NY 9/11 trials

Im not sure about this one at all!

The US has just announced their intention to hold trials of 4 suspects of the 9/11 twin tower attacks. I personaly dont think it is a good idea to try these suspects in the middle of NY.

If the intention is to give these men a 'fair' trial then I wouldnt think this to be possible as the judge and jury would be selecteted from locals and local media.

The security for the state of NY during the trials would bring the city to a standstill making it a no-go area. Indeed the whole of the USA.

The mental state of the accused is in doubt, as the main accussed is pleading guilty to masterminding just about every notible bombing attack worldwide, he wants to die a hero to his cause and would wallow in the publicity of both trial and sentance.

I think these 'people' should be tried by a United Nations court, held in some nuetral country in the middle east.

The US is not used to fighting terrorisum in its backyard and should put a lot of thought into this situation, we see from only last week at 'Fort Hood' that terrorists dont wear uniforms with the word 'terrorist' writen on them

I agree with you, Michael. I too think that the alleged criminals should be tried by a United Nations court on neutral soil.

This was after all a crime against the entire Western world and not just the US.

I agree with you two.  My fear is that they will get off on a technicality, like a confession obtained under torture, or lack of due process, or maybe even not informing the defendants that they had the right to reman silent or have an attorney present during questioning. (lol- remember Dragnet?)

In a particularly high profile and heinous case, the defense will usually ask for a change of venue to ensure a fair trial for the accused.  I don't think they could get one in NY, (or maybe anywhere in the US), which only means there will be months, if not years of legal wranglings.

Another thing they do in the US is try to get a cross section of jurors who represent the ethnicity or race of the accused.  If they stack the jury with Muslims, you can almost be sure they'd be acquitted.  And there's no way they could ignore bringing religion into the trial.  But in this crazy PC run amok world we live in now, that would be another technicality that could allow them to walk.  Their religious views, however extreme and dangerous, would probably be considered "inadmissable."

IMHO, these guys don't deserve a trial at all.  They've already confessed and want to die as martyrs.  The purpose of a trial is to establish guilt, right?  So if they've already admitted their guilt, they should move right to sentencing.

In America, it's the government's responsibility to prove guilt, not the defendant's to prove their innocence.  The defendants are innocent until proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty.  That's how jurors are instructed.  These guys are far from innocent.  I like the fact that Obama is trying to clean up Bush's Guantanamo mess he left behind, but I hope and pray that it's not in a way where fair play and PC derail justice.  

Ruth perhaps they should be trialed like this dude I was an juror to some years back...where there was no reasonable doubt as to his guilt in the murder, even he said he did it...the trial we were at was rather it was premediated murder, which he would get the death penalty or if it was he was insane at the time of his actions.. in which he was sentenced to an "security" mental ward to an advanced age before being let out, if ever. By the time he's out on his own, if they revaluate him to be sensible enough for it, everyone of us will be in our 70's and 80's by then...if we make it. Technically he will never be free of the Government in some way...even out on his own at this age he will most likely be on Govt. subsitence and have an case worker assigned to him...which is required to see him monthy of not more then that...and handles all his problems/expenses for him. The lawyers toldl us that he was so "batty", that for the first time they haveever known both sides of lawyers had to work together just to have an trial because our "due process of law" if they didn't have an trail would of let him out on his own in short time otherwise....you can not "hold" an person forever you know. They said he did nothing to help himself. They feared him more being out on the streets "loose" then they did locked up in any way possible...where they at least knew where he was.He stabbed an 8 year old little girl to death "out to of his mind" 17 times with an kitchen knife mad at his father. she just got in the way by accident...he didnt' even hate her. Cried to think he even did it. Was full of remorse afterwards.

Welcome to POE from Anna and Ron, Elizabeth. But why not introduce yourself in 'User Introductions'.

As for your post above, the thread was a question of whether it is right or wrong to hold a trial in the USA. Nobody has said it was right to kill innocent people and I do think POE members care, very much in fact!

Hi Elizabeth:  I think you're kind of comparing apples and oranges here, but believe me, your point is well taken.  As for civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, it doesn't seem to me that the people in country need any help from foreign troops - they seem to be doing a pretty good job of killing their fellow civilians without outside help.  But I think the presence of American troops there helps to stir the pot.  They have them to blame, so they can commit all kinds of murder and mayhem and have somebody else to point the finger at.