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

Terror Trials

edited November 2009 in Politics
So, what is everyone's opinion on the move to try terror suspects in the civilian court in New York? Is this good or bad and why?
«1345

Comments

  • So, what is everyone's opinion on the move to try terror suspects in the civilian court in New York? Is this good or bad and why?
    Doesn't matter where it is, so long as it's on US soil and subject to US laws. The very idea of holding prisoners outside of our own borders to circumvent our own laws is laughable (in a Joker kind of way).
  • Fair trial on U.S. soil is how it should be, IMHO. I still don't know why we have Guantanamo opened when we could move the prisoners to prisons here in the states. It's not like they're going to escape from any max facility.
  • I predict this is a setup to a painfully idiotic and tedious trolling attempt. Read and reply at your own peril.
  • edited November 2009
    I don't understand why the trials are going to be in New York. As the site of the 9/11 attacks, there is an appearance of prejudice for any trial held there. I doubt the Arab world thinks that a trial in New York is much more fair than a tribunal at Guantanamo.

    Other than that, I applaud this move.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    I don't understand why the trials are going to be in New York.
    Jurisdiction. Read about it.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • As usual Jon Stewart shows the truth.
    Good to know I can always count on Jon.
  • I don't understand why the trials are going to be in New York. As the site of the 9/11 attacks, there is an appearance of prejudice for any trial held there. I doubt the Arab world thinks that a trial in New York is much more fair than a tribunal at Guantanamo.
    You know, I actually think I trust New Yorkers to be more rational about this than some crazy Republicans in, say, Texas. It also has a sort of poetic justice about it, bringing them back to the scene of their crime to be tried for it.

    So the old lady that lives downstairs from Rym, when I told her we might move into the city, freaked out and was all worried because that's where "those men" are, the ones who attacked America. Don't people understand that they are in super secure prison and unable to do anything? Also, I have to say, I doubt they would be put in with the general prison population. It would probably be solitary confinement so they don't get torn apart immediately. Contrary to what Fox news seems to think, I believe the amount of New Yorkers in the prisons who would be "converted" to their terrorist ideas is far outweighed by the guys who would want to murder them for what they did to the city.
  • edited November 2009
    Uh... Joe... New York is not the only place where the trial could be held. Pennsylvania and Virginia were possibilities. Or are you saying that Virginia is crazy? And of course the defense is going to seek a change in venue.

    Besides... why were you so smug about "jurisdiction" when it was irrelevant to my comment? My question had everything to do with venue and not jurisdiction. How could a lawyer miss something so basic? Really basic.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Besides... why were you so smug about "jurisdiction" when it was irrelevant to my comment?
    I don't understand why the trials are going to be in New York.
  • edited November 2009
    What is your point? I said that I didn't understand why the trials would be in New York, not federal court itself. Anyone who stayed awake for the first couple weeks of law school would see that this is a question of venue, not jurisdiction. I'm shocked that I'd have to explain the difference to you. Maybe this will help.

    It won't kill you to admit that you goofed. You can do it. Let's see how grown up you are. Or will those goalposts keep moving?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • I understand perfectly why the trials will be in NYC. You're the one who doesn't understand. Your goof.
  • Well there's significance as well. The Pentagon attack, while tragic, was not as significant as the Towers. A military target just doesn't hold as much significance as large civilian one.

    Also, why would Maryland be a possibility?
  • edited November 2009
    Also, why would Maryland be a possibility?
    I guess Maryland would be a possibility because they keep moving the goalposts.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2009
    I understand perfectly why the trials will be in NYC. You're the one who doesn't understand. Your goof.
    Great debating skills, Joe.

    How about you address the relevant points:
    1) Why did you believe that my comment was a question of jurisdiction, rather than venue?
    2) Do you agree that the trials could be held in other venues?

    Saying something equivalent to "I understand perfectly why there is a God. You're the one who doesn't undestand. Your goof." just doesn't cut it.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    K, the trials will be in NYC. It's easy for most people to understand why. That's where at least one event happened. It's also easy to unsderstand that, just because a trial might occur in NYC, that doesn't mean that there could be a trial in VA at a later date for a separate act.

    I'm sorry to see that you're having so much trouble with this. It must be sad to be so dull.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • As for Maryland, I meant to say Virginia, and corrected it prior to seeing your question.

    But ready for this... I goofed when I said Maryland.

    See... how hard was that to admit? Not very. I guess ease of admitting gaffes is a function of maturity.
  • edited November 2009
    Saying something equivalent to "I know you are, but what am I?" just doesn't cut it.
    Nor does the inability to post more than twenty words without saying something about goalposts.

    Joe, I'm ill informed about US law, but couldn't the 9/11 attacks be viewed as a federal crime, and thus, able to be tried anywhere on US soil?
    Not taking an opinion, I'm just curious on how it all works.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • edited November 2009
    Joe, you still haven't answered my question.

    You stated that this was a matter of jurisdiction. You were quite smug about it. Therefore, please explain how a trial taking place in New York versus another part of the country is a matter of jurisdiction, rather than venue. You made the statement. I'm just asking you to back it up.

    I completely understand why the trials MAY happen in New York. My comment indicated that I did not feel this was the best place - therefore I did not understand why New York was chosen when there were other options that were less subject to criticism.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    It's also easy to unserstand that, just because a trial might occur in NYC, that doesn't mean that there could be a trial in VA.
    Ahh... so you admit that I was correct. The trial did not have to be in New York.

    Thank you. That is all I was trying to point out. I'm not sure why you disputed this when in the end you conceeded my position?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    Joe, I'm ill informed about US law, but couldn't the 9/11 attacks be viewed as a federal crime, and thus, able to be tried anywhere on US soil?
    Not taking an opinion, I'm just curious on how it all works.
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    U.S. Const. Sixth Amendment.

