Donovan - Staten Island District Attorney Wants NYC Ruled Out For KSM Trial

Staten Island Real-Time News
Breaking local news from Staten Island, NY
Donovan wants city ruled out for 9/11 terrorist trial
By Doug Auer
April 24, 2010, 7:30AM
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Take this terrorist trial and move it.

That's Staten Island District Attorney Daniel Donovan's pointed message to the White House in respect of the possibility of New York City as the venue for the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Instead, Donovan -- whom many see as a Republican candidate for state attorney general -- advocates a military tribunal.

"The planners of the Pearl Harbor attacks were not brought to Honolulu for civilian trials, but rather Japanese defendants in the post-World War II War Crimes trials were prosecuted before military tribunals, charged with waging aggressive war against the peace. In Europe, Nazi leaders were prosecuted for unprovoked attacks on their neighbors," Donovan pointed out in a press release chock full of strong language, and issued to coincide with President Obama's speech Thursday on financial-sector abuses at Cooper Union.

"Does masterminding the hijacking of civilian planes, causing the death of 2,976 Americans and spawning wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not constitute an act of aggressive war?"

Donovan expressed disappointment earlier this month when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "New York is not off the table" as the site of trials for Sheikh Mohammed and four others.

The government is considering using federal court in Lower Manhattan, with security costs estimated at $200 million per year.

"A trial before a military commission, in accordance with the standards set in the Military Commissions Act, will protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial, but will also ensure the integrity of our system of justice and protect the security interests of the American people," said Donovan.

The idea of Manhattan serving as venue is facing massive opposition from New York elected officials, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Rep. Michael McMahon (D-Staten Island/Brooklyn), as well as Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

"The current proposal by the Justice Department will not result in justice, but will offer a venue in the world's largest media market for those who hate America and seek to make a mockery of our system, all while further crippling the economy of New York City," Donovan concluded.

The post World War II military trials were not held in secret

What is really at the root of the issue over where and how the alleged 911 conspirators are tried is whether the venues are secret or open courts. It isn't really about military or civilian courts.

It was the Bush administration which wanted to use secret tribunals, and what many like Donovan fail to bring up when using the WW II military tribunals as an example, is that they were not held in secret in either Germany or Japan.

It should also be noted that military tribunals are usually reserved for criminals involved in wars between nation states, not individuals acting on their own in a non state sanctioned group. In this sense the attempted use of military tribunals for the alleged individual 911 conspirators is unprecedented and the use of an act of war analogy by people like Danial Donovan is disingenuous, as there has been no foreign state complicity established whatsoever, for those presently accused of the crimes.

Even so, I would think most people would have no problem with military trials being used, if they were open to public attendance and scrutiny, with full rules of discovery enforced. However, that isn't being offered as an option in the rhetoric of Republican politicians like Danial Donovan, Rudy Giuliani, Dick Cheney, Lindsay Graham etc., and we have to ask why.

It is the secret part that most of us object to and for good reason.

There are no good reasons whatsoever to try these people in secret, whether they be military or civilian courts. The alleged conspirators should be tried openly, somewhere in the mainland U.S., with public access, and full rules of discovery enforced.

The only problem with OPEN military trials is...........

..............getting an attorney for defense that will REALLY work in behalf of the accused. Who knows how the military would manipulate all of that, leaving out whole issues on purpose, and ensuring that many expert witnesses and consultants are never allowed their time.

How about just acting civilized

' The alleged conspirators should be tried openly, somewhere in the mainland U.S., with public access, and full rules of discovery enforced.'

And without any gadgets being attached to the defendants through which they may be administered with electrical shocks, as the prosecution deems fit, during the course of the trial--as reportedly was done to Moussaoui at his trial.


Did Moussaoui represent himself in court? I know he had a lawyer for the penalty phase but I am referring to the main trial.
He had gadgets attached to him to deliver shocks? in court? That is news to me, but is why I read this site every day multiple times.

peace everybody

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts." -- Abraham Lincoln

This might interest you

I know the reported use of a 'stun belt' on Moussaoui was mentioned and discussed on this site back at the time of the verdict in spring 2006, but I've had trouble finding the actual posts. However, I did find a link on the subject which might interest you:

In addition, a Google search with:

Moussaoui "stun belt"

yields thousands of results.

Thanks RM

Thanks RM, that was a very interesting article. I learn something everyday from this blog. I also found my answer as whether he represented himself and I found this from I'll post this excerpt from it for everyone's edification should it be helpful.

"On January 2, 2002, Moussaoui refused to enter any plea to the charges and so Judge Leonie Brinkema entered pleas of not guilty. A hearing was held on April 22, 2002, to determine his right to self-representation, for by then Moussaoui had declined the assistance of his court-appointed attorneys, and asked to defend himself. At another hearing on June 13, 2002, Brinkema deemed him competent to defend himself and allowed the case to move forward. However, Moussaoui later requested the occasional assistance of attorneys to help him with technical issues.

