NYC Terrorist Trials: Will They Become a Circus?

[gonzomax]

@Curtis LeMay

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.

Thats crazy.

[The_Tooth]

@Curtis LeMay

Here’s my big problem if these terrorists gets sentenced to prison for life. What if a liberal President pardons them?

What?

That’s crazy!

I know you may be saying “That’s crazy!”

Good call!

but remember that Carter pardones the Vietnam Draft Dodgers

Yes, I can see how that would lead one to believe a future president would pardon a man found guilty of planning the murder of 3000 people. Not wanting to be forced to fight a war, planning to kill a bunch of people, the parallels are obvious.

and Clinton pardoned Patty Hearst and other leftist terrorists plus Britain released the Lockerbie bomber.

Patty Hearst had been released over a decade before Clinton was elected, so it’s not like he let her out of prison. And the leftist terrorist in question is apparently married and living with her husband and children. I bet they’re leftist terrorists too.

I do not know of these other leftist terrorists to whom you refer. I know of the thwarted LAX bomber, and terrorists from the leftist cabal Islam who failed in an attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993 and are now serving life terms, but pardoned? No one springs to mind.

I think my first impression was pretty much dead on. And if the price of a fair trial is your being afraid the guilty party be pardoned, well, okay. I can live with you being afraid of that.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Tooth

What?

That’s crazy!

Good call!

Yes, I can see how that would lead one to believe a future president would pardon a man found guilty of planning the murder of 3000 people. Not wanting to be forced to fight a war, planning to kill a bunch of people, the parallels are obvious.

Patty Hearst had been released over a decade before Clinton was elected, so it’s not like he let her out of prison. And the leftist terrorist in question is apparently married and living with her husband and children. I bet they’re leftist terrorists too.

I do not know of these other leftist terrorists to whom you refer. I know of the thwarted LAX bomber, and terrorists from the leftist cabal Islam who failed in an attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993 and are now serving life terms, but pardoned? No one springs to mind.

I think my first impression was pretty much dead on. And if the price of a fair trial is your being afraid the guilty party be pardoned, well, okay. I can live with you being afraid of that.

Maybe I was overhasty but people like Kathy Boudin were released despite being a muderer.

[The_Tooth]

She was paroled. In 2003.

So you’re afraid that a person responsible for planning the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and presumably the Capitol Building will receive a pardon from a liberal president because Kathy Boudin received parole when George Bush was president.

I see.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Tooth

She was paroled. In 2003.

So you’re afraid that a person responsible for planning the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and presumably the Capitol Building will receive a pardon from a liberal president because Kathy Boudin received parole when George Bush was president.

I see.

If you see how much on social issues the political spectrum is shifting left we may be as liberal as Europe is to-day. And in Europe the Lockerbie bomber was released.

[badlyburnttoast]

@Curtis LeMay

If you see how much on social issues the political spectrum is shifting left we may be as liberal as Europe is to-day. And in Europe the Lockerbie bomber was released.

He was released because he is dying of terminal prostate cancer and it was estimated (incorrectly) that he had less then 3 months left to live.

Maybe you want to argue that was the wrong thing to do, but let’s not pretend they just pardoned him so he could blow something else up because they hate capitalism or whatever you’re trying to suggest.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@badlyburnttoast

He was released because he is dying of terminal prostate cancer and it was estimated (incorrectly) that he had less then 3 months left to live.

That’s SOB’s still alive?

Maybe you want to argue that was the wrong thing to do, but let’s not pretend they just pardoned him so he could blow something else up because they hate capitalism or whatever you’re trying to suggest.

That’s correct but it strikes other terrorists that the nation is weak and even mass murderers will not be punished severely.

[The_Tooth]

@Curtis LeMay

If you see how much on social issues the political spectrum is shifting left we may be as liberal as Europe is to-day. And in Europe the Lockerbie bomber was released.

In Europe, they have health care and five weeks vacation every year. Some countries, anyway.

[Oakminster]

@Curtis LeMay

I doubt any defence lawyer will put that much effort into defending a mass murderer-these guys are light years beyond OJ Simpson.

You don’t have a clue what being a defense lawyer is like, or what the rules of professional responsibility require. The defense team will be giving it their best efforts. I’ve posted before that I’d defend this guy if appointed or hired for an agreeable fee. Strongly suspect that I’m only one of thousands of lawyers that would be willing to accept this case.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Tooth

In Europe, they have health care and five weeks vacation every year. Some countries, anyway.

Their economies during the Bush Prosperity Years (circa 2002-2007) were growing at a lesser rate than America’s so don’t take that path.

[The_Tooth]

Strongly suspect that I’m only one of thousands of lawyers that would be willing to accept this case.

