Dem senator: Move KSM trial out of NYC

[ElmoBlatz]

Source: MSNBC

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with NBC's Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC, agreed with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed should not be tried in New York.

"The dynamic has changed," Feinstein said. "The adminstration should listen to the mayor and the mayor's concerns and candidly make a change."

Feinstein said she could not discuss details openly, but "in my view from an intelligence perspective, the situation has changed from the Christmas Day attack ... the situation has changed, and the administration should take note of that."



Read more: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/28/2188018.aspx

[mike_c]

1. what has changed?

Politics? Since when should politics influence criminal justice proceedings? WTF is Feinstein talking about? What bearing does the attempted bombing on Xmas have on KSM's trial?

[Thrill]

2. Democrats are a bunch of wimps. Whats new?

[provis99]

3. shut up, Feinstein, you useless tool

Go back to banging married guys in uniforms.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Mayor Bloomberg is saying that finest blue are incapable of protecting the citizens.

And Feinstein the same.

[harkadog]

5. Move the trial to a military base.

Plenty around. No security problems. Why should it be in the middle of the city where the security will choke businesses and throw people out of work?

[mike_c]

6. because "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety...

...deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

One of those "essential liberties" is having trials where the jurors can be drawn from the affected community and the accused can front his accusers in civil court.

[anonymous171]

7. Feinstein is not a big fan of liberty. nt

[madrchsod]

9. she makes a nice living on the blood of war....

[harkadog]

11. All of that can be done on a military base.

Most military bases are nearby communities. They are not in the middle of no where.

[No Elephants]

23. Why should it have to be done on a military base? The D of J has the authority to select a venue.

The Mayor of NYC is not the boss of the United States Department of Justice.

[harkadog]

32. A military base is easy to secure.

You are apparently wrong about the powers of the Mayor. The DOJ is moving the trial.

[No Elephants]

22. Venues are changed all the time for all kinds of reasons, almost always at the request of

the defendant, if not always.

The defendant has no interest in being tried where the sympathies for the victims and the hysteria run highest.

The U.S. government has a great interest in trying him in NY, but, apparently, someone got to Bloomberg.

[harkadog]

33. What interest does the US have in trying him in NY?

Do you think jurors will be partial to the Defendant outside of NYC? The government witnesses in the case will almost all be federal employees, most of whom are not located in NY. They can testify anywhere.

[marshall]

36. The next thing we hear will be "Just have it at Guantanamo"

That seems to be what they're gearing up for.

[madrchsod]

8. what a bunch of cowards

the mastermind behind the bombing of trade center was tried and convicted in nyc.


we really have become a nation of children who are afraid of the dark

[high density]

10. How did my party get so full of idiots?

God these people are stupid.

[harkadog]

12. Right. The only smart people are you and those who agree with you.

I wonder how that happened?

[high density]

15. Yeah, how silly of me to expect my politicans to be a little politically savvy

My bad.

[harkadog]

18. Maybe they are politically savvy

And its why they are where they are and you are where you are.

[Lucky Luciano]

13. I am with bloomberg here. The security budget would top $1B and that

Is enough to make it worthwhile to have elsewhere just Luke mcveigh and Nichols were tried outside of OKC iirc. Probably a more fair trial away from ground zero. Should not be a military trial and should be on us soil with us laws.

[aquart]

16. Bull cookies.

They're being ridiculous.

[Lucky Luciano]

17. You are right - perhaps that $1B would not be better spent on education, etc

[aquart]

29. Let's not have trials anymore. They cost money.

SO YOU WANT ANOTHER COMMUNITY TO PAY FOR TRYING THESE CRIMINALS? Another community to risk the terror threat? Well, how kind and thoughtful of others.

If the money is that much, SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO SPEND IT OR THERE WILL BE NO TRIAL, right? Let's not have any trials at all since we're in the middle of a fiscal crisis. Put that money to education. We can have trials when things are more prosperous.

It's OUR trial to hold, nobody else's.

How dare you outsource justice.

[Lucky Luciano]

35. Dude - relax with the caffeine. I am not really afraid of terror.

The cost of security is my only issue (and one that I am not THAT emotional about - ie - if the trial is held in NYC afterall, fine by me though the cost should be considered). The main thing is that this crime, not only against NYC, but all of America, be tried in America under American laws. As I think this through, the most cost effective way to do this in NYC is probably to run the trial on Governor's Island as was mentioned by someone else on DU. That would be the best way not to disrupt or cost the city a fortune.

Not sure why you are so emotional that it be in NYC. Hijacking is a federal crime and the crimes also occurred in Boston and Washington DC. The only thing that matters is that they be given a fair trial in America under American laws as opposed to some kangaroo military tribunal court. In the process, we should make this cost effective and without delay. I never said we should not move forward with the trials - we should absolutely have them ASAFP, but there are better ways than spending a billion bucks while also being just.

[No Elephants]

25. Meh. If that were really the reason, Bloomberg could have gone quietly to someone

and asked for financial help and/or help with security.

As far as a more fair trial, that is up to defendant and his counsel to raise.

[aquart]

14. Idiot lives in California. Knows nothing about terrorism or NYC.

[harkadog]

19. Which states do you have to live in to know about terrorism?

Since CA has been ruled out. Does any state qualify besides the one you live in?

[No Elephants]

26. Riiight. Because places like Hollywood would never be targets of Islamic nutjobs.

Wasn't there an attack planned on California thwarted during Clinton's time?

[Dogmudgeon]

20. I have a totally radical idea

How about we let the presiding judge decide on the venue.

It may just start a trend: we can call it "The Rule of Law".

That sure beats "The Rule of Bellicose, Yet Utterly Cowardly, Republican Chickenhawks."

--d!

[No Elephants]

27. The presiding judge does not choose where the D of J chooses to bring the case in the first instance

If the defense asks for a change of venue, or if the court feels it totally lacks jurisdiction, the court can decide. But first, the case has to be before the court. Catch 22.

[Solly Mack]

21. Hmm.....wonder what that's really about

[TexasObserver]

24. FEAR is a lousy reason to make national decisions.

New York, New York is up to it. Period.

[depakid]

28. LOL- that didn't take long...

[Gecko6400]

30. IN my VHO

if we continue down this road to civilian trial's for the GITMO folks they will be acquitted, unless we completely bastardize and prejudice our justice system. I, for one, would not want to serve any of the jury's.

[Mz Pip]

31. Probably

some of the people being held at GITMO would be acquitted. Juries do acquit people who are falsely accused or when there is no evidence to support the crime. If that's hat ends up happening then so be it. Just because they are at GITMO doesn't mean they are guilty.

Bush anc Company had 7 years to deal with these people under the system they preferred. Why didn't they do it when they had the chance? Did they really believe that you could just hold someone indefinitely?

[boppers]

34. A failed Detroit attack affected NYC?

Looking at a map, I'm not seeing the connection.... is it that any terrorist attack, anywhere in the US, means that NYC shouldn't have terrorism trials?