NY citizens have a RIGHT to judge 9/11 cases.

[Deep13]

This has been on my mind. The whole fake controversy about trying terrorists in civilian courts overlooks an important detail. The issue is not the safety of the town where the trial is held or any need of interrogation by national defense people. If a crime is committed in a jurisdiction, the people of that jurisdiction have a right to sit in judgment of that case. While the right to a public trial and to an impartial jury are usually expressed as rights of the defendant, they are also the rights of the community that has allegedly been wronged.

A trial serves many purposes. The legal purpose of course is to provide an impartial and legitimate forum for ascertaining the truth and applying the correct legal standards for doing so and for deciding the implications of the truth once it is found. The jury adds the layperson's view of "common sense" which can be lost among career lawyers. From a social and psychological perspective, the public trial serves an important function for the community. It is the place where those who have been wronged can stand before the community (in the form of the jury and the civil judge) and express that injury to the world. "I have been wronged and I demand justice!" This is what we do instead of starting blood feuds.

The people of NYC, have a right to hear the case against that 9/11 terrorist. John Stewart explained that to Gingrich on his show recently. I have said so all along too. When asked how I would kill bin Laden, my response has always been, "I don't want him to be killed. I want him in a New York courtroom to answer for his crimes."

Some think or perport to think that liberals are somehow being soft or politically correct for wanting to afford defense rights to terrorist. They are simply wrong. The fact is that liberals are just not cowards. We will not be frightened into giving up our Constitution. We recognize the danger of terrorism, but will not be intimidated by it. It would be an insult to us and to our forebearers to sacrifice our great traditions simply because we are scared. Those who died at Normandy, Gettysburg and Yorktown and those who faced violence fighting for civil rights, women's sufferage and the right to organize were afraid too. They just didn't back down because of it. Neither can we. So when the RW noise machine talks about the danger, we should respond, "We have a right to judge those cases and we will!"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. No, they really do not

The only rights involved in a criminal trial are those of the defendant.

[NoNothing]

2. Correct

In fact, by arguing that the citizens of NY have some kind of emotional stake in the trial, you are simply making it MORE likely that an impartial jury cannot be empaneled and a change of venue will be required.

[Deep13]

4. See my post #3.

Stating that they have a psychological and social stake in the case is not the same as saying the jury will have prejudged the case. Obviously, ordinary criminal procedure, including voir dire of prospective jurors by the defense will apply. The simple reality is that such an interest exists. It is the whole reason for bringing a criminal prosecution at the public's expense in the first place.

[NoNothing]

5. Of course the state has an interest

I took issue with your statement that the citizens of NYC specifically have a "right" to conduct the trial. They do not have any rights at all that supercede the rights of a criminal defendant to have a fair trial, and if that means it has to be moved to Albany or Buffalo (in the case of a state of NY trial) or another federal district (in the case of a federal trial) than that absolutely overrides any "rights" NYC residents have in psychological or social benefits.

[Deep13]

7. My point has nothing to do with a possible change of venue.

I has to do with claims by the right that there should not be a trial or that it should be conducted by military commission.

[Deep13]

3. The state has a right to prosecute the offense.

That of course includes seeking an indictment, calling witnesses, arguing pretrial matters, arguing the case to the jury, participating in jury selection and even appealing adverse rulings that do not implicate double jeopardy rights.

These are all rights that exist under statute law. The Constitution is a limitation on government and therefore only speaks to the limitations of prosecution and not to its statutory or Common Law powers.

[Phx_Dem]

6. Judging by polls, it sounds like they're too scared

to bring terrorists to justice. Never thought I'd say that about New Yorkers, and it appears to be true for Gov. Bloomberg as well who did a complete about-face on the issue.

When did NYrs become such wusses? It must have been sometime after all the other terrorists were tired and convicted in NY.

[Deep13]

8. Tell people something enough times and they will believe it...

...even if there is proof that it is false. It has nothing to do with how smart or brave people are. It's just instinct. But I share your sense of disgust.