• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York trial for alleged 9/11 mastermind

Hmmmmmmm.....

Speedy trial refers to one of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution to defendants in criminal proceedings. The right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, is intended to ensure that defendants are not subjected to unreasonably lengthy incarceration prior to a fair trial.[citation needed] Violations of the principle, such as where the state has failed to bring the case to trial for an "unreasonable" length of time, may be a cause for dismissal of a criminal case.

In the United States, the length of time can either be defined by statute (for example, in New York, the prosecution must be "ready for trial" within six months on all felonies except murder, or the charges are dismissed by action of law without regard to the merits of the case), or determined by a court under a substantive theory based on the Sixth Amendment; which states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." This argument is typically made in cases in which a significant amount of time has lapsed between the date of the commission of the crime and the date of arrest.

Most, if not all, statutes defining the period of speedy trial time also include various exceptions to this rule. Examples of such exceptions are periods of time in which the delay preceding the trial is due to the request of the defense, or if there is good cause shown for the delay.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_trial]Speedy trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

What is a "Speedy" Trial?

A "speedy" trial basically means that the defendant is tried for the alleged crimes within a reasonable time after being arrested. Although most states have laws that set forth the time in which a trial must take place after charges are filed, often the issue of whether or not a trial is in fact "speedy" enough under the Sixth Amendment comes down to the circumstances of the case itself, and the reasons for any delays. In the most extreme situations, when a court determines that the delay between arrest and trial was unreasonable and prejudicial to the defendant, the court dismisses the case altogether.
Click to expand...

Right to a Speedy Jury Trial - Criminal Law

628 Speedy Trial Act of 1974
Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 2080, as amended August 2, 1979, 93 Stat. 328, is set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174. The Act establishes time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution. The information or indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of arrest or service of the summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
Click to expand...

Criminal Resource Manual 628 Speedy Trial Act of 1974

Looks like someone here flunked law school. :shock:
 
Agent Ferris said:
Oh ya prove it, the entire point of the right to a speedy trial is to prevent lengthy incarceration prior to a trial, it starts once the suspect is detained and infact in some instances kicks in at the point of the commission of the crime itself.
Click to expand...

The sixth amendment right to a speedy trial does not attach until indictment in cases like this. This is exactly what happened with Jose Padilla's trial.

The reason why the Padilla trial will provide no resolution of this fundamental question is simple enough: Federal district judge Marcia Cooke, who is presiding over the trial of Padilla and his two co-defendants, has made clear over a series of pre-trial rulings that Padilla’s military detention is completely irrelevant for purposes of his criminal trial, so long as the government does not introduce any evidence obtained in conjunction with that detention. All too willing to comply, the government itself has embraced this bifurcated understanding of Padilla’s confinement, going so far as to argue that the Justice Department cannot be held responsible for any unlawful actions of the Department of Defense — that the right hand simply can’t be called to account for the actions of the left.

Legally, Judge Cooke may well be correct. The government is not attempting to introduce evidence obtained from Padilla during his 1307-day stay in a South Carolina Navy brig, and so the question whether that detention (or any of the government’s actions toward Padilla during it) was unlawful would not seem to implicate any aspect of the criminal charges Padilla now faces. In effect, then, the criminal case against Padilla has proceeded upon the theory that his “incarceration” began the day he was transferred to the custody of the Department of Justice in January 2006.
Click to expand...

JURIST - Forum: The Anticlimactic Trial of Jose Padilla

For the last few months, Jose Padilla's lawyers and prosecutors have been fighting over what should happen at Padilla's trial. He's charged with supporting terrorism. His attorneys don't think he should have a trial at all. They told the court in Florida that the deadline for a speedy trial has long since passed, and they say Padilla was consistently tortured for nearly the entire three years and eight months of his detention. They say that alone is enough reason to throw the case out.

Yesterday, the government fired back. They said, as for the speedy trial, the clock starts ticking from Padilla's indictment in 2005, not his detention three years earlier.
Click to expand...

Government Rejects Suspected Terrorist's Speedy Trial Claim : NPR

The government won on that issue in that case and they'll win on it again here. It's not a close question.

Ya that was pretty crazy as it directly led to the 9-11 attacks because due to the trial of Ramzi Yousef, Operation Able Danger was not able to contact the FBI with pertinent information regarding the 9-11 attackers.
Click to expand...

Explain exactly how you think this played out.

Albert Di Salvo said:
Have you ever tried a criminal case in US District Court? If not, how do you know the things you aver?
Click to expand...

I've tried criminal cases in city courts via a student practice order and have worked on several criminal cases from the defense side in the SD and ED of NY. Not sure what that has to do with anything though, as the things I stated would have been just as true even if I'd never set foot in a courtroom.

