• 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!

Mayor Valentine wants 9/11 trial in Newburgh

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"I look at it almost as a tourist attraction. The international attention would put Newburgh on the map," an excited Valentine told The NY Post.

"So many people would be following the trial. The businesses around here would benefit. People would be going to restaurants and traveling around the Newburgh area who've never been here before."

Mayor Valentine wants 9/11 trial in Newburgh | recordonline.com

LMAO granted I live in the Town, not the City which the Mayor is of. But in a twisted sort of way he is right. It would generate some desperate city revenue.

Newburgh (town), New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newburgh (city), New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
conspirators-sm.jpg


Here's a picture of the kind of tribunal most American are thinking about. :mrgreen:
 
Newsmax - Administration Considers Changing Terror Trial

Bloomberg initially supported the Manhattan trial decision, declaring: "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered."

But the mayor this week reversed from what he said in November, when the administration announced its plans.

"Unless the administration comes to its senses and abandons this absurd idea," Pence said Friday, "the Republicans, and I suspect some Democrats, will abandon funding."

In addition, six senators on Tuesday wrote to Holder and urged him to abandon the idea.

The letter read, in part, "You will be providing them one of the most visible platforms in the world to exalt their past acts and to rally others in support of further terrorism."

It was signed by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut; John McCain, Republican of Arizona; Blanche L. Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas; Susan M. Collins, Republican of Maine; Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia; and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

And rather than have all this fuss.....Gitmo answering every question Obama is being asked to answer.
 
Mayor Valentine wants 9/11 trial in Newburgh | recordonline.com

LMAO granted I live in the Town, not the City which the Mayor is of. But in a twisted sort of way he is right. It would generate some desperate city revenue.

Newburgh (town), New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newburgh (city), New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All I know about this mayor is what you've told us and what I read from the article, but I think he's on to something. Smart guy.

From the article:
And he went one step further. Valentine noted that Newburgh just opened a new city courthouse inside a renovated former school, and he offered to have the terrorists tried and jailed there.

"Then I could collect the money to pay off the debt on the construction," Valentine said

Brilliant! That kind of financial planning is something we need more of in all of our politicians.
 
The Mayor is right in one respect. The Obamedia will flock to see the spectacle and I would guess that members of Cult of Islam would send in a few operatives for the event, and they spend money too.

I would station a few undercover officers at any local girlie cubs or crowded bars to be on the look out for middle eastern men having a good time in anticipation of a little jihad, as they always like to rack up violations to the Cult bylaws before they kill a bunch of stupid infidels.

What's that phrase? Oh yes, "Allah at the bar."
And that one they use at the strip clubs. "showmeyourassesiwantolickem."
No wait that's what Obama said over and over during his middle east appology trip last year.
 
WHat kind of backwards state has a city and a town named exactly the same
 
The Mayor is right in one respect. The Obamedia will flock to see the spectacle and I would guess that members of Cult of Islam would send in a few operatives for the event, and they spend money too.

I would station a few undercover officers at any local girlie cubs or crowded bars to be on the look out for middle eastern men having a good time in anticipation of a little jihad, as they always like to rack up violations to the Cult bylaws before they kill a bunch of stupid infidels.

What's that phrase? Oh yes, "Allah at the bar."
And that one they use at the strip clubs. "showmeyourassesiwantolickem."
No wait that's what Obama said over and over during his middle east appology trip last year.


I believe you're looking for the Conspiracy Theory / Paranoia forum. That's next door.
 
Update


The County Executive is pissed. My question would be who has ultimate decision in this.

Diana is adamant: Don't bring 9/11 trial to Orange County | recordonline.com


I wonder why so many people are so afraid of bringing terrorists to trial? They're just humans. They're not SUPER humans or mutants. It's not like we've captured Magneto.

We're the United States of America; nobody is better at holding trials and locking people up than we are. We are the prison kings!
 
The main problem is that Obama will do anything he can to avoid a Military trial.
For if they are found to be guilty and subsequently be given the Death sentence, he as President would have to sign off with this sentence being carried out.
 
I wonder why so many people are so afraid of bringing terrorists to trial?

It's unnecessary and a waste of money. They should be executed without trial.
 
It's unnecessary and a waste of money. They should be executed without trial.

Believe it or not I agree on the execution, but only after a trial, and only if they're found guilty. And the trial can't be behind closed doors.

Remember, not all of these guys were guilty. Many at Gitmo have been allowed to go free in the last few years. And the Bush administration let them go, not Obama.
 
