Security threats inside and out for 9/11 trial

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Denny Crane

It's not even loaded!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
73,114
Likes
10,945
Points
113
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIIipUrx5h05DijffNcV4BN-4xnAD9C0TK681

Security threats inside and out for 9/11 trial

By DEVLIN BARRETT and LARRY NEUMEISTER (AP) – 1 day ago

NEW YORK — Hot sauce and a comb were all an al-Qaida suspect in New York needed to nearly kill one of his guards nine years ago. The bloody episode suggests that security worries in bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 suspects to trial here could be just as big inside the courthouse as outside.

Already, the U.S. marshals are promising the highest security possible — an acknowledgement of how dangerous terrorism suspects have been in the past.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday that Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the 2001 attacks, and four accused henchmen would be brought from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York to face a civilian federal trial.

The prosecution is planned for a court complex just blocks from where the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in the attack blamed on these men. The courthouse is among the most secure in the nation, ringed by closed-off streets, 24-hour guard posts, anti-truck-bomb barricades and street video cameras so powerful that they can read the print off a passerby's newspaper.

The Sept. 11 case would be the most spectacular of a half dozen major terrorism trials in New York that have already sent away the men blamed for the less devastating 1993 bombing of the trade center, a plot to blow up five landmarks in New York City, a scheme to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners over the Far East and the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Holder's decision to try the Sept. 11 suspects sparked debate over the security risks posed to densely-populated lower Manhattan, but far less has been said about attempted violence by the defendants themselves.

At the same federal lock-up where Mohammed and the others are to be held, federal prison guard Louis Pepe was attacked in late 2000 by Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, a former top aide to bin Laden who was awaiting trial in the embassies case.

Salim surprised Pepe by using a squeezable plastic honey bear container filled with hot sauce as a kind of homemade pepper spray that temporarily blinded the guard.

The inmate then took a plastic comb ground into the shape of a dagger and plunged it into Pepe's left eye. The point pierced deep into his brain, causing severe permanent injury to his sight, speech, and movement.

After the attack, prosecutors say papers found in the cell showed Salim's plan had been to take hostages inside the prison and free his co-defendants. While such a "breakout" plot may sound far-fetched given the security of the federal buildings, in Salim's case the very attempt nearly killed someone.

Salim's lawyer in that case, Richard Lind, said he had "mixed feelings" about Holder's decision, because while he believes the suspects should be tried in civilian court, he has security concerns.

"The prison is not very secure," Lind said. "Maybe things have improved since then, but I think it would be very difficult to manage."

Bureau of Prison spokesman Edmond Ross said: "We ensure that the facility is secure and is run in a secure fashion, but I'm not aware that any particular heightened security procedures are going to be implemented."

It is likely, though, that the attorney general will approve extra security called "special administrative measures" — reserved for the most dangerous prisoners. SAMs, as they are called, prohibit a defendant from communicating with other prisoners, the media, or anyone not connected to their legal defense.

When Mohammed and the others are taken from their cells to the courtroom, U.S. marshals will provide security.

There, too, the last major al-Qaida trial serves as a warning.

During a pre-trial hearing, al-Qaida suspect Wadih El-Hage leaped out of a jury box that held several defendants and raced toward the judge, who maneuvered his tall black chair in front of him as a shield. The defendant was tackled by a deputy U.S. marshal and slammed against a wall next to an American flag, about a dozen feet from the judge.

The trial was held in a large ceremonial courtroom with its own security check — a sort of perimeter within the perimeter. Outside the building, heavily-armed marshals stood guard. When hijacked airplanes slammed into the World Trade Center towers Sept. 11, 2001, those same marshals rushed to the scene to join rescue efforts.

Jeff Carter, a spokesman for the marshals, said the agency will provide the maximum possible security. Both the marshals and Bureau of Prisons have "extensive experience managing the security of dangerous defendants and alleged terrorists in the U.S. judicial system," he said.

Even with extra security, some are convinced trial in a civilian court is a bad idea. The most high-profile critic so far has been former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who said over the weekend the decision displayed "a lack of concern for the rights of the public."

New York Gov. David Paterson said Monday that holding the trial in the city "is not a decision that I would have made."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to calm any fears.

"This is nothing new; we've done this a lot," said Bloomberg. "Every time there's a high profile case, we provide enhanced security. A lot of it you don't see, but it's there."

Josh Dratel, a lawyer who represented El-Hage, said it was right to bring Mohammed and others to trial in New York, both for legal reasons and because, he said, "there's nothing that makes New York more of a target" than it already is.

