Obama will help select location of Khalid Sheik Mohammed terrorism trial

[Pirate Smile]

Source: Washington Post

President Obama is planning to insert himself into the debate about where to try the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, three administration officials said Thursday, signaling a recognition that the administration had mishandled the process and triggered a political backlash.

Obama initially had asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to choose the site of the trial in an effort to maintain an independent Justice Department. But the White House has been taken aback by the intense criticism from political opponents and local officials of Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian courtroom in New York.
Administration officials acknowledge that Holder and Obama advisers were unable to build political support for the trial. And Holder, in an interview Thursday, left open the possibility that Mohammed's trial could be switched to a military commission, although he said that is not his personal and legal preference.

-snip-
Administration officials said they hope the president's involvement will help secure congressional funding for the costly trial within a matter of weeks, before bipartisan efforts to strip financing for the case against Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators gain greater momentum.

Senior White House officials said that the decision to try Mohammed in New York was Holder's and that no single person in the administration was responsible for handling the politics of that choice. In a desire to avoid leaks, Holder kept the decision close in the days leading up to his Nov. 13 news conference, calling New York officeholders that day to inform them. Several New York officials said they have dealt exclusively with Holder, first during the rollout of the announcement and more recently as he struggles to find an alternate venue.
Officials acknowledged that Holder does not deserve all the blame for the political problems. "Their building represents what they do -- justice. It's rightly not staffed with people who have to worry about congressional relations or federal funding," one White House official said.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021105011.html?hpid=topnews

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. I do not understand why these state officials are so opposed to the idea.

I honestly don't get it.

[smalll]

8. It's not about fear, it's about COST and DISRUPTION --

The security required for this in downtown NYC will disrupt the busiest city in the country, AND be mad expensive. Everything costs more in New York. NYC cops on overtime make streetwalker rates, for one thing. :shrug:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. Apparently even those in the other parts of the state are fighting it.

So what's up with that?

[aquart]

19. I thought one town was begging for the trial.

They are making a completely ridiculous fuss. Somebody has been watching 24 and believing every scene.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Possibly.

They're making a big deal about the detainees being moved here (IL) even though I don't think most people care.

[aquart]

18. BULLSHIT.

We never had a high profile trial before? Are they planning to move in tanks and infantry? What utter crap! In case you have never been here, we have had massively armed national guard troops in NYC ever since 9/11. Our security is just fine, thank you. If Bernie Madoff was safe, these assholes are safe.-+

And it's news to me that our cops make that much money. Does that mean we stop losing them to the suburbs and other towns?

We put cops on overtime for PARADES. And the idea that a couple more downtown will be a shocking expense is ridiculous.

As for DISRUPTION, we have subways. That means we move around UNDERGROUND. The only thing that MIGHT get disrupted is that Wall Street's limousines might get stuck in traffic. It's been the primary goal of Bloomberg to clear Manhattan streets so that limousines can drag race.

You really ought to check official statements against reality.

PS: If shifts are organized correctly, there's no reason that anyone needs to be on overtime.

[Psephos]

22. The fright caused by that Air Force One photo shoot last spring suggests fear is a factor.

If there's a way to spare causing thousands of people to revisit their awful memories, I'm for it.

[aquart]

25. We're not that delicate.

WHEN YOU KNOW THAT PLANES AREN'T ALLOWED IN YOUR AIRSPACE AND YOU SEE ONE, DAMN STRAIGHT THAT'S REASON FOR ALARM.

I can tell you don't live here. You didn't spend months getting off buses and trains because someone saw a package. We don't panic. We just find another way to get where we're going.

[Psephos]

27. I know many who are.

My address when the towers fell was in the Liberty Court high-rise on West Thames in Battery Park City. If you think I am geographically disqualified from commentary, you are the one who sounds silly...and that's not what I normally expect in an aquart post.

Your argument that no one will be stimulated to bad memories and old nightmares by the immense publicity, mammoth security impositions, and close proximity to the murderers is facially incorrect. Perhaps you won't be personally frightened or put-upon, but in a city of eight million, there will be many, many who will. God forbid some AQ nutcase attracted by the publicity payoff sets off a bomb. You're betting that security would be impenetrable. I would never take that bet.

Although it doesn't much concern me, it's a certainty that many global voices will be raised over whether a fair trial could ever be conducted in a venue so rife with traumatic and visceral emotions directly caused by the defendants.

Perhaps there is a compelling case to be made for the proposed venue, one that is worth all the sad-making, the revisitations of hell, the disruption, huge cost, and the opportunities for more mayhem. If so, I haven't heard it yet.

I respect that we may have different opinions. I consider it a sign of reason and intelligence when another person is able to entertain an opinion at odds with their own, regardless of whether they end up accepting or endorsing any part of it. I would be glad to discuss the pros and cons of this issue further, assuming it can be done with civility.

