people are loved anywhere in the US but it is different in New York. Even if we didn't know anyone who was killed (and I'm guessing most people did I know I did), just looking out down at an empty hole in the skyline continues to an open and painful wound.

Military Tribunal under Geneva Convention rules is in keeping with international law. Compare that to Al Qaeda treatment of Daniel Pearl

I don't know lizyank we can't save the world and our constitution isn't for the whole world. I don't believe in torture and water boarding and etc. but I don't believe that they should have the same rights as us.

haven't read this thread, but find it Hi-Larious that Obama has 7 wks left to "close Guantanamo". calendar is marked. looking forward to rubbing it in to anyone who will listen.

dexmorgen: so you figure i'm a terrorist? do you want to lynch me as well?

glassem: so you advocate a public lynching. where, when and how?

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Your support and determination helped the ACLU win an important first step for justice today.

In a victory for due process and the rule of law, the Obama administration just announced that the defendants charged in connection with the 9/11 attacks will be tried in federal court rather than in the Guantánamo military commissions.

It's an important step forward towards restoring core American values of justice and fairness. Unfortunately, it is accompanied by an announcement that the administration has chosen to prosecute some other Guantánamo detainees in the unsalvageable military commissions system.

You and the ACLU have stood together and insisted, if America is going to remain a nation of laws, those held at Guantánamo Bay must have their fair day in court.

Today's transfer of these high-profile cases is a significant step forward, and we are grateful for the leadership of Attorney General Holder and the Obama administration. At the same time, we must insist that justice cannot be served by trying any detainees in the discredited military commissions system.

Send Attorney General Holder a message of support for an important step forward, and urge him to try all terrorism suspects in our tried and true courts.

The ACLU has argued all along that our federal courts have proven to be fully capable of handling terrorism cases involving sensitive national security information while protecting the American values of justice and due process.

Through the ACLU's John Adams Project, a joint effort with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), we have provided legal assistance to today's transferees. We've sought to raise awareness of the serious deficiencies of the Guantánamo military commissions. And we've succeeded in stopping the military commissions from fast-tracking illegitimate guilty verdicts and subsequent death sentences.

The ACLU continues to call for the abolition of the deeply-flawed military commissions and to insist that holding any prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial flies in the face of fundamental American ideals. Justice can only be served in our tried and true courts. While today's announcement is a step in the right direction, we can't let up until all of the Guantánamo detainees are given fair trials.

Send Attorney General Holder a message of support for an important step forward, and remind him that justice can only be served in our tried and true courts.

With today's announcement that the 9/11 detainees' cases will be transferred to federal courts, the ACLU/NACDL John Adams Project will be formally discontinued. However, the ACLU will continue to fight for a fair and constitutional resolution of all detainees' cases.

Thank you for the support that has made today's forward progress possible—and for standing with the ACLU until Guantánamo is closed, the military commissions are shut down and indefinite detention is brought to an end.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union

fmr. AG Michael Mukasey slammed Attorney General Holder for his decision to bring key 9/11 plotters to New York for trial. Holder's plan "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried," said Mukasey.

Mukasey Fears Attacks on New York During Trial of 9/11 Defendants
By JESS BRAVIN
WASHINGTON -- Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the decision to try the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in criminal court represented a turn from the Bush administration's war footing to a "Sept. 10, 2001" mentality.

"The plan seems to abandon the view that we are involved in a war," Mr. Mukasey said in remarks to the Federalist Society, a conservative lawyers network meeting at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

By bringing the alleged Sept. 11 conspirators to New York, the Obama administration risks making the city "the focus of mischief in the form of murder by adherents of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Mr. Mukasey said.

In addition, he said that trying the defendants in federal court risks disclosure of intelligence secrets.

"I can't see anything good coming out" of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision, Mr. Mukasey said.

As a federal district judge, Mr. Mukasey presided over the criminal trial stemming from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Although the defendants were convicted, Mr. Mukasey has said the experience persuaded him that federal courts were not equipped to handle sensitive terrorism trials.

Other judges disagree. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, who presided over the trial of "millennium bomber" Ahmed Ressam, has said that the federal courts could handle the security requirements of such cases.

