Obama seems to be backing off on his plan to try the 9/11 terrorists in NYC.
One factor is the immense security costs-Mayor Blloomburg estimates over $270,000,000! How he came up with this, I don’t know.
My concern: aggressive defense lawyers will turn the trials into an “OJ Simpson-style Circus”. They will bog the trial down in endless delays, and focus on trivia-and will up putting the USA on trial (as OJ’s lawyers did to the LAPD).
I am also concerned that they will simply inundate the juries with endless debates over the evidence, and drive jurors to distraction.
A total trial time of 9-12 months is likely.
What do you think? Will this wind up embarassing Obama, or enhancing him?:eek:
Did the other trials embarrass Bush? Did any other presidents get embarrassed? What is so special about Obama that he should be embarrassed?
Did the trials for the earlier WTC attack, held in NYC btw, embarrass Clinton? Or even turn into a circus?
FWIW, you can’t have cameras in a federal trial, so the trial itself won’t even be televised. That probably limits how much the public will even pay attention, since people reading transcripts on the news doesn’t seem to draw the same interest from the public as actually watching Johnny Cochrane types struting around infront of a jury.
And this isn’t only the first terrorist to be tried in federal courts, it isn’t even the first 9/11 conspirator. I guess can you can argue that Zacarias Moussaoui’s trial was a “circus” to some extent, mainly because the defendent was too insane to co-operate with his lawyers, but I don’t think it was a problem for the legal system or the public to handle.
We tried Timothy McVeigh in a regular, civilian court, just like Ted Kaczynski, Terry Nichols, Charles Manson, and everyone else, and somehow civilization has not collapsed around us. I don’t think we need to make an exception for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
The hemming and hawing over this was much ado about nothing. I don’t recall any of these concerns coming up when Zacarias Moussaoui was tried.
Basically what it boiled down to was that was simply another BS non-issue that the right wing could attack Obama on. Hell. if they hadn’t made so much noise about I doubt many people would have thought twice about the fact the trial was taking place in New York.
Well, they could always hire a bunch of actors and do reenactments of the day’s court proceedings like the Michael Jackson case.
Much of that had to do with the Judge, who clearly lost control of his courtroom.
I don’t think that will happen again. A federal court judge has various ways to keep lawyers under control, and not allow delays in the trial. I expect they would use these to keep it moving.
Having to move the trial is already an embarrassment to the President. It was just common sense not to do it in NYC. Hopefully the Federal Court will keep it under control.
So, there is no actual down side.
:dubious: So? “Endless debates over the evidence” is simply an essential part of due process of law. Ideally, debates over what evidence gets admitted are supposed to be resolved before the trial starts, to minimize distraction to jurors. But debating what inferences are to be drawn from the evidence is what a trial is all about.
I’m not really commenting on any possible circus inside the courtroom (because I don’t think there would be one), but outside.
This article states gives a tad of insight into the cost related to extra security:
The overtime is broken down by:
Is this overkill? As others posted below, I don’t remember this happening for anyone else who might entice a fanatical following that would actually try something. But I could be wrong.
Assuming the $216million cost is legit, is this too expensive? Granted, the cost is for an entire years worth of trials for multiple terrorists.
Yes it’s overkill. It would b zero if the trials were held at Guantanamo Bay. Put another way, it’s 5,400 jobs paying $40,000 a year.
A bigger problem is the potential for the government to be forced to release classified data at the request of the defense. In a civil court, the accused have the right to face their accusers, which can include informants, etc.
In the first WTC trial, the government was forced to release a terrorist watch list to the defense. On the list was one Osama Bin Laden, who up to that point had no idea that the U.S. were wise to him. Osama had the list in his hands within 10 days.
In addition, testimony about a cell phone battery revealed that a terrorist communication channel the NSA had compromised. The terrorists shut it down, and a valuable intelligence asset lost.
This is one of the main reasons such people are tried in military court. Such information can be kept secret.
Another risk is political - that this trial will be seen a show trial with a foregone conclusion (which it is). This is not helped by idiots in the administration like the Press Secretary mouthing off that KSM would give a nice fair trial - and then be executed. This trial therefore runs the risk of being a very public lightning rod for jihadis around the world.
It’s about time the Obama administration started backing off this. I think this was initially an ideological decision by Eric Holder, and now they’re realizing what a terrible can of worms they’ve opened and they’re looking for a way out.
I doubt any defence lawyer will put that much effort into defending a mass murderer-these guys are light years beyond OJ Simpson. The bigger problem I have is if these criminals will be given the death penalty and if so how long it will take them to be punished.
Why don’t we go ahead and have a trial first, o.k.?
Yes of course but I’m thinking of the long-term situation here also.
Will KSM’s confession be admissible after being obtained under severe torture in Guantanamo? Probably they have enough other evidence to convict him, but I see his “A-Z” confession mentioned in news articles.
Hold it in Boise Idaho starting tomorrow, and don’t tell anyone until it’s too late to whine about it.
I heard Guantanamo is actually $1million (total), but your point is essentially the same.
Putting on a purely political hat, it’s a somewhat savy political move for those who do not want this in NYC to frame this in economic terms. Spend $216million or $1million, when we’re running a $1.3 trillion(?) deficit. Well played.
I sincerely doubt the defense lawyers will not put that much effort into this. It will be the exact opposite. I’m not sure who the lawyers will be, but they will be gung-ho about the defense (and likely be or have expert advice) and I’m sure there will also be extremely capable appellate lawyers advising on every possible objection.
Your last point though, yes, his real defense won’t be about guilty/not guilty, but about whether he will receive the death penalty in a district that doesn’t really give the death penalty (assuming venue doesn’t change). If the defense can play up beliefs in the afterlife and martyrdom and convince the jury that it would be worse to rot in jail, who knows (don’t spare his life, make it worse). Nah, he’s dying, but it’ll be awhile.
Of course, this all presumes KSM listens to his lawyers.
Here’s my big problem if these terrorists gets sentenced to prison for life. What if a liberal President pardons them? I know you may be saying “That’s crazy!” but remember that Carter pardones the Vietnam Draft Dodgers and Clinton pardoned Patty Hearst and other leftist terrorists plus Britain released the Lockerbie bomber.