This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Terror Trials

124

Comments

  • edited November 2009
    Jurisdiction can overlap.
    I pointed that out. However, no federal crime, no federal jurisdiction. Therefore, nothing to overlap. If both federal and state crimes, then overlapping jurisdiction.

    You seem to be over-thinking this.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited January 2010
    The trials might be leaving New York. As I said from day one, such a move makes sense. If they are moved, it would be somewhat of a political blunder for Obama. The reasons for moving the trials contained in the article should have been obvious from the start.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Hey at least he's willing to change his mind if Bush had set up trials in New York ........ Oh wait.
  • edited January 2010
    I've said from the beginning that I had no problems with the trials being in Federal court. I haven't seen any real argument about that in this thread.

    Why bring Bush into this if this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with him? Bush is gone, after all. He is entirely irrelevant to this issue of where the trials should be held.

    Your attitude shows exactly why Scott Brown was able to steal the populist message from the Dems. Brown was forward looking. Most people are more concerned with the future than the past.

    Apart from my personal opinion, it remains to be seen if moving the trials to Federal court was a wise decision politicaly. If they are convicted, Obama is the big winner. That seems pretty likely to me at this point, although I really haven't tried to ascertain the strength of the government's case.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited January 2010
    I've said from the beginning that I had no problems with the trials being in Federal court. I haven't seen any real argument about that in this thread.

    Why bring Bush into this if this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with him? Bush is gone, after all.

    Apart from my personal opinion, it remains to be seen if moving the trials to Federal court was a wise decision politicaly. If they are convicted, Obama is the big winner. That seems pretty likely to me at this point, although I really haven't tried to ascertain the strength of the government's case.
    Kilarney apparently took the joke TOO seriously.

    Oh and since you brought it up, the Republicans did pretty well in their midyear elections after Bush was elected blaming 9-11 on Clinton... I heard "But Clinton" for almost the entire 8 years Bush was in office. Just saying, you can't deal with a problem without knowing the history of the problem and why we have the problem to begin with.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • You know me. Mr. Serious. ;-)
  • The trials might be leaving New York.As I said from day one, such a move makes sense. If they are moved, it would be somewhat of a political blunder for Obama. The reasons for moving the trials contained in the article should have been obvious from the start.
    Well, they might be leaving downtown Manhattan. There's more to New York than downtown Manhattan.
  • edited January 2010
    The trials might be leaving New York.As I said from day one, such a move makes sense. If they are moved, it would be somewhat of a political blunder for Obama. The reasons for moving the trials contained in the article should have been obvious from the start.
    Well, they might be leavingdowntown Manhattan. There's more to New York than downtown Manhattan.
    Yeah, they're still talking about the Southern District of New York, and the article says is that there have only been very, very, tentative inquiries at this point. Seems someone is counting unhatched chickens.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Well, they might be leavingdowntown Manhattan. There's more to New York than downtown Manhattan.
    There is? Really? My mind has been blown!
  • There is? Really? My mind has been blown!
    There's a very large population in the state who thinks that Westchester county is "upstate."
  • RymRym
    edited January 2010
    There's a very large population in the state who thinks that Westchester county is "upstate."
    New York State only has a population of about 19,541,453.

    The New York City metropolitan area constitutes 19,006,798 people by itself (and this is just the contiguous urban zone: not the burbs). If you discount from this people in New Jersey, it's still 14,390,633 bodies. That's around 74% of the population of the state living in Yonkers or lower. If you extend the zone to include Beacon/Poughkeepsie (another 700,000 or so people), you have a full 75% of the population of the state.

    Thus, for the vast majority of New Yorkers, the vast majority of New York State is "upstate" from where they live.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Downtown Manhattan is the center of the universe. Right? Isn't it?
  • Downtown Manhattan is the center of the universe. Right? Isn't it?
    Well, we have to account for the people who live south. But, there's no more state down there (some other state starts up ^_~).

    Upstate has always, at least to me, meant north/west from wherever I am on the Thruway. Once you get to Yonkers or so, very few people (percentage-wise) actually live in that direction.