Responding to an audience question, Mr. Mukasey said that if the defendants were to be tried anywhere in the U.S., the Southern District of New York, where he once served as chief judge, was the best venue.

"I'm a partisan of the Southern District of New York," he said. "I know of no jurisdiction" where the prosecutors and judges were better prepared to deal with hardened terror suspects.

Mr. Mukasey, President George W. Bush's third attorney general, also said he had confidence in the federal lockup in Manhattan, the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

"The MCC is a very secure place," he said. "They're not going to escape."

Former AG Mukasey: Terror Cases Don't Belong in Federal Court
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey this afternoon criticized the Justice Department for its decision to prosecute five terror suspects in federal district court in Manhattan, calling the move "unwise" and saying it risks creating sweeping new law that will affect routine criminal cases.

Mukasey, speaking at the Federalist Society annual conference in Washington on Nov. 13, said the prosecution of terror suspects in civilian courts poses a significant challenge to the criminal justice system. Cases against Guantanamo Bay detainees, he said, were not investigated with the expectation that prosecution would happen in federal courts, with their stringent procedural and evidentiary rules.

The Justice Department announced this morning that five detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, will be prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The security of judges, prosecutors, jurors and courthouses, Mukasey said, will be a chief concern. He warned that Manhattan could become a target for “mischief” among the followers of the defendants.

He said he is confident unbiased jurors can be found. “That part of the process I have great faith in. It’s the rest of it that worries me,” said Mukasey, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton in New York.

“Here again, the plan seems to be to abandon the view that we are involved in a war” and return instead to a pre-Sept. 11 criminal justice model, said Mukasey, a former judge in the Southern District of New York himself. He spoke for about 15 minutes and took questions afterward. He is a member of the Federalist Society. (“If I had to be at any venue today after what was announced this morning, I’m glad it’s this one,” he said.)

The prosecution of terror suspects should occur at the Guantanamo Bay facility, he said. “That such a trial might actually be seen by the American public and the rest of the world as both fair and successful appears not to have occurred to anyone in authority,” Mukasey said.

The Obama administration has pledged to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. A Jan. 20 deadline, however, is unlikely to be met. Mukasey said the decision to prosecute defendants in federal court “appears to have resulted simply from a commitment” to close Guantanamo.

And Sen. James Webb (D) said Friday that the Sept. 11 suspects "do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons." Webb, a former secretary of the Navy, said the civilian trials "will be disruptive, costly and potentially counterproductive."

Peter King, a Republican Congressman from New York, said the decision makes the city more of a target.

WSJ: Most Americans can overlook the legal niceties and see this episode through the lens of common sense. Foreign terrorists who wage war on America and everything it stands for have no place sitting in a court of law born of the values they so detest. Mr. Holder has honored mass murder by treating it like any other crime.

Liz,

I was in NYC on 9/11, spoke on the phone with someone at Sandler O'Neil on the 101st floor of the 2nd tower, after the first plane hit but before the 2nd hit. I still have nightmares where I think I should have told him to leave. But how could I have known there was a 2nd plane coming? He left a wife and 2 young children.

I have never killed anyone, but would pull the trigger in a firing squad on this guy, with no regrets whatsoever. Yes, we have a legal system, but someone should have just put a bullet in his head. I think there would be no shortage of NYers willing to pull the trigger.

how about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? bullet to the head? no trial?

Our whole system is too good for these guys.

Modern...Count me among those who would gladly pull the trigger, flick the switch etc etc. With absoultely no regrets. I was thinking today that I hope they don't get a sentenced to death as that will probably mean they get "put to sleep" by needle like a sick cat. No I'd rather see them get a prision term, with the stipulation they be put in the general population...want to bet the Bloods, Crips, Ayran Brotherhood, Latin Kings etc "cooperate" really quickly?

The fact that these mf's deserve a gruesome death and that I would participate willing in delivering sentence does not change the fact that they should be tried--Goebbels and Goering sat at the bar of justice and they were equally dispicable figures. (Although I have to say even though I had relatives killed in the Holocaust, as a New Yorker of the late 20th-21st century, I bear even more hatred for the 9/ll plotters than I do the Nazis.) Did you see the Post headline today "Welcome To New York, Now Die"...that about sums it up for me.

