Help Support The Site

Mesothelioma & Asbestos Cancer

Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

The Agonist Learning Center

Learn more online. Collecting answers for over 5 years.

StudyUp!

Research Texas universities, colleges, and schools. Use StudyUp to share study notes with friends!


American Justice System Too Weak For Terrorists, GOPers Say

As the September Eleventh Advocates said recently, "the American Justice System has been used to try terrorists 214 times since September 2001, with a success rate of 91% - 195 people were convicted." In my opinion, they don't want 9/11 in the court room because like in the Moussaoui Trial (read Fact #47), things may be revealed that they don't want revealed. Since we already know about the torture, I wonder what else they are trying to hide? - Jon

Source: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

Evan McMorris-Santoro | December 10, 2009, 1:33PM

Standing in front of the Supreme Court this morning, a group of Republican lawmakers railed against the court system run out of the building behind them. A sign affixed to the plexiglas podium each spoke at in turn spelled out the reason for their concern. "Protect our homeland," it read. "Keep terrorists out of America."

The justice system laid out in the Constitution, they said, is just too weak to protect American citizens from wiley terror suspects. From "activist judges" to courtroom sketch artists, the group reeled off a list of reasons the Obama administration decision to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S. for trial could quite possibly end in, as Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) suggested, a nuclear attack on the United States.

The group of conservative lawmakers have been arguing against bringing the Gitmo suspects to the U.S. ever since the decision was announced. They suggest, as do most Republicans and some Democrats, that the best way to try terror suspects is through military tribunals on the Guantanamo Bay base itself. Today, they repeated that argument. But they added new focus to their claim that the Constitution and bringing terrorists to justice can't mix.

Gitmo is "the best place to have [trials], it's the best place to house them. It's the safest place," Rep. Steve King (R-IA) told reporters. "More importantly, it's the place that keeps activist federal judges from making activist decisions that could end up turning [terror suspects] loose on the streets of America."

After the press conference, King elaborated on his worries about U.S. judges. "We wouldn't even be thinking about trying these detainees on U.S. soil if it hadn't been for activist judges who decided they were going to confer constitutional rights on people that have never seen the United States of America," he said, referring to the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court decision that said military commissions as set up by the Bush administration violated the Geneva conventions.

King suggested that "activist" judges could be inclined to release terror suspects over some liberal legal principle or another. "A judge can rationalize most anything," he said. "If you're a living, breathing -- how should I say it? -- 'evolving' constitutionalist than you can write anything you want to justify your own rationale."

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) was troubled by what might happen when waterboarding and the American right to a fair trial met in a U.S. courtroom. She worried what might happen if terror suspects argued they'd been given "cruel and unusual" punishment at Gitmo.

"This is what scares me because they're in a U.S. court now and the rights are different," she said. "What will they say [about their detention] and what could happen and could they be out among the people again? It's very frightening."

How frightening? Mushroom cloud frightening, according to Franks. He said that a federal trial would give the suspects "a megaphone to speak to the planet," which he said "only hastens the danger" of, literally, a nuclear terrorist attack.

When a reporter pointed out that federal trials aren't televised, perhaps making the "megaphone" a little less likely, Republicans said there were other ways for terror suspects to peddle their propoganda from a U.S. courtroom -- for example, sketch artists.

"What we've seen happen is artists draw pictures and this will be written up and there are interviews outside the courtroom everyday and there will be defense attorneys taking the global stage," King said. "We are in an electronic era where they Internet and all these other media that we have will create a real time look at what's going on in New York."

Me thinks thou dost protest too much...

Michael Mukasey said, "the question is not whether they're going to escape. The question is whether, not only that particular facility, but the city [at] large, will then become the focus for mischief in the form of murder by adherents of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--whether this raises the odds that it will. I would suggest to you that it raises them very high." He also said, "it is a mistake from a security standpoint both for the security of the city and national security." [...] "National security secrets can be revealed much more easily in a public proceeding like much more easily than in a military commission."

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the trials "puts Americans unnecessarily at risk."

Rudy Guiliani has been making a HUGE stink about the trials. "There seems to be an over-concern with the rights of terrorists and a lack of concern with the rights of the public." [...] "Anyone that tells you this doesn't create additional security problems, of course, isn't telling you the truth." He also said, "on every possible ground, it is a terrible mistake." [...] "It would be very wise if the President and the attorney general would change their mind and not try them in a civilian court in New York. Try them in a military court."

Rep. Pete Hoekstra said "they [the terrorists] are going to do everything they can to disrupt it and make it a circus and allow them to use it as a platform to push their ideology."

Sen. John Cornyn said the decision to have the trials in New York was "unconscionable."

Sen. Jim Webb said they "do not belong in our courts."

Governor David Paterson said "over 2,700 lives were lost. 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 tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers."

9/11 Commissioner Thomas Kean said, "an open trial in Manhattan federal court would make the suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a "martyr" and "hero" among al Qaeda sympathizers around the world."

Sen. Lindsey Graham said the decision was "a perversion of justice."

Democratic Representative Ike Skelton said "as a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue."

John Ashcroft said, "if your top priority is the liberty and life of American citizens and the security of their lives and liberty, then this decision is less than optimal."

John Bolton said, "I think it reflects a pre- 9/11 mentality that you can treat terrorism like it's a law enforcement matter, rather than what it is, a war on the country. And I think the signal that it sends to the terrorists overseas is very, very dangerous for the country down the road."