    I don't really think about the giant hump north of where I-87 shifts through to I-90. Maybe we should call that "outstate."
  • Growing up, I remember "real" upstaters always talking about whether it would be a good idea for New York City to secede from the rest of the state and form its own state. The conversation would always start with the disparate needs and interests of the residents of the two areas, followed by a slight dip into whether New York's elected officials were truly representative of the people. The problem is that this discussion always seemed to end with the lament that making NYC its own state would mean 51 stars on the flag, and that's not a round number. What would we do?
  • edited January 2010
    Growing up, I remember "real" upstaters always talking about whether it would be a good idea for New York City to secede from the rest of the state and form its own state. The conversation would always start with the disparate needs and interests of the residents of the two areas, followed by a slight dip into whether New York's elected officials were truly representative of the people. The problem is that this discussion always seemed to end with the lament that making NYC its own state would mean 51 stars on the flag, and that's not a round number.What would we do?
    I've heard many people say that many states have distinct regional differences that might justify them being treated as different states. I've heard some Californians say that their state is really three states.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • I've heard many people say that many states have distinct regional differences that might justify them being treated as different states. I've heard some Californians say that their state is really three states.
    It really comes down to, "Thems cityfolk elected a Dermocrat and took our jeeerbs."
  • When Rym and I are feeling bitter, we talk about how we wish NYC could be it's own state, because the upstate population is more conservative, takes our money, and blocks our social reforms (ala Gay Marriage). Wow, that's one thing that the people in the boondocks and the people in the city agree on!
    The problem is that this discussion always seemed to end with the lament that making NYC its own state would mean 51 stars on the flag, and that's not a round number.What would we do?
    Put a bigger star for NYC right in the center with all the little teeny stars orbiting around it. Problem Solved! (^_^)
  • edited January 2010
    I've heard many people say that many states have distinct regional differences that might justify them being treated as different states. I've heard some Californians say that their state is really three states.
    It really comes down to, "Thems cityfolk elected a Dermocrat and took our jeeerbs."
    Well, the disparity is quite pronounced in New York. Downstate is a different world. Buffalo is isolated from everything else. The region north of Albany (where I grew up) might as well not exist. It makes for some interesting politics.

    EDIT: The different state thing would be interesting.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • The problem is that this discussion always seemed to end with the lament that making NYC its own state would mean 51 stars on the flag, and that's not a round number.What would we do?
    It would be a boon to the flagmaking industry. Creating jobs! Stimulating the economy! Patriots update their flag, Communists keep the old one! Are you a communist?

    I am 100% for secession (for the metro area, not just from New York, but from Connecticuy and New Jersey as well).

    Obviously, the federal government would have to subsidize upstate New York if this happened, but it's no different from how they already do this for much of the midwest. The only difference would be that it would be a federal burden, as opposed to a burden on the city alone.

    Not much would change, except that New York would probably be governed a lot more efficiently. Each borough of the City is actually a county under the current system, and every level of city government is basically forced to act like the level above it within the state framework. The city also votes almost directly opposite what the rest of the state votes on most national issues and many local ones, and there is a huge divide between the city and the state on many issues.

    Take gun control. What works in the city would fail upstate, and vice versa. We have two completely different systems for the two completely different environments. We need this for many other questions of policy: what works in a megalopolis won't necessarily be beneficial to a hamlet.

    There's also the fact that New York is considered by academics to be one of two "Alpha Global Cities." It (and London) have defied all of the trends and expectations of cities worldwide and are effectively a different class of economic and social life altogether. There are many arguments for both to be self-governing to a much broader degree.
  • Put a bigger star for NYC right in the center with all the little teeny stars orbiting around it. Problem Solved!
    I spit up my drink when I read that.
  • edited January 2010
    Downtown Manhattan is the center of the universe. Right? Isn't it?
    Well, we have to account for the people who live south. But, there's no more state down there (some other state starts up ^_~).
    Uh, Brooklyn and Staten Island?
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • Uh, Staten Island?
    They tried to secede from the city once already (for real). They don't count. ^_~
  • Brooklyn
    Brooklyn is on the other side.
  • Obviously, the federal government would have to subsidize upstate New York if this happened, but it's no different from how they already do this for much of the midwest. The only difference would be that it would be a federal burden, as opposed to a burden on the city alone.
    I'd be interested to see how that would play out. The thing is, the disparity between the NYC metro district and the rest of the state is so large that they're semi-independent economically. If you lose upstate, you lose a lot of tax income (particularly from state property taxes), but you also lose tax burden. The same is true of upstate.
  • I should note that we live next to Manhattan by the river in Queens, not in Manhattan. ^_~
  • Brooklyn
    Brooklyn is on the other side.
    Brooklyn is still, for the most part, south of Manhattan, unless all my map reading skills have forsaken me.
  • Brooklyn is still, for the most part, south of Manhattan, unless all my map reading skills have forsaken me.
    However, what is south of the City itself? ^_~
  • Brooklyn is still, for the most part, south of Manhattan, unless all my map reading skills have forsaken me.
    It's funny, even though South Brooklyn is technically South of Manhattan, I always think of Brooklyn=East and New Jersey=West
  • Staten Island must be breathing easier right now.
  • edited January 2010
    If NYC secedes from NY, then they can't have our water! Nyah!

    The state put a lot of money into maintaining our watersheds. The people in the city may think they are self-sufficient from the rest of the state, but they are not. Where do you think the water supply for NYC comes from? There's a lot of stuff outside the city that supports the city economy. Not to mention that commuters would then have to deal with living in one state and working in another, which is a PITA come tax time. There is a lot of exchange going on between the city and the rest of the state that people don't think about.
    Post edited by Nuri on
Sign In or Register to comment.