Nah they arent welcome in New York. Don't need it here. Guantanamo is ideal, keep them there till execution.

We convicted Zacarias Moussaoui - it took 4 years and he plead guilty - what a waste of tax payer money and government resources. This is going to get ugly. Do we really think the Muslim extremists are going to think that we're a fair and great country once these guys are convicted? Heads we lose, tails we lose.

No but the Europeans will tell us that we are civilized and that will make Obama feel good.

We find this decision by Holder unfortunate. These evil people should have been disposed of quickly. Prolongating this for New Yorkers is a horrible torture by our government.

"It's a bit hard to understand for FauxNews-hang-them-by-their-balls-24-style people,.. In the long term, our Constitution is the thin line between a democracy and hell on Earth."

Uh, and where exactly does the Constitution provide for criminal trials extending the rights of U.S. citizens to foreign enemies? And if that is the standard, does that mean that Wilson and Truman were war criminals after the first and second world wars? Be consistent - if Obammy's right, they were wrong. Do you really think that Hermann Goering should have been brought to the U.S. for a civilian trial? How about Himmler? Tojo?

Dare I say it? Tea party! I'd like some change: ditch the political correctness, which will ultimately destroy this country; IMO, PCness has already destroyed the UK. Stop the bail outs, gov lives on a budget & stop taxing everything that moves or doesn't move. I want small responsible government & self responsible citizens. Power to the people, not the gov.

And, I reiterate: As per the 9/11 hearings: Holder is one of the people who created the Chinese Wall which inhibited communication bet CIA & FBI re: terrorism on US soil. Basta!!

Lets bring Holder to New York for a Town Hall meeting to explain to New Yorkers why he thinks New York should go through this or why these terrorists are deserving of being on "stage" as the New York Times describes the trial. How about 3 hours in each Boro. In Manhattan we can do it uptown.

but all you want to do is scream at him and tell him that he's an asshole. you have no interest in anything he might say and have already decided how you feel about this.

That's the Tea Baggers answer to everything. "Let's have a Town Hall & scream at the top of our lungs at the politician who shows up. Yeah that will help America, THAT will solve our problems. Just yell, scream and throw a fit like a 4 year old when he doesn't get his way. Yeah now THAT is how you run a country and I know it is because Glen Beck told me so."

Yeah that's right, you don't like Glen Beck who has nothing to do with anything here whatsoever, so to get back at Glen and George Bush we should give civil rights to foreign terrorists and drag New York through this.

"That's the Tea Baggers answer to everything. "Let's have a Town Hall & scream at the top of our lungs at the politician who shows up. "

You forgot the part about the voter backlash, where Democrats get thrown under the bus, en masse. NJ and VA were just a small start. Obama is the best thing for the Republican Party since Hillary Clinton, circa 1994

Amusing, columbiacounty is squaring off against someone named reallypissed. Angry peas in a pod. Soon his sister aboutready will come to his rescue after she finishes cleaning up this morning's toilet overflow.

Oh wait, I'm Riversider right?, I've already commented on this discussion thread.

People need to stop saying that these trials have to take place in U.S. Federal Court because of our Constitution. You don't know what you are talking about! These are foreign combatants. As the Mukasey article shows above, these people should not be in U.S. courts.
They should receive a fair trial and due process through military trials. This is a horrible decision, and columbiacounty is just disgusting in defending her far-left buddies in doing all they can to weaken this country.

excerpt from a washington post editorial:

"Mohammed will be acquitted on some technicality endorsed by a federal judge. Fact: After eight years of reporting on terrorism law, I am not aware of any judge, anywhere, who is eager to pervert the law to give Mohammed a break. The idea that the federal courts are soft on terrorism is unfair to the hundreds of jurists who have repeatedly endorsed government policy on terrorism, both before and after the 2001 attacks. Capital murder suspects get off on "technicalities" (read: constitutional rights) far less often than you see in prime time. And even if Mohammed is somehow acquitted, which isn't going to happen, the feds will then immediately pick him up and put him back in the military brig."

The constitutional guys need to address why one the sheik needs to be tried as a criminal while the others in a military trial. Logic appears inconsistent.