I imagine it’d be fairly high profile and a unique case.

[The_Tooth]

@Curtis LeMay

Their economies during the Bush Prosperity Years (circa 2002-2007) were growing at a lesser rate than America’s so don’t take that path.

I didn’t.
‘Bush Prosperity Years’?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@The_Tooth

I didn’t.
‘Bush Prosperity Years’?

People who don’t like Bush tend to forget that the years 2002-2007 saw tremendous economic growth including a spike in the stock market with the Dow Jones reaching 14,000. People who peddle the “Clinton Prosperity” tend to forget the Bush Prosperity.

[The_Tooth]

Zero net job growth is not a sign of prosperity. Not that that has anything to do with Khalid Sheik Mohammed riding a wave of European-style social liberalism to a presidential pardon and freedom. It’s absurd.

[BrainGlutton]

@Curtis LeMay

People who don’t like Bush tend to forget that the years 2002-2007 saw tremendous economic growth including a spike in the stock market with the Dow Jones reaching 14,000. People who peddle the “Clinton Prosperity” tend to forget the Bush Prosperity.

You want fries with that?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

In 2006 the American unemployment rate was 4.8%-low as the Clinton years.

[Steve_MB]

@Curtis LeMay

Their economies during the Bush Prosperity Years (circa 2002-2007) were growing at a lesser rate than America’s so don’t take that path.

You misspelled “bubble”.

[BrainGlutton]

@Curtis LeMay

In 2006 the American unemployment rate was 4.8%-low as the Clinton years.

Both periods sucked.

Is the American economy facing a lost decade? That is the wrong question to ask. The right question is this: Is the United States facing another lost decade? During the past 10 years, inflation-adjusted wages have stagnated or declined for working Americans; net job creation has been zero; and temporary, bubble-driven gains in the stock market have been erased.

This isn’t what Bill Clinton and the other “New Democrats” of the 1990s promised us.

Remember “the new economy”? In the second half of the 1990s, after years of stagnation, the U.S. economy briefly boomed. Members of the New Democrat wing of the Democratic Party, associated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), made a number of claims.

First: The source of the boom was not a bubble associated with tech stocks, but rather a permanent increase in U.S. productivity growth produced by the information technology (I.T.) revolution. Second: Foreign money was pouring into the U.S. as a result of well-informed expectations that the U.S. would lead the world in economic growth for a long period to come. Third: Increased inequality in the U.S. was a result of the global market rewarding skilled Americans at the expense of unskilled Americans, and could be cured by more higher education.

Something like this was the cheerful and optimistic New Democrat party line in 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration. How do things look from the perspective of 2010?

It is now clear that the boom of the second Clinton term was driven by the temporary tech stock bubble. It did not mark the beginning of a “new economy” fundamentally different from the old.

It is true that official statistics showed a trend toward a higher level of U.S. productivity growth in the late 1990s and 2000s than in the period of prolonged slow growth from the 1970s to the mid-90s. But Michael Mandel and other economists (pdf link) have argued that government statisticians have exaggerated the rate of productivity growth in the Clinton and Bush years by mistaking the falling prices of imported ingredients from low-wage countries like China for gains in productivity on U.S. soil.

Between 1997 and 2007 U.S. productivity growth might have been overstated by as much as 20 percent. If this revisionist critique is right, then actual U.S. economic performance, when the stock and housing bubbles are factored out, has been much worse than anyone would have believed a few years ago. The illusory wealth generated by overpriced tech stocks and houses temporarily obscured the grim picture, but now its depressing outlines are becoming clear.

In economics, at least, Europe’s way is better, if less flashy.

[Kobal2]

@Curtis LeMay

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.

So (forgive me if I dismiss the Europe vs. US stuff, it’s very much irrelevant to the OP, and I’m not even sure WTH you’re trying to accomplish with it), where does this thinking long term get you, then ? What’s your, you know, point ?

They shouldn’t get a trial ? Should get one, but only if it’s one that we know will result in the death penalty before it’s even started (i.e., an unfair one) ? A special “no pardon” sentence should be created and put in the books for them in the event they get prison for life ? Something else ? What ?

[Saintly_Loser]

The trial itself (which apparently will not now be held in New York) will not be a circus. The federal courts are generally better than the state courts in this way. The trial will not be televised. The judge will undoubtedly control his or her courtroom. As to the trial being a show trial with a preordained outcome, I admit that I find it hard to think of it in any other way, but federal judges are pretty much immune from political pressure (they’re appointed for life) and are pretty independent.

There will absolutely be a circus around the trial. If the trial were to be held in New York, you couldn’t pay me enough money to go within half a mile of the courthouse. Unfortunately, given its location, it’s pretty hard to avoid.