Security costs will top $75M in NYC terror trial
Updated: Dec 30, 2009

Quote :

"NEW YORK (AP) - New York police commissioner Raymond Kelly says security for the upcoming trial of the Sept. 11 terror attack suspects will cost much more than the initial estimate of $75 million. Kelly drafted a security plan Dec. 18 for the upcoming trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others in New York federal court. The men have been charged with war crimes. Kelly says the costs will considerably exceed $75 million, but he would not say how much more. The initial estimate was given Nov. 18. The NYPD says there aren't enough officers to handle trial security, so much of the cost will come from overtime and it will be impossible to accomplish without federal funds. There is no trial date yet. No decision has been made on how the cost will be paid."

http://www.kplctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11745087

12/30/2009 8:54:25 AM

no surprise there. I wonder how the already overburdened taxpayers feel about that.

12/30/2009 9:24:42 AM

you’re wondering how the tax payers feel about a person having their due process as prescribed by the constitution?

I’d hope they’d be at least apathetic. I think it’s great we have a justice system that value integrity, and we don’t just stone people to death or hang them in a public square.

[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 9:53 AM. Reason : ]

12/30/2009 9:53:04 AM

Quote :

"having their due process as prescribed by the constitution"

Yes I do, but they're not US citizens...therefore, wat?

12/30/2009 10:22:31 AM

I would say the bill of rights applies to anyone within U.S. borders, or anyone that commits a crime against the United States. If a foreigner comes here, it's not like they don't have the right to practice religion, or they don't have the right to free speech. Are we just going to say that the government can do whatever they want to anyone who isn't a citizen?

12/30/2009 10:30:54 AM

Non-citizens who commit crimes in and/or against the united states are tried just as a normal citizen would be all the time

12/30/2009 10:36:30 AM

^^do you think military tribunals are just willy nilly do whatever the fuck we want events with no guidelines or rules?

12/30/2009 11:02:18 AM

I've never seen the guidelines or rules, and as far as I know, no one has except for select government officials. I would rather use the agreed upon system of laws that we already have in place that everyone can view at any time. Our priority should be to maintain the rule of law, not to deliver swift justice.

12/30/2009 11:11:41 AM

Quote :

"Our priority should be to maintain the rule of law, not to deliver swift justice."

Um, our rule of law is supposed to deliver justice.

12/30/2009 11:34:47 AM

Check out that word to the left of justice.

12/30/2009 11:36:56 AM

swift justice isn't justice delivered faster?

12/30/2009 12:21:39 PM

I don't know how to make it clearer. Our priority should be to maintain the rule of law, not to deliver justice as quickly as possible through whatever half-baked means the neo-conservatives cook up.

[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

12/30/2009 12:40:40 PM

hey man, justice is justice. Whether it's swift or slow

12/30/2009 12:52:37 PM

Justice isn't a pizza.

12/30/2009 6:24:16 PM

“swift justice” is a phrase that generally means justice delivered at the cost of due process. No normal person uses it as a literal breakdown of its components.

12/30/2009 6:58:38 PM

These terrorists need to fear us. Putting them into our convoluted justice system-designed to protect the accused is not going to worry them much.

We need to declare that anyone committing acts of mass terrorism will be treated as enemy spies. FDR didn't give the nazi saboteurs a lawyer and put them through our justice system. They were interrogated (probably with "enhanced" methods) and executed.

We should treat today's terrorists/saboteurs the same way.

12/30/2009 7:18:30 PM

That would just increase their recruitment numbers. We have to continually prove we are better than them to keep people on our side.

12/30/2009 7:28:35 PM

^ What a fucking joke--as if the terrorists needed an excuse to "increase their recruitment numbers." What was Bill Clinton doing to increase terrorist recruiting when the USS Cole and the WTC were bombed?



[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 7:59 AM. Reason : With a name like "Great Satan," it doesn't matter if you're "good."]

12/31/2009 7:58:37 AM

Terrorists will always have an unlimited supply of brainwashed assholes eager to blow themselves up. I think he's talking more along the lines of garnering and keeping international cooperation against them, i.e. the Yemeni government, Pakistan, etc..

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 8:03 AM. Reason : .]

12/31/2009 8:02:06 AM

^ Except that's not actually the case. Terrorists bin Laden, Hasan, Atta, AbdulMutallab, and others were educated and/or came from privileged backgrounds.