This is just Obama pandering.
But he'll hurt his standing in New York very heavily.
So he's betting on a Republican nutcase like Palin or Romney to run against.
Unfortunately in the mean time he's throwing his Democratic congress under the bus. But then when there is gridlock and nothing gets done he'll have someone to blame.

@Washington Post: "Mohammed will be acquitted on some technicality endorsed by a federal judge. Fact: After eight years of reporting on terrorism law, I am not aware of any judge, anywhere, who is eager to pervert the law to give Mohammed a break. The idea that the federal courts are soft on terrorism is unfair to the hundreds of jurists who have repeatedly endorsed government policy on terrorism, both before and after the 2001 attacks. Capital murder suspects get off on "technicalities" (read: constitutional rights) far less often than you see in prime time. And even if Mohammed is somehow acquitted, which isn't going to happen, the feds will then immediately pick him up and put him back in the military brig."

So basically what the Washington Post is saying is that it is a sham anywya.

Any official who says a conviction and/or death penalty is a definite is posturing. If the case is lost, the U.S.A will be mocked and laughed at, with political ramifications to come. Why risk it? Doesn't make sense.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer in NYC who voted for Obama; here are my thoughts: when evidence was gathered against the 9/11 plotters and confessions received, there was never a thought to get evidence which would survive a civilian trial. No Miranda warnings, no carefully maintained evidence. They just wanted the answers as to what happened and what would happen next. So by moving these cases to a civilian court Obama is making the cases tougher to prove though in the end there should still be convictions. Second, the jihadist defendants will simply use the chance for a public trial to make a joke of the whole thing, all the while getting huge media coverage for their hateful anti-American, anti-Semitic ramblings. Big mistake and quite offensive to any right-minded American. Next, it's pretty clear to me that Holder/Obama are looking for yet another distraction from their own record and hope that a good ol' fashioned Blame it On Bush trial will be just the tonic for their flagging popularity. Sad. And if they had moved all of the Gitmo defendants to civilian court at least it would make sense, even if I don't agree with it; but by taking a select few -- the most high profile ones -- it's clear that this was done just for show. Lastly, even the most ardent liberal could care less if KSM was convicted by military tribunal and sentenced. Why are Obama and Holder even crazier than the most crazy liberal all of a sudden? Do they need the distraction that badly?

Finally, I can't in good conscience vote for the man again though I can't vote Repub either. I'm just too depressed at this point.

And PS -- considering how much money will be spent on this trial(s) -- tens of millions of dollars -- it seems almost incredible that Obama feels the need to blow this kind of money on a statement about...nothing. Will any country in the world think we are better or worse if these animals are tried by a civilian jury instead of at a military tribunal? As I just said, no Dem I know wants such a thing, so why are we doing this? Pandering to the ACLU? Course not. The only explanation can be the need for a distraction and the chance to blame Bush...again.

Good points, circles back to Panetta CIA discussions.

'the jihadist defendants will simply use the chance for a public trial to make a joke of the whole thing, all the while getting huge media coverage for their hateful anti-American, anti-Semitic ramblings. Big mistake and quite offensive to any right-minded American.'

' considering how much money will be spent on this trial(s) -- tens of millions of dollars -- it seems almost incredible that Obama feels the need to blow this kind of money on a statement about...nothing.'

'The only explanation can be the need for a distraction'

true true true

This trial is a waste and a distraction. We have enemies with agendas that differ from our own. Had any of us been born to a different mother in a different region our view would be colored with the history politics and culture of that region. After the exit of the USSR from Afgan territory or attention moved on like some disinterested child. We'll spend the money to blow it up (b/c of def. contractor lobby) but, we won't spend a dime to build it back up. Remember "DICK'S" words...there are not enough target worthy locations in Afganistan to bomb but, in Iraq...there are plenty.
Thank you Mr. Haliburton

By the by, without the enormous arms build up during the last seconds of the crisis there would today be no Taliban. That entire Army has been equipted with US and Saudi dollars. WE armed and dressed our enimies!!! Does this no make us (US) assholes?

"So he's betting on a Republican nutcase like Palin or Romney to run against. "

Palin is a whack who will never be nominated to anything again. She has great t*ts, though.

Romney, on the other hand, is pretty mainstream and might have beaten Obama, even in a bad GOP year like 2008. In an anti-democrat year, which is what 2012 is starting to look like, he could bury Obammy in a landslide.

p.s. Liberals hate it when i call President Obama "Obammy"...