Moussaoui admitted his involvement with al-Qaeda, but claimed he was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. Rather, he claimed that he was preparing for a separate attack. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had earlier told investigators that Moussaoui met with him prior to September 11, but that he, Mohammed, chose not to use him. No evidence directly linking Moussaoui to the 9/11 attacks has yet been released."

Of course, regarding the last statement, no evidence directly linking ANY terrorist to the 9/11 attacks has been released. We are still waiting for such a white paper promised to us by Condileeza Rice or Colin Powell.

thanks again.

peace all

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
-- Voltaire

The post-WWII tribunals were a farce

The post-WWII show trials are a good example of how the pretense of justice can corrupt the historical record and further the malevolent designs of the puppet masters who orchestrate wars for power and profit.

Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who taught at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal "defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process." He went on: "Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department's policy... The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish."

It really doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that much of what was presented as evidence at the Nuremberg IMT's - for example - was glaringly flawed to the point of absurdity. A simple reading of the transcripts of the proceedings will suffice.

So they spawned the wars

armed with boxcutters, 19 patsies. Okaayyyyy..?

And they're all still around

unless of course they had tea with the CIA.

war of aggression

I'm amazed this character wants to talk about wars of aggression and crimes against peace! The International Criminal Court includes the crime of aggression as one of the crimes it is supposed to deal with, but U.S. leaders have shown no interest. In fact, obstruction by Western "great powers" has left "crime of aggression" without an operative legal definition. Everyone knows it would be easy to come up with a definition but these powers do not want one because it will be immediately obvious that they have violated this law and wish to continue violating it. The invasion of Iraq was a classic example. Maybe Americans should take the opening this guy's comments have created, and push for an operative definition of this crime, to which the United States will be bound.

Deaf, dumb and blindness promoted...

I am now on, going to refer to us in the Truth movement as the "REALITY BASED COMMUNITY".

It is well to remember when the Taliban offered......... capture bin Laden and send him to a third country for an international trial. Bush wasn't interested and the press quickly avoided the issue, and America decided it had to slaugher thousands of innocent people instead.
We could have had a real trial with exposure of the crimes. Nobody seemed interested.
Demonizing the Taliban (and invading and occupying Afghanistan) was much more interesting and rewarding.

More than that

Not only would agreeing to such an international trial have denied the Bush administration its pretext for invading Afghanistan; it also would have risked exposing that Bin Laden wasn't really behind 9/11.

Where's The Beef!


yeah, the Taliban asked to see the evidence the Bush administration said it had that proved bin Laden orchestrated 9/11. Even though Bush said the evidence would be released to the American public, no such evidence has to date been released. As a matter of fact, the FBI STILL doesn't have any credible evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9/11. That is why bin Laden isn't wanted for the 9/11 attacks by the FBI:

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

A farce

This is a farcical game indeed. What is really going on here? This is all staged in my opinion. In reality the Obama administration will only accept a military commission, because that will be by far the easiest way to rig the trial. The trial needs to be thoroughly rigged, because KSM is a patsy whose 'evidence' was obtained by torture.

The advantage for Obama is that it will *look* as though he *reluctantly* agreed to a military commission. This supports the pretence that Al Qaeda is for real and was the sole cause of 911. Above all, Obama does not want to give Americans the impression that he favours a military commission, because that would suggest they are worried. Obama is first and foremost an actor. Not trying him in a military commission also undermines the rationale for the 'war' on terror and exposes them to great risk. Holder's statement is a Hegelian dialectic variation designed to elicit 'opposition' to the idea of a civilian trial in New York so that Obama can maintain the pretence.

I am really starting to feel that "they" are getting very worried about 911 Truth. Cass Sunstein and his 'cognitive infiltration'; the SPLC and its pathetic 'patriot list' and propaganda; new attacks on DRG; Fox News with its attempt to shore up Silverstein and bag Jesse Ventura. Then the foot in mouth disease from Shapiro, which suggested to me that they are under pressure and didn't think it through.

I think we should not doubt that we are hurting them bigtime now.

Seems like Washington et al are stepping up to an

...inevitable media war, in which broadcasters like Alex Jones can't help but capture some percentage of a vast audience - that is, IF its a civilian trial. Obama will be forced to back down. There will be military trials: 911 Truth's core body of evidence is so damning as to be unmanageable an other way and everyone at the top knows it.

Hard To Have Public Demonstrations At Trial

....if the trial is being held inside AREA 51.

This is PSYOP 101

Bickering about where to hold the trials of "the 9/11 perpetrators" is just a means to keep the myth alive without having to present evidence to support the lie.

Thank GOD

someone else understands this for what it really is, A LIE ! When you live in times of deceit telling the truth
is a dangerous thing.

Before ANYONE goes on trial

Shouldn't we all try to figure out who demolished these buildings ?