| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| NY Governor Rips White House For NYC 9/11 Trial |
| 2009-11-17 |
| Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial. "This is not a decision that I would have made. Nor any other sane person. But hope and/or crack will do that to you. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country," he said. Paterson's comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President's decision. They haven't been mugged. Yet. "Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost," he said. "It's very painful. We're still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers." Yeah, and the guy you helped vote into office just dug that hole a quite a bit deeper. Remember how to thank him come the 2010 elections. Paterson also said that the White House warned him six months ago this very situation would happen. He said while he disagrees with the decision, he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state's Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible. IOW: "While the decision may seem stupid, it is offset by the fact that your incompetence leads us to believe you can't keep us safe." Republicans, including former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, have said the group should be tried in a different location under military tribunal because the attacks are considered an act of war. Instead, the five suspects will be tried at the federal court house, just steps from Ground Zero. I wonder what a high-five looks like when you're wearing shackles. I guess we'll get quite a few chances to find out. Attorney General Eric Holder said he decided to bring the suspects, currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial in New York because of the nature of the undisclosed evidence against them, because the 9/11 victims were mostly civilians, and because the attacks took place on U.S. soil. And because our army happened to be elsewhere when they attacked, right? New Yorkers are taking sides over the terror trial for the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks. "I think it's a logistical and security nightmare for the American People," Alice Hoagland, mother of a 9/11 victim, said. Hoagland's son was a passenger on United Flight 93 when terrorists crashed it into a Pennsylvania field on that tragic day. Hoagland worries that bringing the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and his accomplices to New York would make the city an even bigger target – and some security experts agree. "Keeping the courthouse secure, keeping downtown secure, we've got the manpower to do that, but what we worry about is suicide bombers, something that could attract other terrorists like the ones that are being tried," Robert Strang, of Investigative Management Group, said. I'm sure Muhhombama thought about all that. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the NYPD is fully prepared. "We've handled high profile events, certainly high profile trials in the past, and we'll be able to do it," Kelly said. "I am pleased that they're moving these trials to New York near the scene of the crime, giving the families that were most affected [the opportunity] to see the trials," Lorie Van Auken, wife of a 9/11 victim, said. They can watch it on TV, just like I will. And right next to us in the audience will be every other terrorist out there. Van Auken lost her husband, Kenneth, on September 11, and she said she'll be in the federal courtroom for the terror trial. She said the military court proceedings in Guantanamo Bay were not open enough. As long as they swing, why do you care? "It would be very assuring to me and a lot of others to see the American system of justice work," Van Auken said. What? You question the ability of the American judicial system? You must be a racist. Some relatives fear the suspects could be freed on a technicality that a defense attorney could challenge Mohammed's confession to planning the attacks. The government admitted to using water-boarding interrogation techniques on him 183 times in 2003. They might not be freed, but they will go down fighting by costing us tons of money to do the job that a $1 bullet could do. "But ultimately, the administration would not have put these five individuals into the federal system, I think, if they weren't convinced they could get a conviction," CBS News security consultant Juan Zarate said. Yeah, whether they thought it all the way through or not seems to be a separate issue. Defense lawyers could argue that Mohammed's six years in detention have already violated his right to a fair trial. They could also challenge if it's possible to get an impartial jury in New York, where nearly 3,000 people were killed on September 11. Looks like the predicted opening moves. It's going to be interesting what shape our system will be in after the terrorists get through with it. Hopefully it will finally collapse and get rebuilt properly. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #6 Paterson also said that the White House warned him six months ago this very situation would happen. Six months, and both Paterson and the White House are getting around to mentioning it now? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-11-17 21:09 |
| #5 Patterson is a craven politician and a dullard, true, but God bless him, he's right about this one. If you're gonna dog 'em when they're wrong, you gotta give 'em points when they get one right. Irony alert: the legally-blind guy has a clearer vision of what's going on than the dolts in the White House. |
| Posted by: Mike 2009-11-17 14:48 |
| #4 Oh, he's been p1ssed ever since the WH tried to strong arm him into not running for re-election. |
| Posted by: Sluque the Rasher of Bacon4421 2009-11-17 12:59 |
| #3 So even Patterson can sniff the breeze in New York and figure out what to say to get elected ... |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-11-17 12:41 |
| #2 Republicans, including former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, have said the group should be tried in a different location under military tribunal because the attacks are considered an act of war. Act of war = "enemy combatants" = military tribunal Not an act of war = "intentional tortfeasors" = Big Circus |
| Posted by: Willy 2009-11-17 12:38 |
| #1 "He said while he disagrees with the decision, he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state's Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible." Let’s cut the crap…shall we? Patterson is a craven politician and a dullard. All he is saying here is…I’ll quietly go along with this as long as you give me money – lots and lots of money. And make it fast or I’ll continue to publicly bitch about your decision. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-11-17 10:24 |