Palin has no credibility. McCain campaign pointing out lapses in her recollections of the campaign. Maybe Newt can make a come-back.

Lousleater: Well said. It’s time to wake up from political correctness and smell the roses: radical Islam wants to transform the whole world into an Islamic state. Watch this video (from CNN, not Fox News) to get a feel for its lofty goals: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/11/12/robertson.london.radicals.cnn

The radical Islamists want to impose their way of living on us through violent Jihad; why should give them the platform to proselytize? These guys do not deserve to be in a civilian prison. Just take a look of what they’re accomplishing from inside prison cells in the Great Britain: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6917296.ece

And if you think this group of crazies are outliers, think again: given the opportunity, they will terrorize mainstream Muslims into submission. I wish everybody would read this book to get an idea of the power of their intimidation tactics and the far reach of their tentacles in the UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0141030437/ref=ox_ya_oh_product

I read the first few chapters and couldn’t handle the rest.

Alas, I think it’s too late for the UK. We’re next in line. They want to use the civil liberties our society affords to take over us while laughing in our faces. Just read Ayan Hirsi Ali or Nonie Darwish.

I get depressed thinking about how a large chunk of our country (particularly the East Coast liberal elite) thinks that radical Islam is simply a reaction to the West’s (egregious, I agree) missteps in foreign policy. Make no mistake: violent Jihad is the core of the radicals’ belief system. While the West’s missteps may have sped their mission, the internet and lax immigration policies are just as responsible. We shouldn’t be paying for our foreign policy mistakes by giving these guys the opportunity to annihilate us.

if you're right---and i disagree with you--we're screwed before we start.

it costs us $1 million per year per soldier in afghanistan; what's their cost?

One more thing - I have said this before - I am sick of the current two-party system. With respect to this particular issue, I can't see anyone who has the mettle to crack down on the crazies while engaging mainstream Muslims sufficiently to win them over. The Democrats are too weak and politically correct, and the Republicans are too war happy.

i tend to agree with you; the pink elephant in the room is oil. all of their power starts and ends there. the irony is that we need to declare war on our use of energy and then stand back and watch what happens.

cc: I wish we didn't have to play nice in the sandbox with the Saudis. Maybe Wahabism could have been reined in if we hadn't played knight-in-shining armor to the repressive Saudi regime in the 1990s, but it's too late now. Even if we find another source of oil tomorrow, we can't turn back the clock.

As to your earlier question "it costs us $1 million per year per soldier in afghanistan; what's their cost?", I don't know who's "they" are. But for the radical Islamists, the cost is lives. And in contrast to us in Western societies who value life and individualism, for the radicals life is cheap, especially when it buys you a ticket to heaven.

that's my point. we are not going to win this mano a mano. we need to be smarter, a lot smarter. they have something we want. we have many ways of not wanting it (oil) but no willingness to think this through. so instead, we send soldiers at $1 million each. if that's the way we go about it, we already lost.

cc: I don't know if we can win this war, or just try to contain the problem. I bereft of ideas on how to do this intelligently. Clearly the politicians have failed to think outside the box on this. Any ideas?

As to Afghanistan, I look at our continuing presence there as a mission to fulfill the moral obligation we created by empowering the radicals against the Russians. But the country seems like an intractable problem. From a selfish point of view, though, I think radicalism in Afghanistan (population 28 million) is a somewhat self-contained problem there. Pakistan (population 172 million, with 2 million students enrolled in thousands of madrassas) scares me much more.

United States (population approx 310mm), how many enrolled in madrassas masquerading as schools. This scares me a bunch, in addition to the nasty women at Fairway.

No reason to grant extra rights to terrorists or to any foreigner who doesn't come with the support of their native country by way of a reciprocal treaty with the U.S.

This is ultimately an embarassment for Obama and his AG Holder.

I agree with the OP. American liberties are too good for them, a military court would be sufficient. And we don't need this in New York. And to offer a show trial as one person said for them to spout their Anti-Americanisms has no place in our system or the system of any sane self-respecting nation.

