[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Obama Wars Title: GOP lawmaker introduces bill to ban terror trials from civilian courts and NYC GOP lawmaker introduces bill to ban terror trials from civilian courts and NYC By Jordan Fabian - 01/28/10 02:03 PM ET The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee on Thursday introduced legislation that would prevent the 9/11 terror trials from taking place in New York City.
Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who represents New York City suburbs on Long Island, told the Associated Press that his bill would cut off Justice Department funding for moving Guantanamo Bay detainees to civilian courts.
The Obama administration announced last year that it would hold a trial for so-called 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four others in civilian courts in Manhattan.
King and other Republicans have long opposed the trial, saying that it could pose a security threat to New York City and that the suspects do not deserve the legal protections of civilian courts.
While most Democrats believe that the suspected terrorists should be tried in civilian courts, some top Democrats have recently voiced opposition to their New York City location.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Thursday they should be moved as did New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D). "I am open for the trials to be moved to another appropriate place," Gillibrand said.
Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) also signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to move the trials.
The Obama administration has stood behind the trials and their location in lower Manhattan. It's not clear how much Democratic support King's bill could garner, since it is meant to prevent all civilian terror trials. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 33. Perfect opportunity for bi partisanship that makes the nation safer, eliminates a propaganda win for al Qaeda, and saves the tax payers 2 BILLION DOLLARS per year related to the upcoming trial in NYC. Wanna bet Democrats don't jump at this opportunity? Nor the White House?
#3. To: Badeye (#1) Cowering in fear sends the right message to Al Qaeda?
#4. To: go65 (#3) Cowering in fear? By trying enemy combatants in a military tribunal? How is that 'cowering in fear'? Its common sense, much better and cheaper security, and highly cost effective in comparision to Obama and Holder's ridiculous 'terrorist rights' insanity.
#7. To: Badeye (#4) Cowering in fear? By trying enemy combatants in a military tribunal? The problem with military tribunals is crafting a system that's fair. However, if you've already decided that folks are guilty and are just looking for a show-trial, then military tribunals could be useful. However, due to supreme court rulings there isn't much of a difference anymore in rules between a military tribunal and a federal courts. Meanwhile we've tried Ramsey Yusuf, Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, Sheik Abdul-Rahman, and Tim McVeigh in civilian courts without much of a problem. This strikes me as another case of faux outrage. Nobody complained when Bush tried Reid and Padilla in civilian courts.
#9. To: go65 (#7) The problem with military tribunals is crafting a system that's fair. Really? Please explain in specifics what you think is 'unfair' about a military tribunal. I'm going to love reading your explanation, I just know it!
#11. To: Badeye (#9) Really? Please explain in specifics what you think is 'unfair' about a military tribunal. Tell me the rules first.
#17. To: go65 (#11) You suggest KSM won't get a fair trial up above. Now you ask me for the 'rules' for a military tribunal? (laughing) This is what happens when you blindly follow talking points, GO65. As Senator Feinstein, or Mayor Bloomberg.
#19. To: Badeye (#17) ou suggest KSM won't get a fair trial up above. We need to know the rules for a military tribunal before determining whether or not it's "fair". See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html
#20. To: go65 (#19) 'we' kemosabe? Nope. You, obviously. Again, you say it won't be a fair trail by military tribunal, but you admit you don't have a CLUE as to whats involved. Its exceedingly fair. Those of us that have knowledge on the topic know this. Those that don't, are leftwingers using talking points, as you did up above. Tsk, tsk, tsk...(chuckle)
#21. To: Badeye (#20) 'we' kemosabe? Nope. You, obviously. Again, you say it won't be a fair trail by military tribunal, but you admit you don't have a CLUE as to whats involved. I said the problem with a tribunal is making it fair. So what rules do you propose that would make it fair?
#26. To: go65 (#21) Military tribunals are exceedingly 'fair'. The suggestion that 'rules' needed to be made or added to what exists is absurd...if you are familiar with the topic.
#29. To: Badeye (#26) Military tribunals are exceedingly 'fair'. The suggestion that 'rules' needed to be made or added to what exists is absurd...if you are familiar with the topic. Well again, the USSC tossed out Bush's tribunal proposal as being unfair. Did you miss that?
#30. To: go65 (#29) If you don't understand the difference between the circumstances specific to the case you are trying to cite, and this conversation...well, its okay, you've already admitted you don't know what your talking about in relation to military tribunals. So you oppose Feinstein and Jimmy Webb? Interesting. Smart money says this gets put back into a military tribunal, and that its held at Gitmo. btw, Gitmo isn't going to be closed. (laughing)
#32. To: Badeye (#30) btw, Gitmo isn't going to be closed. (laughing) Why shouldn't it be closed? I mean why do we have to keep prisoners on a foreign countries soil? Here is the answer. Because they want to do things that would be unlawful in this country. They want to be to coverup stuff.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32) If reporters, the Red Cross, lawyers for the prisoners were not allowed access on a routine basis, I'd agree with you AKA. Since thats not the case, I don't.
Replies to Comment # 33. There are no replies to Comment # 33.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 33. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|