Barrett reported from Washington. Associated Press Writers Mike Gormley in Albany, N.Y. and Sara Kugler in New York contributed to this report.
 
I still can't believe they're contemplating this move. I guess they don't have the balls to attack President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the CIA directly, so they take this tack. Of course, sacrificing American security by making secrets public is a small price to pay for these true believers.
 
This is so fucked. Civilian trials for fucking terrorists we are at war with? Fucking BULLSHIT.
 
This is so fucked. Civilian trials for fucking terrorists we are at war with? Fucking BULLSHIT.

Similarly, I don't understand why we have trials for drug users, when we are in the midst of the War on Drugs. Or trials for drunk drivers, when the War on Drunk Driving rages on. Or why we try poor people, when we've been at War with Poverty since the 60s.

Or maybe "War" is just a metaphor here. The "War on Terror" isn't an actual war, any more than the "War on Drugs" is.

We have a decent system for dealing with those that commit criminal acts. Not clear to me why we shouldn't use it.

barfo
 
LoL @ people who still think that terrorists flying planes knocked down the towers.
 
Similarly, I don't understand why we have trials for drug users, when we are in the midst of the War on Drugs. Or trials for drunk drivers, when the War on Drunk Driving rages on. Or why we try poor people, when we've been at War with Poverty since the 60s.

Or maybe "War" is just a metaphor here. The "War on Terror" isn't an actual war, any more than the "War on Drugs" is.

We have a decent system for dealing with those that commit criminal acts. Not clear to me why we shouldn't use it.

barfo

Yes, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a simple street drug dealer or drunk driver.

This is more than just a "war on terror"...this man plotted a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people and we're giving him the civil rights and protections that are given to US citizens? Sure, if it were some random "insurgent" who is a citizen like that shoe bomber dude planning some attack that has not been carried out, MAYBE you would have a valid point. But this is a very high ranking, contributing and planning member of a member of a terrorist organization.

But I suppose you can trivialize his actions and just continue likening it to simple misdemeanors and we can enjoy this joke of a trial that is going to commence.
 
Yes, because Khalid Sheik Mohammed is a simple street drug dealer or drunk driver.

This is more than just a "war on terror"...this man plotted a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people and we're giving him the civil rights and protections that are given to US citizens? Sure, if it were some random "insurgent" who is a citizen like that shoe bomber dude planning some attack that has not been carried out, MAYBE you would have a valid point. But this is a very high ranking, contributing and planning member of a member of a terrorist organization.

And therefore, the justice system can't handle it? Why not?

But I suppose you can trivialize his actions and just continue likening it to simple misdemeanors and we can enjoy this joke of a trial that is going to commence.

Why do you think the trial will be a joke? I'm not trivializing his actions, I happen to believe in the American justice system.

barfo
 
And therefore, the justice system can't handle it? Why not?



Why do you think the trial will be a joke? I'm not trivializing his actions, I happen to believe in the American justice system.

barfo

This man is a war criminal and should be tried in the military courts. If the U.S. captured Hitler, would they do this too? Is he to be tried with a jury of his peers? What if there is a mistrial due to some insignificant snafu?

This guy will basically stand up, start mouthing off about Allah is good, blah blah blah and make it a mockery.
 
Last edited:
This man is a war criminal and should be tried in the military courts. If the U.S. captured Hitler, would they do this too?

We were actually at war with Germany. We are not actually at war with "Terror".

Is he to be tried with a jury of his peers? What if there is a mistrial due to some insignificant snafu?

That's our system. If you want to execute someone you have to dot the i's and cross the t's.

This guy will basically stand up, start mouthing off about Allah is good, blah blah blah and make it a mockery.

That does sound like a serious concern, all right. Why, he might convince us all to be terrorists, if he is allowed to speak in his defense.

barfo
 
We were actually at war with Germany. We are not actually at war with "Terror".

IMO, we're at war with the terror "plotters", though. It's such a difficult concept to implement a rational and universally accepted defense for, though.
 
We were actually at war with Germany. We are not actually at war with "Terror".

That's our system. If you want to execute someone you have to dot the i's and cross the t's.

That does sound like a serious concern, all right. Why, he might convince us all to be terrorists, if he is allowed to speak in his defense.

barfo


So we're not at war with Al Queda? Should we just ignore them since we are "not at war" with them? Why not just let him free then? He didn't really do anything, did he? Maybe give him a slap on the wrist?

If we try him like we do war criminals, its going to be faster and swifter.
 
...oh right, Al Queda doesn't really exist. Its just a scapegoat concocted by Dick Cheney to steal energon crystals.
 