And as for the mocking by some here, time to rethink your priorities. Time to rethink why terrorists should be on equal footing to America.

self-inflicted wounds seem to be common these days

New York didn't have control over 9/11 but we should have control over not allowing this here

So You guys are giving Obama shit for doing something that the Republicans were not capable of in 8 years? Bringing th 9/11 hijackers to trial? Why aren't you criticizing the republicans for not doing ANYTHING to these guys for 8 years?????

Obama is bringing them to court. Bush didnt do jack shit. The Republicans didnt defend our country on 9/11 and didnt bring these guys to justice and now all you partisan morons can do is criticize the guy who is doing the job you were supposed to but in capable of?

Isn't this a real estate board? Last I checked, there were about 8 gazillion political blogs for people to go and hyperventilate on.

petrfitz,

Got 'em on that one. They hate to bring that up, don't they.

AMEN prnyc

Threads like these are a complete waste of time. You aren't going to change anyone's mind by posting your opinion. People will still draw their own conclusions on whatever is going on...so why waste the time? I rarely if ever log on here anymore since it turned into a political forum instead of a real estate one. It's just not worth my time. I thought maybe it got cleaned up by now but no such luck. I guess streeteasy is REALLY DESPERATE for posters.

no bush didn't put them on trial, he just got info from them that probably saved lives.

The non- real estate posts get more hits than the real estate ones. besides the wall street journal covers wine, the bloomberg covers sports. relax

When Bush wasn't keeping him buried under a ton of concrete in Gitmo, he got him to confess. And got him to spill on other terrorist plots which were promptly stopped. Obama is giving KSM the chance to cross-examine victims of 9/11 and the chance to make jihadist speeches in open court in NYC. Slight difference.

The current decision by Obama has nothing to do with what George Bush did or didn't do. It is the wrong decision. It would be the wrong decision if George Bush did it or John McCain did it or Hillary Clinton did it or Joe Biden did it.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/giuliani-palin-fire-attacks-ag-holder-president-obama/story?id=9090938

With the Fort Hood tragedy and the president's pending Afghanistan decision rubbing American nerves raw, Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that he intends to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad in federal court in New York City -- versus at a military tribunal -- provoked harsh attacks from partisan critics.
President Obama 'Absolutely Convinced' 9/11 Mastermind will Face Justice
President Obama said he is "absolutely convinced" that Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, will be subject to "the most exacting demands of justice" when he faces trial.

"I think it's part of a whole package of the president not seeing the war on terror," said former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani on "Fox News Sunday," who said terrorists should be tried as enemy combatants and not afforded the rights given to U.S. criminal court defendents.

There are a great deal of Obama supporters when faced with an administration error, just scream some non-sense about George Bush. It gets tiring.

Not being of sound legal mind. Couldn't these cases be held in Federal Court in the Eastern district of Virginia??? Remember the Pentagon??? Flight AA flight 77...189 people dead...Seems like this would be more appropriate. Right near the White House, all the smart folks could go to the trial. Obama could slip over there whenever he wanted. Seems easy enough. Maybe I will shoot him an email.

riversider: tiring? really?

Yes A.R. Tirng

huh?

columbiacounty
18 minutes ago
ignore this person
report abuse

huh?

Another valuable contribution by columbiacounty.

But what a surprise that earlier you got into an argument where you were accused of being sympathetic to terrorists. Whether you have an opinion or not, you seem to always attract a good amount of vitriol.

But you know what they say about flies and shit.

He thinks you are Aboutready Columbia County b/c he can't believe that more than one person actually disagrees with what he says. I must say that this board was infinitely more fun before you came along Riversider. You obviously have way too much time on your hands to make as many posts as you do.

What also bothers me about Obama's decision is his and Hilary's constant commentary that KSM will be found guilty, etc. If they were so concerned about KSM getting a fair trial why are they tainting the jury pool by professing his guilt prior to evidence being set out at trial?

Who are the peers of the terrorists who will be on the jury?

Riversider is quoting Guiliani as a reliabel source! Hah. Want to talk about Guiliani's great decisions 1 - deciding to put the NYC Emergency rEsponse HQ inside the largest potential target - the world trtade centers, 2 - knowingly allowing the fire department to use radio systems that didnt work, 3 - using city funds to carry on affairs, 4 - Bernie Kerik...and have you ever seen that ugly mug on Judith Nathan? That is a woman you cheat on for being fugly, not cheat with......

