Posted on 01/30/2010 6:31:49 PM PST by reaganaut1
Now that President Barack Obama's administration is considering moving the Sept. 11 trial away from a courthouse in Manhattan, the question is: Where to?
Legally, the Justice Department could choose a variety of locations in which to bring an indictment. There is no requirement that the trials of professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others be held in the places where the most victims died, experts said.
Politically, though, the administration faces a bigger challenge.
Though the Justice Department has yet to publicly back down from its plan to try the suspects in New York City, officials have acknowledged that other sites are under consideration. But a growing number of lawmakers in the president's own party say they would rather not have the proceedings in their states.
Opponents include Democrats such as Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, who was among five lawmakers last week who urged Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse his decision to try Mohammed and other conspirators in civilian courts, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who said a local trial would be too disruptive, whether in Manhattan or upstate.
The same held true for top Democrats in Pennsylvania, talked about by some as a potential site because of the crash of hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 near Shanksville, Pa.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg "has given good reasons why the trial should not be held in New York City and that same reasoning would apply for Pennsylvania as well," said U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter. Bloomberg has cited the costs of securing the Manhattan courthouse as an impediment to hosting the trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
There should be more of a public outcry against the very idea of giving these warriors such a trial in our criminal justice system and bringing that spectacle and threat into any American community!
A side benefit might be that a few journalists might be ... er ... roughed up a bit by the local polar bears, something that might help put an end to all this nonsense about how docile and helpless they are.
ANWR would be a nice change from the oppressive heat and humidity of Camp Gitmo. Anwar is an Islamic name -- Think Anwar Sadat, famous Nobel Peace Prize winner. It means "luminous". .
Satire, of course. Gitmo is the best possible place, that is unless you want to create a crisis in a major metropolitan area.
Gitmo is certainly preferable. But if they want a civilian trial, and refuse to budge on that, then I suggest Chicago.
American Patriots must insist that the trials be military tribunals, and not held in any U. S. city.
Period!!!
They'll pick up the language and start to understand the pain!
Nov 18,2009...Obama: Alleged 9/11 leader will be executed
during an NBC interview, he then backs off by saying he doesn’t mean to prejudge.
Muslim turning on fellow Muslim..I will prejudge, BOTH GUILTY!
I actually believe Obama should come out better to admit he made a mistake, didn’t realize all the ramifications of closing Gitmo, and publicly change his mind.
I believe this would actually be to his political as well as personal advantage.
He should say he’s putting America first, instead of protecting a decision that he regrets making, and explain what factors changed his mind.
I would actually have a little respect for him if he did that.
Sealand would be a good trial place. LOL!
Agreed. The fabrication of trial sites is ludicrous.
We have the perfect trial site, as you mentioned: GITMO!
Where were the “crimes” related to Flight 93 committed? Wasn’t it over OHIO wehen it was hijacked, and then turned around and into PA, or am I misremembering?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.