If we try him like we do war criminals, its going to be faster and swifter.

Faster and swifter is good, but what about quicker and more rapid?

He was captured in 2003. Seems kind of odd to complain about how long a trial will take, when we waited six years to start one.

barfo
 
Faster and swifter is good, but what about quicker and more rapid?

He was captured in 2003. Seems kind of odd to complain about how long a trial will take, when we waited six years to start one.

barfo

Plus doesn't he have more rights and ways to get through technicalities in civilian court?
 
How curious.

Bush supporters should be dancing in the street at this news. They should see a fair, public trial as a chance at vindication; a chance to prove all their claims were true.

How very curious indeed.
 
How curious.

Bush supporters should be dancing in the street at this news. They should see a fair, public trial as a chance at vindication; a chance to prove all their claims were true.

How very curious indeed.

Actually most would support a private, military or other trial or tribunal where there are less civil rights afforded to this non-American citizen who is a prisoner of war and possibly a lower burden to convict and execute for terrorists who killed American citizens. Hold the trial off shore so we can hang him by his balls.
 
Last edited:
It was BOOOSH! He ejected out of the plane and teleported to that elementary school.
 
Plus doesn't he have more rights and ways to get through technicalities in civilian court?

Yes. barfo doesn't understand the difference between a criminal and a martial matter. Either that, or he believes terrorism is a criminal matter only, no different than any other crime. I happen to hold a different view.
 
Actually most would support a private, military or other trial or tribunal where there are less civil rights afforded to this non-American citizen who is a prisoner of war and possibly a lower burden to convict and execute for terrorists who killed American citizens. Hold the trial off shore so we can hang him by his balls.

So, let me ask two questions.

1) What do you think of Japanese internment camps used during WWII?

2) What if we found a citizen who was planning to kill 3,000...or let's say, God forbid, that they accomplished their nefarious plan. Would you still support a trial in the standard courts, or would you recommend a military court for them?
 
How curious.

Bush supporters should be dancing in the street at this news. They should see a fair, public trial as a chance at vindication; a chance to prove all their claims were true.

How very curious indeed.

How does President Bush need to be vindicated?
 
That does sound like a serious concern, all right. Why, he might convince us all to be terrorists, if he is allowed to speak in his defense.

barfo

No, the blah blah blah line was tried in the 90's and didn't work. I think they made it into a car commercial.
 
So, let me ask two questions.

1) What do you think of Japanese internment camps used during WWII?

2) What if we found a citizen who was planning to kill 3,000...or let's say, God forbid, that they accomplished their nefarious plan. Would you still support a trial in the standard courts, or would you recommend a military court for them?

1. I was not around during that time and I do have friends who's parents were in them. In retrospect, they were probably unfair. At the time with that political climate though, they may have been appropriate.

2. If it was a lone citizen, then I would say standard court. If this citizen was part of a large terrorist organization, I would say that their aggression is an act of war and they should be tried as a war criminal.
 
The facts are that we have to work within our legal system in order to prosecute these terrorist because that is the system we have built. We can't just skirt the law any time we feel like it. That is pretty much akin to forming a lynch mob and stringing folks up.

Now the other thing I would bring up is, that the Obama administration most likely would not be bringing this to a civiliian trial unless they are sure they would win. Taking these criminals down in a trial in the USA actually sends the message that we want to send to the terrorist. We want the terrorist not known as freedom fighters in a war, but we want them to be known as vile criminals.

We are not at war. We are using our army to fight a vast organized crime organization because our police have no power there. If you go through Afghan towns, you cannot tell between civilizan and Taliban/AlQaida. That is what criminals do. Hide in plain site, and comitt their crimes. When fighting a war, you face troops backed by another government. That is not the case here.
 
1. I was not around during that time and I do have friends who's parents were in them. In retrospect, they were probably unfair. At the time with that political climate though, they may have been appropriate.

2. If it was a lone citizen, then I would say standard court. If this citizen was part of a large terrorist organization, I would say that their aggression is an act of war and they should be tried as a war criminal.

1. Well I don't expect you'd be around during that time, I doubt most people were. Perhaps Denny can enlighten us? :wink: So, because of the political climate, they were appropriate? Let me just clarify here because this is an important point. If I'm reading you correctly you're saying that if people in the country feel, politically, like there is a danger from any group of citizens, then it's appropriate to "jail" them up en masse, without trial, in a makeshift camp in the desert?