    We like to try crimes in the places where they were committed. Now, the defense attorneys could ask for a change of venue if they could prove that their clients could in no way receive a fair trial in that jurisdiction. That's not a question that prosecutors usually think too much about. Eric Holder made a decision to hold the trials in NYC, in a district that has successfully held terrorism trials before. It wouldn't be surprising if the defense attorneys asked for a change of venue.

    As for VA, a future trial might be held there after the NYC trial has been completed. It's easy to see how this may happen by thinking about the DC Sniper attacks. Some crimes occurred in VA. Some occurred in MD. So, there were trials in both VA and MD. The defense attorneys in that trial sought and received a change of venue from one city in VA to another city, but again, the prosecutors did not concern themselves with what would be the most convenient venue for the defendant. They brought the case where the crime occurred, just as what Eric holder did when he decided that the trial for the hijackers should be in NYC. The idea that prosecutors would be concerned about what venue would be most convenient for a defendant is silly at best.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited November 2009
    It must be sad to be so dull.
    And you stated in another thread:
    Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I guess that's what you do when you're on the losing side of an argument.
    I guess the goalpost moved again. Or is hypocrisy the new debating tactic?
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    I said that I didn't understand why the trials would be in New York, not federal court itself.
    Kilarney, I think you lack a fundamental understanding of how the Federal Court system works. You can try a case in a Federal Court in New York. Just saying that the case will be tried in New York does not mean they are trying them in a state court. The Federal Courts are broken up into different courts that sit in different geographical locations.

    Since the crime happened in New York, the accused will be prosecuted in NY. The accused are generally prosecuted under the law of the location where the thing took place. "Personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established when the defendant is accused of committing a crime in the geographic area in which the court sits. If a crime results in federal charges, the federal court that sits in the state where the offense was committed has personal jurisdiction over the defendan" (cite). That sums it up pretty well.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • edited November 2009
    I said that I didn't understand why the trials would be in New York, not federal court itself.
    Kilarney, I think you lack a fundamental understanding of how the Federal Court system works. You can try a case in a Federal Court in New York. Just saying that the case will be tried in New York does not mean they are trying them in a state court. The Federal Courts are broken up into different courts that sit in different geographical locations.

    Since the crime happened in New York, the accused will be prosecuted in NY. The accused are generally prosecuted under the law of the location where the thing took place. "Personal jurisdiction in a criminal case is established when the defendant is accused of committing a crime in the geographic area in which the court sits. If a crime results in federal charges, the federal court that sits in the state where the offense was committed has personal jurisdiction over the defendan" (cite. That sums it up pretty well.
    Uhh... I always understood this. I am well aware that federal court is not the same as a state court. Jurors, however, will come from the district. In this case, jurors will come from southern New York. That was the basis for my concern that a federal trial in New York would have the appearance of prejudice to a defendant.

    Were you aware that federal courts are broken down into districts that are largely divided along state lines? Maybe you weren't, which is why you assumed that I was referring to state courts.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    Well then you mis-spoke yourself when you said what I quoted above. And one of the main points of having a case tried by a federal court instead of a state court is to divorce the case from locational prejudice. That's why we have diversity cases in civil law. Honestly, the case is going to appear biased no matter where it is tried. The event was nationally televised. Schools were stopped to watch it. No oone is going to be an impartial juror.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • edited November 2009
    Nuri, I am not suggesting for a second that this matter should be heard by a state court. It should be heard by a federal court. My gripe was with which district the matter should be heard in. That's all.

    The quote you took from me was a statement to Joe saying that I understood that the trials would be in federal court, and was not questioning that fact. Thus, no challenge to the jurisdiction of the federal court to hear such a matter. I was questioning the choice of venue in New York when VA or PA were options. I stated earlier that I understood that the trials MAY have been brought in New York (in the federal court sitting in the southern district of New York to be exact) - but was not happy with that choice amongst the other options. When I referred to New York, there was an assumption that we were speaking about a federal court within the state of New York. Maybe that is where the confusion lies. If I was not clear enough about that, my apologies. At all times I talking about which federal court should hear the matter. A federal court in PA, VA or NY - or anywhere else that may have venue.

    Much ado about nothing, I think. Hopefully I cleared up any confusion.

    For the record, I think that PA would have been ideal. It's close enough to New York so that the excellent United States attorneys from NY could be involved in the case, but far enough from NYC so that a verdict for the government would be less likely to be seen as a verdict fueled by prejudice against the defendant.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • edited November 2009
    This entire issue is much ado about nothing. Either the venue will be challenged effectively or not. Why is there any necessity to discuss our "feelings" on the venue other than to say that it should be held on US soil and at an appropriate venue?
    If those in the know want to discuss any case law/precedent for changing the venue in a matter such as this (as I am sure there is), then please present it. Otherwise this is just taking the forum's temperature on an issue that has already been declared above.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • I stated earlier that I understood that the trials MAY have been brought in New York
    I don't understand why the trials are going to be in New York.
  • edited November 2009
    Holy out of context, Joe. Post my entire original comment if you want to have a shred of credibility. Better yet, I'll do it for you:
    As the site of the 9/11 attacks, there is an appearance of prejudice for any trial held there. I doubt the Arab world thinks that a trial in New York is much more fair than a tribunal at Guantanamo.

    Any doubt that my concern was with the prospect of prejudice - and not some confusion as to how the court is structured? I even used the word "prejudice" itself.

    Nice try, Joe.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • No oone is going to be an impartial juror.
    This. You won't find unbiased people anywhere in the US for these sorts of trials. It's utterly impossible. You just have to accept that and really emphasize the impartiality instructions.
Sign In or Register to comment.