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 8:13 AM. Reason : And how about you let him post for himself? ]

12/31/2009 8:12:43 AM

Clearly, the answer is to flush our principles down the toilet and start bustin' caps in the back of motherfucker's skulls.

No trial.

No jury.

No tribunal.

Nothing.

Who's with me?

hooksaw
EarthDogg
TKE-Teg
How about you?

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 9:30 AM. Reason : ]

12/31/2009 9:29:41 AM

Obama: KSM will be convicted, executed
Nov. 18, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/ygc7hhm

12/31/2009 9:36:28 AM

Still clinging to that raft, huh?

12/31/2009 10:05:12 AM

Quote :

"These terrorists need to fear us. Putting them into our convoluted justice system-designed to protect the accused is not going to worry them much. We need to declare that anyone committing acts of mass terrorism will be treated as enemy spies. FDR didn't give the nazi saboteurs a lawyer and put them through our justice system. They were interrogated (probably with "enhanced" methods) and executed. We should treat today's terrorists/saboteurs the same way."

We should be treating terrorists as criminals, because that's what they are. They are not members of sovereign governments. They are not acting on behalf of a state. The "war on terror" is not a war because wars are between governments and their militaries.

We need to continue asking why these terrorists have the mindset they do. It isn't just magic or a mental condition that has driven them to want to attack the United States. Do they want to attack Canada? Do they want to attack Mexico? They didn't pull out a map of the world and pick a random spot. These people have been told from an early age about the things the United States has done in their region of the world. They've been told that we have unjustly bombed, invaded, and overthrown governments. And we have. A select few individuals have grown up and decided that they want to use violence to combat the United States.

Imagine this future scenario. Some foreign country begins invading and bombing certain states. They begin setting up military bases. How do you react? Do you say, "Hmm...I'm sure the occupiers are benevolent. They are probably doing all this for a good reason. After all, our way of life is barbaric, therefore, we should let them force themselves on our country for whatever arbitrary reasons they choose." I'm pretty sure that's not what I would say. Anyone that values liberty would say, "Fuck this, I'm getting as many of my guns as possible and we're going to start a militia. We're going to fight these bastards." Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more terrorists.

We have to try to capture and punish terrorists. However, we won't end terrorism by just killing them all. When you kill one, two will pop up elsewhere. Terrorists are a predictable consequence of interventionist foreign policy. Want to protect Americans from terrorism? We have to stop creating terrorism.

12/31/2009 10:25:47 AM

Obligatory BLAME AMERICA FIRST!

I whole-heartedly agree with you though.

12/31/2009 10:36:44 AM

^^mostly agree


Yeah I'm just against trying them as citizens, but thanks for taking me to the next level

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ?]

12/31/2009 11:00:41 AM

Quote :

"We need to continue asking why these terrorists have the mindset they do."

I agree. This is basically Ron Paul's approach as well. Stop giving them reasons to attack us.

We have stuck our statist military nose into way too many countries' business. We need to scale that back AND let any terrorist know by our actions that they will suffer swift and sure death if we catch any of them.

12/31/2009 11:02:21 AM

these people are american citizens just like everybody else is in the world. they deserve their god given miranda rights. let's be civilized about this people.

just as common a crook as your own dad. let them have their american rights at freedom as they should. they are defenders of the american way right? using their freedom to make bombs or whatever. then we should let them have american 5th amendment too. just like your common theif. same difference to me.

i'm being serious here. just as serious as moron is about everything he's posted in this thread.

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 11:25 AM. Reason : 2]

12/31/2009 11:20:36 AM

If someone from Mexico illegally crosses the border and kills someone, do we use a military tribunal to try them? Do our laws apply to them? Or do we just bypass due process and go straight to the execution?

I'm just trying to clarify this whole "due process doesn't apply to non-citizens" thing.

12/31/2009 11:23:54 AM

well i mean if the mexican bombs a plane or bus they should go straight to the city court for sure. run this like a traffic misdemeanor. i mean what's the diff right?


actually if they are able to execute their bomb plots and not have to suicide themselves they should be put to some sort of celebrity status. just as you would any other american for sure.