The main problem is that Obama will do anything he can to avoid a Military trial.
For if they are found to be guilty and subsequently be given the Death sentence, he as President would have to sign off with this sentence being carried out.

Obama is currently the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces. People under his command have been carrying out orders to kill for over a year.

I don't think Obama has a problem signing an execution order. If he even would need to do such a thing? I have no idea of the laws and protocols for a military tribunal of this magnitude. At Nuremberg several nations were represented so the hangings were carried out with the cooperation of several nations. I think?
 
WHat kind of backwards state has a city and a town named exactly the same

New York, New York, it's a hell of a town.

I wonder why so many people are so afraid of bringing terrorists to trial? They're just humans. They're not SUPER humans or mutants. It's not like we've captured Magneto.

I don't think it's that people are scared, it's that people don't think the costs outweigh the benefits.

For a normal criminal accused of a normal crime, there are many factors weighing in favor of a normal trial. As a citizen, he has a strong interest and expectation that he receive a civilian trial. As a society, we place a strong value on protecting the innocent - we don't want the guilty to sit in prison. And although the trial will cost money, the amount is small enough that it makes it a fair price to pay for justice.

In a case like this, those factors cut strongly in the other direction. As an enemy combatant, KSM has no expectation that he will receive a civilian trial, nor does he have any right to such. The concerns about not incarcerating the innocent are nonexistent here - the government has already declared him guilty, and even in the incredibly unlikely event that he is convicted, the government will simply continue to detain him as an enemy combatant. Finally, the costs of this trial will be mindboggling.

When the Blind Sheik was tried and convicted in NYC, the eventual costs of providing security for the Judge alone were $28 million. Here, they're proposing to try five different defendants, which would add up to around $150m in judicial security in and of itself. Once you factor in the additional hundreds of millions for security in the courthouse and surrounding area, you reach the $400 million figure being bandied around.

The question really comes down to this: Is a constitutionally unnecessary "trial" for 5 non-citizen terrorists who will never be released regardless of outcome really worth $400,000,000?
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not I agree on the execution, but only after a trial, and only if they're found guilty. And the trial can't be behind closed doors.

A notorious terrorist mastermind is not legally or morally entitled to any trial, whether it be a military tribunal or a civilian trial conducted under the auspices of Constitutional due process.

The proper treatment for a notorious unlawful combatant such as KSM is exploitation followed immediately by a bullet to the back of the head.

Remember, not all of these guys were guilty. Many at Gitmo have been allowed to go free in the last few years. And the Bush administration let them go, not Obama.

It should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some of the more ambiguous cases should be reviewed by a military tribunal whereas the more obvious cases (KSM) should be processed in a manner consistent with my previous methods.
 
A notorious terrorist mastermind is not legally or morally entitled to any trial, whether it be a military tribunal or a civilian trial conducted under the auspices of Constitutional due process.

How do you know he's a "notorious terrorist mastermind" if you don't hold some kind of trial and present evidence that he's a "notorious terrorist mastermind"?

It should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Some of the more ambiguous cases should be reviewed by a military tribunal whereas the more obvious cases (KSM) should be processed in a manner consistent with my previous methods.

I don't have a problem with military tribunals; I think they're a good idea. I would like for everything that happens in them to be a matter of public record though. I'm not asking for cameras in the court room, but some public record of everything that happens that is accessible to the media and the public.
 
How do you know he's a "notorious terrorist mastermind" if you don't hold some kind of trial and present evidence that he's a "notorious terrorist mastermind"?

He admitted it. But that's besides the point...a summary execution is standard protocol for unlawful combatants captured in the field, though I wouldn't be adverse to some sort of cursory tribunal. Obviously, mistakes will be made but that's no reason to throw out an accepted military practice. I mean, innocent people die in the criminal justice system, too, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the courts.

I don't have a problem with military tribunals; I think they're a good idea. I would like for everything that happens in them to be a matter of public record though. I'm not asking for cameras in the court room, but some public record of everything that happens that is accessible to the media and the public.

I would agree, except that it be done at the sole discretion of the tribunal. Sometimes secrecy is beneficial, even essential.
 
Believe it or not I agree on the execution, but only after a trial, and only if they're found guilty. And the trial can't be behind closed doors.

Remember, not all of these guys were guilty. Many at Gitmo have been allowed to go free in the last few years. And the Bush administration let them go, not Obama.

Does it seem absurd to anyone else that a President and his press secretary who keep saying that we live by the rule of law says let's have a trial and then execute them?

If we heard that from another ruler we would say what a despot and what a quote their judicial system must be.

We aren't even going through the motions of having a fair trial so why bother.
 