Dick Cheney said, "I can't for the life of me figure out what Holder's intent [is] here, in terms of having Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in a civilian court, other than to, to have some kind of show trial here." He also said the trials will make KSM, "as important or more important than Osama bin Laden," and "a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world." He also said, "he'll be able to go in whenever he's up on the stand and proselytize, if you will, millions of people out there around the world including some of his radical Muslim friends and generate a whole new generation of terrorists."

As I have said before, because of the 9/11 Cover-Up, I think the families that are on the side of these individuals have been snookered into believing their propaganda. That is unfortunate.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Unfortunate?" by influence device

So let's see...

You are an anonymous user that only signed up to 911blogger.com 15 weeks 4 days ago. Yesterday, you re-introduced a toxic topic on this site. In that thread, you were made aware that the reason I had a problem with Webster Tarpley was because he referred to Cindy Sheehan as a "wretched individual." So what did you do? You said, "to be quite honest I couldn't care less if he called her a 'big baboon'." Today you're calling her a selfish hypocrite, and badmouthing 9/11 families in an entirely different thread that just happens to be mine knowing full well that it will get on my nerves.

So what is your purpose here other than to start trouble?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Hmm...

Why would you brand that thread as toxic?

You spent the entirety of that thread trying to divert the point away from the objective facts to subjective personality issues, after I had specifically stated that I wasn't interested in those aspects (I have a life).

I was already well aware of why you 'have problems' with various members of the movement. How could I not?

What do you think I was doing before 15 weeks ago, and why does it matter? Huh?

Here you appear to be promoting the false dialectic of whether to have show or military trials.

I've also commented on John Bursill's current post, another obfuscator from yesterday, as he appears to be tying a fund raising drive to soldiers' well being, and bringing god into it.

My purpose (at least for today) is to bring some balance to the god, soldier, soldier's mum, dopey family oriented discussion.

"Why would you brand that thread as toxic?"

1) It's about an event that helped to divide the 9/11 Truth Movement. Which means individuals will obviously have words to say about it. Words and energy that would be better spent elsewhere.

2) It's an attempt to bring credibility to the individual that helped to divide the 9/11 Truth Movement. That, in itself, is divisive.

"What do you think I was doing before 15 weeks ago, and why does it matter? Huh?"

1) I have no idea what you were doing, but based on your activities on this site, it seems that you are obviously knowledgeable regarding which buttons to push for certain people, and enjoy doing so. Why would someone who honestly cares about this issue spend their time pushing people's buttons in an obvious attempt to aggravate them, and force them to waste time responding to your nonsense?

"Here you appear to be promoting the false dialectic of whether to have show or military trials."

Here, I am pointing out the obvious fear mongering that is being used to try and stop 9/11 from reaching the court room, which, in the past, has proven to be educational, and revealing.

In my opinion, as I stated in this thread, you should be banned.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

id: "They remind me of hypocrites like Cindy Sheehan."

id: "They remind me of hypocrites like Cindy Sheehan. She was only too happy to have her son destroy other people's lives, but when he got killed, well that's a different story."

Source? From what I recall, she didn't support the Iraq war when it was launched, and didn't want her son to go, but he was already in the military, after having been promised by a recruiter that he wouldn't be sent to Iraq. id, what is your history of peace and anti-war activism, since you feel justified in passing judgment on Sheehan?

id: "But these people agreed to tow the government line when they took the blood money bribes a long time ago."

This statement is false on a couple levels. 1) Family members who accepted the settlement only agreed not to sue the US govt, not "tow the government line". 2) id has characterized accepting the settlement as accepting "blood money bribes". If a family member believed or knew at the time the Bush Administration/exec agencies were responsible for the deaths of their loved ones and considered the settlement money to be hush money, perhaps that could be said to be true- but id hasn't presented evidence this is the case with ANY family member, let alone ALL of them. So what's the point of making such an inflammatory remark? Do remarks like that benefit the cause of truth and justice?

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

""And having those

""And having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers."

Not for me! I'm overjoyed!

By the way, I wonder if anyone is willing to comment on why there is such a major division in strategy within the "establishment"?

division in the Establishment

it seems clear there's an understanding between the fake left and right wing establishment groups about not examining the official story about 9/11, but the 'Establishment' is not some monolithic entity. 1% of Americans control the vast majority of wealth, property income and corporations, and a smaller minority in that group are the real power brokers in society, economic and politics, and those visible to the public are usually not those who are ultimately pulling the strings. They differ in values and policy in some cases, but on issues that have the potential to threaten their control, they tend to close ranks, truth, facts and justice be damned.

I would guess in the case of the NY trials for KSM et al, Holder, Obama and the 'liberal' 'elites' backing the decision figure that having show trials w/ selective evidence will improve the appearance (to the rest of the world) of US legitimacy re: 9/11 and the 'war on terror', and this will facilitate relations w/ allies in the 'war on terror' who have criticized the Bush Administration over Iraq, torture, rendition, etc. and may have questions about 9/11/possible future attacks. Those in the right-wing have often expressed disdain for diplomacy, relations and world opinion; ex. "you're with us or against us", and they would prefer to keep 'the dark side' of the 'war on terror' out of the public view- they do fear the weight of public opinion, even as they despise the People.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org