Crunch said:
Hmmmmmmm.....

Looks like someone here flunked law school.
Click to expand...

Great point! Now just show me the date on which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested or served with a criminal summons.
 
RightinNYC said:
Great point! Now just show me the date on which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested or served with a criminal summons.
Click to expand...

Not sure what day he was "detained", but you can bet his lawyers will maintain that was the day he was arrested.
 
Crunch said:
Not sure what day he was "detained", but you can bet his lawyers will maintain that was the day he was arrested.
Click to expand...

And they will lose on that point, just like they did in the Jose Padilla trial where his attorneys argued the exact same thing.
 
RightinNYC said:
And they will lose on that point, just like they did in the Jose Padilla trial where his attorneys argued the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Sure hope you are right... it could get real ugly if you are not.
 
RightinNYC said:
....
I've tried criminal cases in city courts via a student practice order and have worked on several criminal cases from the defense side in the SD and ED of NY. Not sure what that has to do with anything though, as the things I stated would have been just as true even if I'd never set foot in a courtroom.
....
Click to expand...

Lawyers are a dime a dozen aren't they.:rofl

Counselor, in US District Court criminal defendants have an absolute right to see the evidence to be used against them. That means the Govt. will have to pick and choose what evidence to use because defense counsel will have a complete opportunity to evaluate it. While the District Court can place protective orders or limitations on the viewing or disclosure of particular items of evidence, non-disclosure of the evidence depends on defense counsel. As a practical matter the loyalty of defense counsel must be to the defendant. As such the information gained by defense counsel will be used as leverage against the Govt. and for his or her client. That's just good advocacy.

The choice of US District Court (SDNY) is as much a political decision as a legal decision. Please remember that it will be at least five years before these trials are over. Obama throws a sop to his base. There may be convictions on some charges, eg., jaywalking (jk), but there is no certainty that the Gitmo Five will be convicted on the primary charges. The exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine create tremendous evidentiary uncertainty.

Anyway, you sound really smart. Good luck in your career.
 
Crunch said:
Sure hope you are right... it could get real ugly if you are not.
Click to expand...

If AG Holder thought that there was even a one in a thousand chance that these people would be acquitted, he would have never allowed this to go forward in the federal court system.

Hell, even if they were somehow acquitted, that doesn't mean that Obama wouldn't simply exercise his "post-acquittal detention power" to keep them in custody anyway.
 
This trial is a giant waste of time and money; money we do not have.

He's already confessed to the crime and welcomes the death penalty. Do we really need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to have some silly show trial? Just blindfold the ****er and shoot him in the head.
 
RightinNYC said:
If AG Holder thought that there was even a one in a thousand chance that these people would be acquitted, he would have never allowed this to go forward in the federal court system.

Hell, even if they were somehow acquitted, that doesn't mean that Obama wouldn't simply exercise his "post-acquittal detention power" to keep them in custody anyway.
Click to expand...

But then that suggests the cases against them are rigged. Not quite a constitutional view of a "fair" court hearing of one's peers. That is exactly what I was afraid of...
 
Ethereal said:
This trial is a giant waste of time and money; money we do not have.

He's already confessed to the crime and welcomes the death penalty. Do we really need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to have some silly show trial? Just blindfold the ****er and shoot him in the head.
Click to expand...

In a Chicago hog fattening yard....
 
Albert Di Salvo said:
Lawyers are a dime a dozen aren't they.:rofl
Click to expand...

Apparently.

Counselor, in US District Court criminal defendants have an absolute right to see the evidence to be used against them. That means the Govt. will have to pick and choose what evidence to use because defense counsel will have a complete opportunity to evaluate it.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I pointed out 3 hours ago.

While the District Court can place protective orders or limitations on the viewing or disclosure of particular items of evidence, non-disclosure of the evidence depends on defense counsel. As a practical matter the loyalty of defense counsel must be to the defendant. As such the information gained by defense counsel will be used as leverage against the Govt. and for his or her client. That's just good advocacy.
Click to expand...

And if the government doesn't seek to offer sensitive evidence, then this is a non-issue.

The choice of US District Court (SDNY) is as much a political decision as a legal decision. Please remember that it will be at least five years before these trials are over.
Click to expand...

Again, what are you basing this on?

Jose Padilla was indicted on Nov. 22, 2005, convicted on Aug. 16, 2007, and sentenced on Jan 22, 2008. That's 21 months from indictment to conviction and 26 months from indictment to sentencing. Ramzi Yousef went from being captured in Islamabad to being convicted and sentenced to life in prison in around 18 months. The blind sheikh went from indictment to verdict in a little over 2 years.

Obama throws a sop to his base. There may be convictions on some charges, eg., jaywalking (jk), but there is no certainty that the Gitmo Five will be convicted on the primary charges. The exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine create tremendous evidentiary uncertainty.
Click to expand...