New York, New York, it's a hell of a town.



I don't think it's that people are scared, it's that people don't think the costs outweigh the benefits.

For a normal criminal accused of a normal crime, there are many factors weighing in favor of a normal trial. As a citizen, he has a strong interest and expectation that he receive a civilian trial. As a society, we place a strong value on protecting the innocent - we don't want the guilty to sit in prison. And although the trial will cost money, the amount is small enough that it makes it a fair price to pay for justice.

In a case like this, those factors cut strongly in the other direction. As an enemy combatant, KSM has no expectation that he will receive a civilian trial, nor does he have any right to such. The concerns about not incarcerating the innocent are nonexistent here - the government has already declared him guilty, and even in the incredibly unlikely event that he is convicted, the government will simply continue to detain him as an enemy combatant. Finally, the costs of this trial will be mindboggling.

When the Blind Sheik was tried and convicted in NYC, the eventual costs of providing security for the Judge alone were $28 million. Here, they're proposing to try five different defendants, which would add up to around $150m in judicial security in and of itself. Once you factor in the additional hundreds of millions for security in the courthouse and surrounding area, you reach the $400 million figure being bandied around.

The question really comes down to this: Is a constitutionally unnecessary "trial" for 5 non-citizen terrorists who will never be released regardless of outcome really worth $400,000,000?

Okay. All good points. But that leaves us with indefinitely detaining an "enemy combatant" simply because the government declares them guilty. The part where the government "declared him guilty" does not inspire confidence in me. This is the same government that has a long track record of screw ups and mismanagement.

What about a military trial? Either on a military installation with security provided by the military (saves money) and the press tightly controlled but still allowed some access?
 
Does it seem absurd to anyone else that a President and his press secretary who keep saying that we live by the rule of law says let's have a trial and then execute them?

If we heard that from another ruler we would say what a despot and what a quote their judicial system must be.

We aren't even going through the motions of having a fair trial so why bother.

I think Obama knows all of those guys are terrorists. But even the Nazis got a trial. And they killed 6 Million people and plunged the world into World War II.
 
Okay. All good points. But that leaves us with indefinitely detaining an "enemy combatant" simply because the government declares them guilty. The part where the government "declared him guilty" does not inspire confidence in me. This is the same government that has a long track record of screw ups and mismanagement.

What about a military trial? Either on a military installation with security provided by the military (saves money) and the press tightly controlled but still allowed some access?

That is always an option and is in fact being used for many of the detainees. When the Obama Administration finished its review of Gitmo, they broke the detainees down into 4 groups:

1) Those that could be released pending approval from the recipient country,
2) Those that could face civilian trial,
3) Those that could not face civilian trial, but could be tried by military tribunal, and
4) Those that could not face trial at all and must be held indefinitely

Even with that, the argument that the trials will protect against governmental incompetence is largely mooted by the fact that these trials will play little to no role in the eventual determination of disposition. If KSM were cleared of all charges tomorrow, the government would still detain him indefinitely, so the trial does not protect against incompetence at all.
 
That is always an option and is in fact being used for many of the detainees. When the Obama Administration finished its review of Gitmo, they broke the detainees down into 4 groups:

1) Those that could be released pending approval from the recipient country,
2) Those that could face civilian trial,
3) Those that could not face civilian trial, but could be tried by military tribunal, and
4) Those that could not face trial at all and must be held indefinitely

Even with that, the argument that the trials will protect against governmental incompetence is largely mooted by the fact that these trials will play little to no role in the eventual determination of disposition. If KSM were cleared of all charges tomorrow, the government would still detain him indefinitely, so the trial does not protect against incompetence at all.

So who (or what) plays the major role "in the eventual determination of disposition"? Is that still being determined by the Military and the CIC?
 
So who (or what) plays the major role "in the eventual determination of disposition"? Is that still being determined by the Military and the CIC?

The executive, with the advice of the military and interrogators. Once an individual is declared an enemy combatant, the executive has near-unlimited authority to determine what to do with them. By allowing some of these individuals to face civilian trial, the exec is trying to create an image of legitimacy for the entire process. However, the end result of these trials will probably not be much different than if they were detained in the first place. The only people who the exec is letting go to trial are those for whom conviction is assured. If the case was more iffy, they wouldn't risk the bad publicity by letting the case be heard in civilian court.

For the vast majority of detainees, the end result of this process will be similar or identical to what would have happened under the past system or under a system of military trial.
 
As long as I can still have a few beers at Gully's, I'm OK with it......;)
 
Back
Top Bottom