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : 3]

12/31/2009 11:27:09 AM

No, dude. Not like a traffic misdimeanor. We'd treat it like blowing up a plane or a bus. It's not as if it gets to a point where we say, "Holy shit! That crime was so bad we're going to disregard all the laws on the book and send this guy straight to the gallows." Why not treat foreign terrorists the same as domestic terrorists? Look at what happened to Timothy McVeigh.

12/31/2009 11:48:56 AM

timothy mcgay = part of a network of govts/militaries/factions/terror groups in open war with the united states???

like i said, just give all the world their basic american rights. aren't we all americans now??? honestly there are no borders to this nation. no such thing anymore. ur kidding yourself if you think otherwise. it jsut takes a few trips to some govt offices and some persistence and you are an american.

face it dude. you are part of a collective that basically babysits this planet. we fight wars off so they turn into genocide for people, we send aid / food / money nonstop so they don't fall into oblivion... etc.. all over the place. and you sir pay for this. we all do. and we let them come live here if they want. you just have to be clever to get in this place and you are scotch free. might as well like i said give them their miranda rights. we are all human and deserve a trial. no???

[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : 4]

12/31/2009 1:38:06 PM

Yes, they all deserve a trial. If it was up to you, any non-citizen that is suspected of a crime in the United States would not be proven guilty, they'd just be lynched by whoever got to them first. This is why we have laws. You don't believe in rule of law, you believe in rule of men.

12/31/2009 2:04:15 PM

Quote :

"scotch free"

12/31/2009 2:18:03 PM

lol

12/31/2009 2:19:43 PM

oh n/m i'm clear:

http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/18/messages/158.html

pwnt

12/31/2009 2:20:41 PM

this is America, take that European faggot bullshit elsewhere.

12/31/2009 2:25:34 PM

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot%20free.html


nothing european about african slavery i think.

12/31/2009 2:28:58 PM

1) You may want to read the entire link you just posted.

2) Europeans were definitely involved in African slavery.

12/31/2009 2:32:29 PM

3) stfu noob



[Edited on December 31, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : 1]

12/31/2009 2:34:34 PM

that all you got?

12/31/2009 2:38:08 PM

Not guilty plea for Nigerian bomb suspect
He faces 6 charges, including bid to use 'weapon of mass destruction'
updated 57 minutes ago

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34765656/ns/us_news-airliner_security

1/8/2010 4:30:26 PM

I guess you're disappointed he hasn't been summarily shot in the back of the head yet.

1/8/2010 4:51:14 PM

he'll probably be set free, just like richard reid.

wait, wat?

1/8/2010 5:04:57 PM

^^ We could've just run him through a military tribunal first--then, yes, execute him immediately. Or we could've just blown him straight to hell with missiles from Predator drones, helicopters, and by other means--the United States does this on a regular basis to other al-Qaeda members for setting IEDs and so on.

http://tinyurl.com/yzpbekd

http://tinyurl.com/yfwfld5

http://tinyurl.com/yjg7uuv

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 6:15 PM. Reason : What's the difference? ]

1/8/2010 6:09:13 PM

Wow, now you're suggesting the US government should have shot down the plane.

On Christmas Day.

1/8/2010 6:14:50 PM

^ You are a fool--I suggested nothing of the sort. Answer the question.

1/8/2010 6:16:28 PM

Quote :

"Or we could've just blown him straight to hell with missiles from Predator drones, helicopters, and by other means"

When do you propose this should have happened (with respect to Abdulmutallab)?

1/8/2010 6:18:11 PM

^ The point was that the al-Qaeda members in question were killed without any form of trial, you buffoon.

Quote :

"What's the difference?"

1/8/2010 6:19:39 PM

Quote :

"We could've just run [Abdulmutallab] through a military tribunal first--then, yes, execute him [Abdulmutallab] immediately. Or we could've just blown [Abdulmutallab] straight to hell with missiles from Predator drones, helicopters, and by other means--the United States does this on a regular basis to other al-Qaeda members for setting IEDs and so on."

You clearly believe it would be OK to kill Abdulmutallab with a missile, but without a trial. I'm trying to figure out when and where in the past 2 weeks Abdulmutallab should have been shot with a missile.

To answer your question: the difference between Abdulmutallab, KSM, et. al. and people setting an IED on the side of the road is incredibly self-evident.

Of course, you already know that.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 6:28 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 6:26:40 PM