Riversider is a partisan moron

With the number of people in Gitmo this could be going on in NYC for years. Years. Have the most expensive trial with the most expensive security in the most expensive City. Smart.

Lots of partisans here thank you petrfitz, including you. Have a problem with Judith Nathan, why?

because she is a homewrecking troll that abused city funds and sold her soul for a little bit of fame and ill gotten yankees tickets..

elderguy please give us one reason not to have a problem with her or Giuliani?

Ill gotten Yankee tickets, horrible.
Patterson is being investigated for World Series tickets.
I think we should welcome our Governor and Mayor at Yankees games, gratis.

elderguy, interesting those on the left are much more disprectful than the right, judging by language at least.

disrepectful? You glorify criminals and politicians who are purposefully and publically ripping off the american people - GWB, Giuliani, Oliver North, etc etc etc.

You are a partisan tool who will continue to vote against your own and the coutnry's interests because you want your "team" to win...

since this entire thread is off-topic i have no hesitation posting this.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/ayn-rand-the-bitch-is-back/

"You can the concentration of ARAs in a certain groupings. These are the folks who blame the CRA for the collapse of the economy; ARAs tend to be hardcore idealogues; many are rabidly partisan. All too many are deeply uninformed. They breathje co0gnitive dissonance they most people breathe oxygen. When confronted with facts, data, reality that challenge their ideology, they make up new facts."

ritholtz needs an editor, but i think the point is clear. language vs. distortion?

Some of these left-wingers can do nothing but insult Bush or Giuliani. When Obama is subjected to much justified criticism, they just cut and paste It's Bush's Fault!!

Why not have a problem with Giuliani? Because he was the person most responsible for cleaning up New York City and getting it back in good stead following the disaster of the late 80s and early 90s. (Let alone his exceptional leadership following 9/11.)

petrfitz - wake up and realize that everyone knows you are a partisan hack.

nice campaign giuliani ran. even the republican party can't stand him, and he seems in many respects tailor-made for them.

Ayn was certinaly loved, hated & always controversial. Good attributes for a philopher.

I actually agree in a sense that I am disappointed in Giuliani for selling out to the national Republican platform. The old, tough-on-crime, fiscally responsible, socially moderate, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-gun control, pro-equality Giuliani was great. Maybe he can find his old form and have a third act, but I don't know if his heart is in it anymore.

"Why not have a problem with Giuliani? Because he was the person most responsible for cleaning up New York City and getting it back in good stead following the disaster of the late 80s and early 90s"

Or maybe he was able to fight crime because of the amazing economy that Clinton built gave Rudy the budgets to hire more cops?????

"(Let alone his exceptional leadership following 9/11.)" Do you mean allowing the fire department to charge into buildings without working radios? Or do you mean how he allowed the EPA to tell citizens that it was safe to return to Lower Manhattan when it obviously was not? Or do you mean how he used 9/11 in every other sentence to push his own political agenda for the next several years? Or do you mean how he never showed up at any 9/11 Commission meetings so he could instead go an make money giving paid speeches earning money by saying 9/11 over and over again?

hey LICC - which was worse Clinton getting a blow job in his office or Giuliani using NYC Police Dept to escort his mistress to the Hamptons on city budget and time so he could cheat on his wife?

How many resources where distracted carting that whore Judith to the Hamptons? Maybe they could have been guarding the WTC and noticed the Arabs casing the place?

Nobody should care about Giuliani or Clinton scandal except when it comes to Clinton's perjury. This was the big difference and why it mattered.

Clinton's economy? Do you mean the one which was growing when he took office and was in recession when he left office?

Oh, and the fact that Rudy implemented different policing strategies that to this day have been working in keeping crime down?

So you think that 9/11 happened because Rudy didn't notice "Arabs casing the place", even though their plan was to hijack airplanes and fly them into the buildings?

Thanks for showing everyone that my statement above is correct- you are a partisan hack.

which is worse - lying about a blow job under oath in a civil matter (Clinton) or lying under the oath of office during the state of the union speech in front of congress and falsifying intelligence to pre emptively attack a country that you know has no weapons of mass destruction?