2. "Part of a large terrorist organization"...hrm, ok, so what level are they part of it to where they deserve that? If they are a common grunt, or just the leaders? Again, to clarify, you're saying that US citizens who commit criminal acts who also coincidentally are part of terrorist organizations (as defined by what you don't specify) should be tried in a military court outside of the standard justice system afforded citizens?
 
The facts are that we have to work within our legal system in order to prosecute these terrorist because that is the system we have built. We can't just skirt the law any time we feel like it. That is pretty much akin to forming a lynch mob and stringing folks up.

Our military were holding these detainees. Other terrorists have been prosecuted and will be prosecuted in military tribunals. They asked for coverage under the Geneva Convention, which covers war crimes.

Now the other thing I would bring up is, that the Obama administration most likely would not be bringing this to a civiliian trial unless they are sure they would win.

That's immaterial. What is material is that KSM won't be on trial, but the Bush Administration and the CIA.

Taking these criminals down in a trial in the USA actually sends the message that we want to send to the terrorist. We want the terrorist not known as freedom fighters in a war, but we want them to be known as vile criminals.

That's a stupid message. The message we should be sending to terrorists is that if you commit a terrorist act, no matter where you are, we will capture you, interrogate you harshly and then kill you.

We are not at war. We are using our army to fight a vast organized crime organization because our police have no power there. If you go through Afghan towns, you cannot tell between civilizan and Taliban/AlQaida. That is what criminals do. Hide in plain site, and comitt their crimes. When fighting a war, you face troops backed by another government. That is not the case here.

We are at war. We were attacked as a country. It doesn't matter there isn't a nation state behind it. They are not simple criminals; these people have declared themselves soldiers in a war against the West.
 
1. Well I don't expect you'd be around during that time, I doubt most people were. Perhaps Denny can enlighten us? :wink: So, because of the political climate, they were appropriate? Let me just clarify here because this is an important point. If I'm reading you correctly you're saying that if people in the country feel, politically, like there is a danger from any group of citizens, then it's appropriate to "jail" them up en masse, without trial, in a makeshift camp in the desert?

At that time, perhaps. Again, I do not know enough about that time period to make a conclusion. It was vastly different than it was now and we were engaged in a world war. I supported additional security screenings for all middle easterners after 9/11 because I believed in the mantra of "if the shoe fits". It sucks, but if it keeps things safe, I'm fine with it.
 
2. "Part of a large terrorist organization"...hrm, ok, so what level are they part of it to where they deserve that? If they are a common grunt, or just the leaders? Again, to clarify, you're saying that US citizens who commit criminal acts who also coincidentally are part of terrorist organizations (as defined by what you don't specify) should be tried in a military court outside of the standard justice system afforded citizens?

Yes. If they commit acts of treason, such as planning and executing a terrorist attack, I feel they should be tried outside of the standard justice system.
 
Our military were holding these detainees. Other terrorists have been prosecuted and will be prosecuted in military tribunals. They asked for coverage under the Geneva Convention, which covers war crimes.



That's immaterial. What is material is that KSM won't be on trial, but the Bush Administration and the CIA.



That's a stupid message. The message we should be sending to terrorists is that if you commit a terrorist act, no matter where you are, we will capture you, interrogate you harshly and then kill you.



We are at war. We were attacked as a country. It doesn't matter there isn't a nation state behind it. They are not simple criminals; these people have declared themselves soldiers in a war against the West.

Yea those are all great thoughts, if you live by redneck law. By giving the terrorist trial in the military you legitimize their force, and recognize them as a politicial force. By treating them like criminals, you don't give them any legitimate credentials and show them as the criminals they truly are. Political movements gain support. Criminal movements do not. By blackening their image through out the world, you are able to drain off of their support.

2ndly. If the CIA and George Bush didn't do anything wrong, then they have nothing to worry about. If they did, then they really should have thought over the way they handled things. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. We are no better than them if we sink down to their level. What do they do? Terrorize people. Kidnap people. Torture people. If we do the same, we are no better. If we didn't want them to get to trial, we should have killed them in combat.

Lastly, my statement wasn't immaterial. You can try to dismiss it all you want. It is valid. You may not agree with me, and you can state that. But that doesn't make my statement immaterial.
 
At that time, perhaps. Again, I do not know enough about that time period to make a conclusion. It was vastly different than it was now and we were engaged in a world war. I supported additional security screenings for all middle easterners after 9/11 because I believed in the mantra of "if the shoe fits". It sucks, but if it keeps things safe, I'm fine with it.

Would you be ok with being imprisoned yourself without trial, if we decide that people who look like you are a threat?

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top