[aquart]

26. Wait. You think a change of venue will stop the memories?

That may well be the silliest thing anyone has ever said on DU.

We still live here. We see the skyline.

[No Elephants]

34. Bloomberg knew what things cost when he approved of holding the trial in NYC, though.

Either he wants another illegal term or someone is blackmailed him into changing his mind, 'cause he is too rich to be bought. JMO.

[aquart]

2. NYC is the place it belongs. Are we afraid of justice?

I'm so ashamed that my city is run by cowards.

[xxqqqzme]

5. Jon Stewart standing up to gingrinch

the other night as beautiful. When Jon said 'I want the trial here. I want him to know we're not afraid of him' (paraphrasing) the audience cheered and gingrinch looked the fool he is.

[No Elephants]

35. Some of the best politics is coming from comedians while some of the funniest stuff is coming from

elected officials.

For instance: Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher vs. Sanford, Jindal and Palin

Who is funnier? Who is truthier?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bc3000]

3. Obama caves to republican criticism. Is this really news?

Hardly worth a headline.

[Pirate Smile]

4. The problem was the Democrats and local/state NY people who turned on it. Not Republicans but,

please, continue your Obama bashing bullshit.

[bc3000]

6. It seemed to me they only turned on it after the republicans raised a stink about it

And I believe Obama deserves to be bashed. He's been a huge disappointment.

[Pirate Smile]

12. They turned after Bloomberg started fighting it -and Schumer. Republicans fought it the entire time.

[aquart]

20. Schumer disappoints me every day.

Bloomberg wants the streets clear for limousines.

[No Elephants]

36. Bloomberg is a Democrat these days?

He was Democrat, then Republican and then "Independent." He's a member of the Bloomberg Power Trip Party.

[Arkana]

14. I know, man. What the hell.

He hasn't abolished all corporations like he promised, right brah?

[JDPriestly]

7. Terrible political mistake to back-pedal on the commitment to

separate the politics of the presidency from the Justice Department. This is just one of the worst mistakes the Obama administration has made.

However unpopular holding the trial in N.Y. is, it is the right thing to do. The Military Commissions hearings do not have the respect of the international community. This is a very bad mistake on Obama's part.

Assuming of course that this report is correct.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marshall]

13. DC? Chicago? Detroit?

Where would be a more appropriate place to do it?

Or will be just fall back on Guantanamo?

[WriteDown]

16. I like DC....

Then he can be close and monitor it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. If they could manage a federal trial for Gotti in New York, why not KSM?

Mafia trials must need high security too.

Or use Virginia, where Moussaoui's trial was. After all, this is the same case. Obviously they know how to hold al Qaeda trials, if New York officials think their city is too incompetent to do it.

[struggle4progress]

17. No no no! Don't micro-manage!

[Mz Pip]

21. this trial is going

to be turned into a media circus regardless of where it is. The rw media hacks would just love to disrupt NYC.

Maybe we can move it to Wyoming where Liz Cheney can keep an eye on things. :sarcasm:

[PassingFair]

23. This is getting out of hand. Try him in NYC already! And Obama should stay OUT of it.

Jeez!

[conservdem]

28. I'm glad it's being moved and I hope they give him a tribunal, not a civilian trial. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. Moussaoui got a civilian trial for his involvement in Sept 11

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/03/moussaoui.verdict/index.html

Why not the same for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, for his involvement in the same crime? What's changed?

[conservdem]

30. With hind sight, I wish Moussaui had been given a tribunal.

I now understand a tribunal can be lawful.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. What is good about a tribunal?

Do you want them to be regarded as 'proper soldiers'? To me, that would be giving them an undeserved status. They don't represent any country, or community. They're just people who have decided, because they consider themselves 'in the right', to kill others. Criminal law seems the right thing to use to bring them to justice.

[conservdem]

32. I do not think they should be considered "proper soldiers," unless

that is what the legitimately are and I do not think that's the case. I think the tribunals provide sufficient and required protections and I think they can more effectively handle such adjudications, which I suspect is the reasoning of some in the admin.

Do you have something against tribunals?

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. I have something against using a tribunal in cases like this; a tribunal is military

and is for when a country is at war with another country. Since KSM etc. are not soldiers, do not represent any community, and killed (yes, I'm assuming he's guilty; I don't think I'm prejudicing the trial, being just an anonymous internet opinion) civilians when nothing approaching a state of war was in existence, I see no reason at all to use a military tribunal.

In what way would a military tribunal 'handle the adjudication more effectively'?

[No Elephants]

38. The history of trials in tribunals under Bush contradicts your post. Pesky fact!

[No Elephants]

37. Gee, no difference between you and O'Reilly on this one. Who could possibly have seen that coming?