NY Governor at Odds with Obama Over Trials
[Guest post by DRJ]
New York Governor David Paterson has publicly criticized the Obama Administration’s decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in New York, a decision the Administration may have told him about 6 months ago:
“Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.
“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”
Paterson also said that the White House warned him six months ago this very situation would happen. He said while he disagrees with the decision, he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”
Six months ago, in a May 21 national security speech (the same day former Vice President Dick Cheney was already scheduled to speak on national security issues), President Obama addressed how he planned to handle the Guantanamo detainees. He divided them into 5 categories, the first of which were detainees to be tried in United States civilian courts:
“First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts — courts provided for by the United States Constitution. Some have derided our federal courts as incapable of handling the trials of terrorists. They are wrong. Our courts and our juries, our citizens, are tough enough to convict terrorists. The record makes that clear. Ramzi Yousef tried to blow up the World Trade Center. He was convicted in our courts and is serving a life sentence in U.S. prisons. Zacarias Moussaoui has been identified as the 20th 9/11 hijacker. He was convicted in our courts, and he too is serving a life sentence in prison. If we can try those terrorists in our courts and hold them in our prisons, then we can do the same with detainees from Guantanamo.”
The other categories were:
“Detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions;”
Detainees “who have been ordered released by the courts” and who will be released;
“Detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country;” and
Detainees “who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.”
Regarding the last category of detainees, Obama promised they would never be released because they are still at war with America:
“Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again.”
This sounds like the detainees the Obama Administration plans to try in New York, and it matches the promises Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have made that they will never be released. In other words, it sounds like category 1 “can be prosecuted” detainees have been combined with the category 5 “clear danger” and “still at war with us” detainees who can’t be prosecuted.
One of the problems with Obama’s speeches is that he’s given so many of them and presented so many ideas — sometimes contradictory ideas — that’s it’s hard to keep up with them. In this case, I wonder if Obama intended all along to bring the high-risk detainees to the U.S. and that he told Gov. Paterson as much months ago.
— DRJ
Aside from the fact the trial will be a bad joke and a mockery of our legal system, the governor has a point. It will cost the city and state enormous sums for the heighten security, it will result in massive inconveniences for for new yorkers and unneeded pain and suffering for the victims families. All for Obama’s political theater. What that schmuck doesn’t understand that the trial will turn out to be a trial on him and his administration, not on Bush’s.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 11/17/2009 @ 12:13 amI found it particularly interesting how senator durbin is trying to sell the idea of housing the gitmo prisoners in illinios by telling his constituents how much MONEY they will make off this scheme.
J (2946f2) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:53 amLet’s not ignore the lucky folks chosen (forced?) to serve jury duty. Vote to convict and live forever in fear of payback from Islamic loonies (a Nelson DeMille novel had a similar storyline). Vote to acquit and be ostracized by their neighbors and friends, many of whom might have lost someone close on 9/11.
What’s that, the government will keep their names secret? Yeah, right.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:21 amDidn’t Eric Holder say, just yesterday, that this decision was all his, and was making without consulting Barcky?
JD (e4e95a) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:25 amHere’s what I don’t get…..
If I understand the liberal viewpoint correctly, they believe that, if you want to accept it, the “torture” (scare quotes intended) of our Islamic enemies, their imprisonment at Gitmo, and their exposure to military tribunals somehow violates the values that America stands for and inspires other Islamists into action against us. Our allies, our adversaries, and our enemies see us as less than we want them to see us as, and bringing these Islamic choirboys into our legal system will somehow rectify all that.
Even if we put all these guys on federal trial, how would imprisoning those who are certainly guilty in a federal prison not serve as the same inspiration to other Islamists that their presence on Gitmo serves today? And if the previous legal handling of some have left them unable to be tried (perhaps because the “torture” narrative is too compelling), but yet these guys remain too dangerous to release, then how does that make America look better to the world? Some will get a trial; others won’t. Some may be acquitted at those trials, and yet, because they still remain a danger to America, we’re not going to release the acquitted. And we’re telling the world: We’re OK with that, and you should be too.
Its just a twisted narrative all together, and it reveals to me, at least, that the Obama/Holder agenda here doesn’t point to a clear outcome.
azlibertarian (5065dc) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:26 amIf you think Obama was not consulted, then Obama should fire Holder. There is no doubt that Obama was on board, if not the decider.
This was done to have a trial about water boarding.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:00 amOur idiot governor and senator here in Illinois think this is a swell idea since we they think we can house those prisoners at an empty state prison while they’re waiting for their criminal trials–believe it or not, they see this as a way out of our budget problems.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:02 amHey, go easy on our own Hacky Dickie Durby – it’s either housing the jihad here, or else we have a casino in Chicago. Hope! Change! Corruption! Sleaze! Olympics!
And this just in – the Chicago School Board President’s death yesterday ruled a “suicide.” Yeah, surrrrre:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-17-nov17,0,4978544.column
Speculation abounds as to his tie – in with local ministries who had bought up land on the West Side, in acticipation of the fix being in for the upcoming Olympics. No, that couldn’t have played a role here, could it?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/17/2009 @ 7:33 amThat whole thing with Obama wanting Paterson to step aside instead of running for reelection starts to come more clearly into focus.
Anon Y. Mous (b3c1c0) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:41 amAbout the water boarding, after America pays more attention to this man, understands just how deeply dedicated he is to murdering innocent people, and how we learned about attacks by waterboarding him, I think people will finally realize that all those ethics hypos were actually real.
If you had a mastermind terrorist, and he was claiming to be aware of a big attack, and he talked like KSM, I suspect most people would eventually try to devise a way to put him through hardship without permanent damage. If not, most remaining would actually go for hard torture. Very few would accept nothing but voice interrogation and criminal penalty threats.
Obama is going to save Bush’s reputation. More than he already is via incompetence, anyway. But I don’t care as much about that. I care that we may no longer be capturing terrorists and figuring out what they are up to, and that our two worst enemies are closer every day to nukes.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:57 amComment by Rochf — 11/17/2009 @ 7:02 am
If all they want to do is “take in boarders”, they should call “The Governator”, he can send them several tens-of-thousands to fill their cells with…
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:04 amjust get the money – in cash – up front!
Why would chicago, of all places, have an empty prison? All the places that have crime under much better control, in this country, have to constantly deal with limited prison space.
However, I would much, much rather Chicago gets this trial than New York. New York is actually a nice place. Chicago is not. Finally, an Olympics of criminals that chicago deserves.
really, if something bad happens to New York, it’s pretty bad for the country. I just don’t think that’s as much the case in Chicago, where almost everything there is evil and twisted.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:15 amParticularly those free-loaders who lurk outside the fences at Wrigley Field.
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:27 amOh, I doubt it’ll be that big a deal. If you work in the federal courthouse, it may be a hassle, but apart from that I don’t think there’ll be the slightest change.
jpe (08c1dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:51 amIt’s not an empty prison in Chicago–it’s in a small town west of there. I think the state closed it down in one of their cost-saving efforts. Instead of seriously addressing our budget which is a nightmare, we have tow of the three stooges supporting housing GITMO prisoners as some kind of economic boon.
As far as our leaders go, we’d be better off with plucking people off the street to govern instead of the miserable current crop.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:05 amjpe, you are deeply uninformed. Have you read the reports?
Streets in new york city will be closed. Trains will be stopped. The costs will be tremendous, by ALL accounts.
You really think the changes are confined to a courthouse? Are you insane? This man represents the clearest and most present danger our nation has faced in many years. It would be downright Clintonian to act like it’s not worth ample security. Obama may be playing games, but his agencies at least will be out in force, making New York grind to a halt while they have their little dog and pony show.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:10 amI’m trying to figure out, from an evidence standpoint, how the government is going to be able to introduce enough evidence to convict these defendants. I’m assuming that much of what they have is hearsay, although they do have confessions, I believe. Isn’t this going to be a trial about the US as much as it is about the murderous thugs on trial?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:52 amhttp://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/washington/2009/11/conservatives-argue-for-us-terrorist-trials-prisons.html
Conservatives argue for US terrorist trials, prisons.
Statement by David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Bob Barr,
I agree, fully.
bored again (d80b5a) — 11/17/2009 @ 12:56 pmDishonest again cannot imagine people not rolling over and agreeing with some special interest group.
JD (06eeff) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:16 pmSure, a street or two by the federal courthouse may be closed.
It’s a pretty expansive area by the courthouse — lotsa open space, not a whole lot of non-courthouse related activity. Trains won’t be stopped.
I bet it’ll roughly as annoying as the RNC convention: if you’re w/in two blocks of the area, it’ll be a bit of a pain, but otherwise it won’t be noticeable.
jpe (08c1dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:34 pmThis must be that 0.1% of ideas from the Right that ba can’t find a reason to dispute.
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:37 pmThe only problem is that they (the authors) are arguing from a mistaken premise:
The terrorists are not civilians, but are unlawful combatants, and therefore are subject to that particular sub-set of the Rules of War that apply. We do not use civilian courts, and civilian law, to deal with those that make war upon us.
bored, that statement is conclusory. You’re just spamming us with people opinions. Why not provide an argument? Surely, somewhere on the internet, you can find one.
If Al Qaida is just like a common street gang, then why can’t the US Military deploy artillery in Compton?
If we are a democracy, then why is it ok to go against the views of the vast majority of Americans, including Obama before 2009, by trying him as a normal criminal?
If this is a good idea, why did Obama help pass the tribunal act?
We already had a great place to store terrorists: GITMO. Gitmo had a great tribunal system that had a great reputation for fairness. If Obama didn’t like the dumb rules that govern Gitmo, then why not just end those rules but keep our facility and tribunal (that Obama voted to create)?
Because he’s playing politics. But it won’t work. When it’s clear that KSM and Obama are on the same side, but both are opposed to Bush, I don’t think this political game will work well outside Chicago. Like the other stuff Obama does to play a political game, he underestimates the American People.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:38 pmI think we should get a pool going on how bad the disruption in NYC will be, and let jpe put his money where his mouth is.
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:40 pmOh, and BTW, did anyone else see the trial-balloon floated by the WH where they want to take regulation of subways & light-rail from the States, and give it to the DoT (probably lots of TSA screeners too)?
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:42 pmI’m always happy to bet. The problem is we don’t have a terribly good way to measure results. I mean, I wouldn’t trust me if I were you, and metrics like polling are kinda dicey.
jpe (08c1dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 1:45 pmJpe is kind of running around with the goal posts. Betting with the leftists is futile. Last time I tried that, I was accused of participating in an identity theft scheme.
JD (d4820c) — 11/17/2009 @ 2:03 pm“Gitmo had a great tribunal system that had a great reputation for fairness.”
I don’t know why I bother. My misplaced faith in the human capacity to learn.
newsweek.com/id/137627
“Gitmo Grievances
Assigned to try detainees in the War on Terror, three former Guantánamo prosecutors now say the military-commission system is badly damaged.”
propublica.org/article/the-six-gitmo-prosecutors-who-protested-1001
“Last week, yet another prosecutor at the war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo Bay resigned in protest. The officer, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, complained that prosecutors hadn’t given the defense in the case “potentially exculpatory evidence.” As we noted, Vandeveld is not the first Gitmo prosecutor to protest the proceedings.
Six prosecutors have either stepped down or refused to prosecute, citing qualms about the system. We decided to compile a list.”
read it
bored again (d80b5a) — 11/17/2009 @ 2:10 pmI’m confident we’ll see their names on the letterhead of a few different “white shoe” law firms that are involved in defense efforts in the near future.
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 2:15 pmWho knows, one of them may be a future Lynn Stewart?
Dontcha just love copy and paste spam?
JD (d4820c) — 11/17/2009 @ 2:16 pmI heard that ba was contemplating having an original thought, but his TIVO had deleted all the commercials.
AD - RtR/OS! (138fbd) — 11/17/2009 @ 2:19 pmjpe, experts already say this will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, streets will be closed to traffic in the busiest part of the world, etc. Your claims were already refuted.
Bored again, why do you always quote someone else? You don’t seem to want to think for yourself. I don’t have to read newsweek or refute their columns. It’s been proven a few times that they are willing to lie and distort, so I no longer really read their stuff.
But the problems you cite also occur in Civilian court. Obama is the executive, and if he wants certain rules for military tribunals, he can enforce them. what you’re complaining about has nothing to do with … anything.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 11/17/2009 @ 2:20 pmI saw the idea about the federal government taking over public transportation, on the theory that the states haven’t done a good job, or something. As if the federal government has a single program they can point to as proof they can do anything well.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 11/17/2009 @ 3:13 pm“As it moves to close Guantanamo and develop policies for handling terrorism suspects going forward, the government should rely upon our established, traditional system of justice. This includes our system of federal prisons, which have repeatedly proven they can safely hold persons convicted of terrorism offenses. We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries.”
Yeah, right.
We should use the civil justice system like we did in WWII when hundreds of thousands of German, Italian and Japanese prisoners were incarcerated in tha same federal prisons civilians are held in, got trials in federal courts and were filing writs of habeas corpus all over the place.
Nitwits.
Dave Surls (47fe71) — 11/17/2009 @ 4:57 pmBzzt.
Articles said some stations around the courthouse will be closed at times, and more bags will be checked.
That’s just not a big deal. (if you can link to any of these “experts” that say it’s going to inconvenience anyone that doesn’t work in the courthouse, by all means do. Because your claims don’t pass the laugh test)
jpe (d7521d) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:30 pmSticking your fingers in your ears and wailing LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA is not really an argument, jpe.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:34 pmread it
Blow me. Try expressing an original thought for once in your benighted life – you’re no better than Dggcrpp with your inane wall ‘o text postings.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:54 pmGov Paterson is gonna get thrown under the back of the bus, again.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 5:57 pm“But most of all it makes sense for America because it is a critical link in the process of closing Guantanamo and getting this country back to using its tried and true, constitutionally sound institutions.
Well, at least the quote eventually gets down to the real motive and bottom line for a civilian court trial. Meh.
jpe, one thing you have not considered with the disruption is that when streets are closed, traffic is diverted, buses are re-rerouted and if there are subway stops in the area, those too will be need to adjusted. This impacts everyone from dispatchers, transportation centers, and people who travel to work utilizing the public roads whether with their a private car, taxis, subways or buses. Unless you have statistics for the number of citizens who daily use these means of transportation and these routes, you really don’t know what the impact will be. However, considering the population and density of the city, my guess would be that it will greatly impact the area.
You also haven’t considered the extra manpower that will be required to provide sufficient security: are these going to be NYPD? If so, how will that diminish numbers for regular patrols, will there be a significant shortage elsewhere in order to shore up area around the courthouse, or will extra officers be hired at a further cost to the city? Will there be federal marshals, FBI, how much extra manpower? What will be the cost to the federal government and to the city?
Another aspect to this will be the media: how much will there be at the courthouse, on the streets, will there be a media tent/station by the courthouse with live feeds, cameras, anchors, etc? What access will they be given.
Etc., etc., etc…..
I think there is obviously far more than just “some stations around the courthouse” and “bags being checked” that will play a part in the level of impact on the city than you are willing to admit.
Dana (e9ba20) — 11/17/2009 @ 6:13 pmDavid Paterson = No clout.
He’s already walking back his statements and crying about the media.
The following made me laugh out loud:
If all they want to do is “take in boarders”, they should call “The Governator”, he can send them several tens-of-thousands to fill their cells with…
just get the money – in cash – up front!
Thanks, AD. 🙂
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:20 pmNotice how all Myron measures things by are metrics of power politics?
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:30 pmNotice how all Myron measures things by are metrics of power politics?
I wouldn’t say all things, but this qualifies as one of your somewhat astute observations.
Paterson is a politician, you may have noticed.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:51 pmAll was an overstatement. But only by degree.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:53 pmJD: I’m interested in politics. What of it?