And neither of those will come into play if they don't seek to introduce evidence obtained from him while he was at Gitmo or if they think that the evidence they do plan to introduce will be otherwise admissible.

Again, I'm going to go our on a limb here and guess that the USAO in NY and main DoJ have a better idea of how to handle this case than you or I do. The fact that they're only moving a few detainees to NY for trial while charging others in military commissions and leaving the rest in detention indicates that they've thought this over pretty thoroughly.
 
Ethereal said:
This trial is a giant waste of time and money; money we do not have.

He's already confessed to the crime and welcomes the death penalty. Do we really need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in order to have some silly show trial? Just blindfold the ****er and shoot him in the head.
Click to expand...

I doubt the cost of this trial will be anything approaching hundreds of millions.

Ockham said:
But then that suggests the cases against them are rigged. Not quite a constitutional view of a "fair" court hearing of one's peers. That is exactly what I was afraid of...
Click to expand...

This is a completely valid concern, but we'll just have to wait and see.
 
This is another huge blunder by the Obama administration..........To bring the terrorists into New York in the shadows of the twin towers is insane..It will become a show trial with these scumbags putting on a show..........God forbid we take another hit while the trial is going on...........This is just more proof that Hussein Obama is clueless and does not know what he is doing..........
 
RightinNYC said:
I doubt the cost of this trial will be anything approaching hundreds of millions.
Click to expand...

Accounting for security operations I wouldn't be surprised at all if it approached that amount.

Regardless, it's still a waste of money. There's no need for this, at all.
 
I like how he's referred to as, "alleged", mastermind of 9/11.
 
apdst said:
I like how he's referred to as, "alleged", mastermind of 9/11.
Click to expand...

All the papers are doing that now, which I think is a good thing for the purposes of this trial. If the front page of the NYT said "Mastermind behind 9/11 to face trial in NY," that would be exhibit 1 in the defense attorney's argument for why he can't get a fair trial in NY.
 
RightinNYC said:
All the papers are doing that now, which I think is a good thing for the purposes of this trial. If the front page of the NYT said "Mastermind behind 9/11 to face trial in NY," that would be exhibit 1 in the defense attorney's argument for why he can't get a fair trial in NY.
Click to expand...

He can't get a fair trial in New York because he helped kill 3,000 New Yorkers. He already confessed to it. The man should be summarily executed and thrown into a shallow grave.
 
Ethereal said:
He can't get a fair trial in New York because he helped kill 3,000 New Yorkers. He already confessed to it. The man should be summarily executed and thrown into a shallow grave.
Click to expand...

If the end result will be the same, why not get there by a method which doesn't make us look like we're completely ignoring the constitution?

Again, this guy is not walking free regardless of how this plays out.
 
Navy Pride said:
This is another huge blunder by the Obama administration..........To bring the terrorists into New York in the shadows of the twin towers is insane..It will become a show trial with these scumbags putting on a show..........God forbid we take another hit while the trial is going on...........This is just more proof that Hussein Obama is clueless and does not know what he is doing..........
Click to expand...


This nation was founded upon the idea of everyone, no matter what the case, having rights when in the US. Practicing the ideal is far from stupid. I applaud Obama for this decision, when these terrorists are found guilty in a fair court, it will be a day that we show that we will not forfeit our ideals to fear.
 
ScottD said:
This nation was founded upon the idea of everyone, no matter what the case, having rights when in the US. Practicing the ideal is far from stupid.
Click to expand...

Actually, this country was founded upon that idea that every American citizen having those rights, not extending them to every scum bag around the world.

I applaud Obama for this decision, when these terrorists are found guilty in a fair court, it will be a day that we show that we will not forfeit our ideals to fear.
Click to expand...

And, that's supposed to impress, who? You think the Muslims will hate us less because we gave these goofballs a fair trial?
 
RightinNYC said:
Again, this guy is not walking free regardless of how this plays out.
Click to expand...

Why waste time? Take him out back, put a couple rounds in the back of his head, then burn his body.
 
RightinNYC said:
If the end result will be the same, why not get there by a method which doesn't make us look like we're completely ignoring the constitution?
Click to expand...

How is the Constitution even relevant? He's an enemy combatant captured on foreign soil, which means he's not entitled to the legal rights enumerated in the US Constitution.

Again, this guy is not walking free regardless of how this plays out.
Click to expand...

Of course, but do we really need to spend all this time, effort, and money on something that's essentially already decided?

Why give him the validation of having a trial and a podium from which to spew his anti-American rhetoric?

Why put the surrounding area at increased risk?

Why send the message to our enemies that you could end up in the American judicial system instead of being tried by a military tribunal, AKA, captured and killed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom