The Not-in-NYC Terror Trials; UPDATE: Confirmed
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Obama Administration is considering relocating the New York City terror trials outside of NYC:
“The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places to try the 9/11 terror suspects after a wave of opposition to holding the trial in lower Manhattan.
The dramatic turnabout came hours after Mayor Bloomberg said he would “prefer that they did it elsewhere” and then spoke to Attorney General Eric Holder.”
Concerns from the New York Police Commissioner may have prompted the turnaround:
“Meanwhile, a source told The News that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly was the driving force behind the push by Manhattan business leaders to change the mayor’s mind on the trial.
Kelly made an “extremely powerful” speech to a roomful of 150 prominent business leaders about how disruptive and costly the trial would be for lower Manhattan at an annual police charity event on Jan. 13, the source said.
“What turned this around was when Ray made a presentation to the Police Foundation,” the source said. “Everyone went from thinking, ‘Justice will be served’ to thinking ‘We are screwed.’ ”
What followed was a barrage of complaints to the mayor from some of New York’s most powerful tycoons – part of a tide of pressure that led Bloomberg to turn against hosting the trial.”
Business leaders were also concerned the trials would hurt New York City businesses.
— DRJ
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: It appears that the decision to move the trials out of NYC has been confirmed:
WASHINGTON – Pressured by a growing clamor from New York, the Obama administration has decided to move the trial of Sept. 11 terror suspects away from Manhattan, where it had been scheduled to take place just blocks from the site of the twin towers attack.
Multiple media outlets, including NBC News, The Washington Post and The New York Times, reported on Friday night that the administration has abandoned its plan to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the city.
“New York is out,” one administration official told the Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the decision had not yet been officially announced. “We’re considering other options.”
I have one: Gitmo.
But, the same ill effects on any other US community will be acceptable?
I give you the brilliance of Eric Holder.
Matador (176445) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:44 pmNow they are talking about going back to tribunals at gitmo.
What a clown !
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:52 pmBusiness leaders were also concerned that terrorist explosions would hurt New York City businesses.
KingShamus (fb8597) — 1/29/2010 @ 3:56 pmRegardless of where the trials are held, NYC is one of many significant targets that would attract AQ.
AD - RtR/OS! (098720) — 1/29/2010 @ 4:04 pmI really, truly, honestly, way down deep, detest New York. It is a freakish place full of freaks. Osama bin Laden managed to do something with the 9/11 attacks that had never occurred to anyone before — making Americans think that New York is part of America.
nk (db4a41) — 1/29/2010 @ 4:48 pmThey should be changing the location and the category, back to military tribunal. Another epic FAIL brought to you by the Obama Administration.
Solid B+
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:11 pmInteresting that military installations in the immediate region are being considered as sites for the trial. No doubt there’s a reason why proceedings cannot be conducted aboard a traditionally well armed and secure naval vessel, relatively isolated, anchored in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:24 pmYou are an idiot, IMP.
JD (e738c0) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:39 pmSilly DCSCA !
If it’s on a ship (even one moored close to shore), how can The Media cover the Government’s reluctant disclosing of information related to the Iraq War (or anything else which might embarrass Bush or the GOP in any way) as part of the ‘Discovery’ to which a criminal trial defendant is entitled as part of preparing his defence ?
Alasdair (6c03a9) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:44 pmPlus, even with this Administration’s amazingly tin ear, even *they* probably realise that the US has received more than one surrender on board ship over the centuries, and it would be sorta embarrassing to surrender US dignity and reputation internationally with such a trial being held on a US ship …
Alasdair (6c03a9) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:49 pmIt would be really great if President Obama came out and straight up said, with no excuses, man, that was a dumb idea we had about NYC. I could respect that. Sort of.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:54 pmThe Empty Suit(tm) – Not Ready for Prime Time.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:57 pmya can’t fix stupid, but you sure as hell can mock it.
yer doin a helluva j*b there Barney! %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/29/2010 @ 5:59 pmI don’t know what to think. On the one hand, when it comes down to the final say-so the Obama Administration has generally made prudent decisions regarding the War on Terror. I submit for your consideration the Iraq policy (especially once Obama backed away from the publicly-stated withdrawl timeline), the Afghanistan policy (once it dawned upon him that we really don’t need to lose this war), and warrantless wiretapping (again, after the requisite round of footsie played with the civil liberties crowd). I do legitimately feel better about him today than I did one year ago because of all this.
On the other hand, when he doesn’t dither and draw out his decisions agonizingly long, he has a tendency to default to the position that represents the opposite of whatever the Bush Administration did. It is most always moral preening — designed to attract the favor of European elites and their American wannabes — and inevitably he ends up having to walk it back. First the whole Guantanamo fiasco (hey, wasn’t it supposed to close right about today?) and now this NYC terror trial. If he would just stop the grandstanding and get over himself he could spare us and him these embarrassing policy reversals.
JVW (48cbba) — 1/29/2010 @ 6:37 pmI don’t know what to think. On the one hand, when it comes down to the final say-so the Obama Administration has generally made prudent decisions regarding the War on Terror. I submit for your consideration the Iraq policy (especially once Obama backed away from the publicly-stated withdrawl timeline)…
You thought he could throw a war which had already been won? He had no choice but to finish up in Iraq.
I submit for your consideration that he had the gall in the SOTU to take credit for ending the war in Iraq. It’s a measure of his character that he was not deterred from making this outrageous claim by the fact it was his arch enemy Bush who won the war, a war which he had opposed throughout. I haven’t seen anyone call him on it.
Obama’s first instinct is to do the wrong thing. He has to be embarrassed into making the right decision.
I’ll give him this. He has a talent for getting people to go along with his idiocy. The idea of trying KSM in an American city before a jury should have been vigorously opposed for its obvious stupidity from day one. Try him and execute him in Gitmo and end this nonsense.
Terry Gain (1664b9) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:18 pmI submit for your consideration that he had the gall in the SOTU to take credit for ending the war in Iraq. It’s a measure of his character that he was not deterred from making this outrageous claim by the fact it was his arch enemy Bush who won the war, a war which he had opposed throughout. I haven’t seen anyone call him on it.
I wouldn’t worry too much about this. Yeah, his media sycophants aren’t going to remind us anytime soon that had Obama had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be running the show in Iraq. As much as the left largely gets to set the narrative in the short term, I think that history will reflect that where Barack Obama was concerned, the liberation of Iraq was “not in [his] name.”
JVW (48cbba) — 1/29/2010 @ 7:48 pm