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:54 pmI was noting more about the power politics than simply politics alone. Your whole argument about “healthcare reform” centers around votes, ability to pass, ability to strong-arm people into voting a certain way, etc … You absolutely refuse to engage in the conversation at the “should this be done” level, and almost always comments on the “can this be done” level. Just an observation.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 8:57 pmJD: I try to engage at the level of the discussion.
I have at times gotten into the “should be done” but thing is, people here don’t care for my “should be done.” And I’m not going to try to convince anybody.
On health care, for instance: I have written before at this very site that the United States should not be letting people die for lack of money. That’s a moral issue for me. But it’s not for others, so why argue the point? I’m never going to think it’s OK that people can’t get adequate care b/c they can’t afford it, and others, just as strongly, are never going to think we should trouble ourselves to make sure everyone has affordable care.
Related, I don’t think most political discussion anywhere, not just here, gets to the heart of the matter. This is for reasons of dramatic effect and political posturing. For instance, I find it a stretch to think that people really believe a bound and shackled man who is never going to get out of U.S. custody no matter what happens in this trial is some kind of existential threat to New York. I also think tough New Yorkers’ feelings are not going to be fatally bruised by crazy talk in a court room.
There is a serious, nonpartisan debate to be had re: KSM and our captured enemies. It relates to how the U.S., as an ethical nation, should try enemy combatants in an environment where the war, theoretically, never ends. That is a complex issue and anyone who says it’s simple is either being deliberately obtuse, partisan or is just uninformed.
Rather than tackle this somewhat esoteric but vitally crucial matter, one side will decry trying a criminal in the jurisdiction where he committed his crime and the other side will point out that the previous administration had the same criminal for six years and did nothing with him. The smart and/or honest people on both sides know that both administrations are dealing with a very difficult legal situation with no easy answer. Even the Obama Administration has not fully made up its mind: There are several combatants who will face a military commission.
So to repeat: I engage at the level of discussion.
You, for instance, made what I consider a serious observation based on a clear trend you’ve seen in my posts and you did so with no name-calling (which I also try to avoid). So I’ve tried to answer you fully and seriously.
Myron (6a93dd) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:40 pmI am not sure it is possible for you to be more disingenuous while at the same time, being so flippantly dismissive of those that you disagree with. Myself and lots of other people have tried to engage you at the “should this be done” level on healthcare, to absolutely no avail.
Nobody here has argued that KSM Hairshirt poses an existential threat to NY. There is a legitimate beef, as you point out, to trying an enemy combatant captured in a foreign land in the US criminal courts. Since Holder has told us that this is all his decision, I guess he has weighed out the pro’s and con’s for everyone else.
Patterico noted that Holder and the Admin will not answer the question as to whether or not he would be released if acquitted, which suggests that this is not the “ethical” choice, but one driven by politics and a desire to have a high-profile show trial. If there is no risk he could go free, and will remain in custody even if acquitted, there really is no point in having the trial in the first place. Whether or not it belongs in the US Court system is obviously debatable. but the choice of venue seems to be unncessarily and intentionally provocative. YMMV.
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:51 pmMyron,
We can agree on the goal of widespread health care without agreeing on the means. The old saw about giving people fish and teaching them to fish comes to mind.
DRJ (dee47d) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:55 pm“I have at times gotten into the “should be done” but thing is, people here don’t care for my “should be done.” And I’m not going to try to convince anybody.”
Myron – WHY ARE YOU HERE???????
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/17/2009 @ 9:55 pmThis goes back to the “should we do this” level of discussion, as we have repeatedly asked you what about this monstrosity of a bill actually works to lower costs, or increase access, or improve quality?
JD (9769aa) — 11/17/2009 @ 10:29 pmJD – Those are nonpartisan levels of detail with which Myron refuses to sully himself. He prefers only to focus on his partisan solution to a nonpartisan issue and ignore better cheaper alternatives for resolving the problems, as you pointed out, power politics.
daleyrocks (718861) — 11/17/2009 @ 11:15 pm