by Mark Silva
In New York, which suffered the most shocking brunt of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, there is a certain division of opinion over playing host to a criminal trial for the mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and some accomplices.
Forty-five percent of the New Yorkers surveyed say it's a good idea to hold the trial in New York City, while 41 percent call it a bad one.
Fourteen percent "just aren't sure,'' the Marist Poll reports.
While 47 percent of those surveyed say the location of the trial will not affect the likelihood of another terrorist attack occurring in New York City, "a significant proportion are concerned the trial will put a bull's eye on the city.''
Indeed, 40 percent believe the trial which the Justice Department plans to conduct in New York for several detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will increase the possibility of another terrorist attack in the area, the Marist Poll has found.
At the same time, most New Yorkers -- 67 percent -- voice confidence that law enforcement officials will be able to handle the potential security risks associated with such a high profile trial in Manhattan. Only one in five lack faith in the cops.
This survey of 602 New York City residents was conducted on Monday, the day that New York Gov. David Paterson was publicly suggesting that the trial is not such a good idea. The poll carries a possible margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
Paterson was finding a little wiggle room today for his own criticism of the Obama administration's move -- following the president's less than subtle suggestion that the Democrat not seek another term.
Paterson had said on Monday that he'd prefer the trial not be held in the city. But appearing on a radio show today, he said the decision has been made and New York will assist the federal government any way it can.
"We don't need to spend a lot of time on this," the governor said on radio station WWRL. "The decision is made. That's the president's decision. We're Americans. We will follow the decision and we'll trust the president."
Comments
On Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was not at "war" with any nation or ideology. Since our country was allegedly attacked during peace time, no need for a military court. I'd prefer for the truth to be arrived at in a federal court. Why are the repugs afraid of a court that the Pentagon can not get its hands on? Why did Bush and Cheney not want to get to the bottom of the matter--why did they continue to disallow the men accused to go to trial? Why were they afraid to allow the evidence flow to where it needed to go? It hurts people to keep them in the dark--literally and figuratively. It's always better to know--anything--than not to know. For so long the Pentagon/gov't have complained of lack of, or bad "intelligence". Something can be learned here. Hearings bring to light many things, and I'd like to finally hear from those who have been charged. Many are talking about NYC possibly being more at risk due to trials there. The mayor of NYC and the Federal agencies have done this before. I just hope that those accused are protected--mainly for the truth. If you don't like the men--protect the truth anyway--which will be good for all of us, finally. And, don't allow the men on trial to be Lee-Harvey-Oswalded during any prison to prison or prison to court house transfers. At that point, we would never really know--and every Sunday afternoon or so, T.V. stations could continue to air programs on 'The 9/11 Conspiracy Theories'.
Posted by: Vivian | November 17, 2009 2:14 PM
There are no words to describe how utterly stupid this decision is — but I will give you two:
stare decisis
If this becomes accepted precedence in law, our soldiers will have to be trained in evidence collection, chain of evidence procedures, etc. — the whole LEO/forensics ball of wax.
I propose that Eric Holder him self preside as the prosecuting attorney in the KSM trial. Let him be the one with the fatwa who is hunted to his end of days for sending KSM to the gallows.
I also propose that the jury of peers on the KSM trial should be 100% muslim to be a true representation of his peers.
Obamatrons sure are smart!
Posted by: Chris | November 17, 2009 3:38 PM
We expect that in the face of polls showing Americans oppose the KSM trial, The Swamp will unearth a poll that says otherwise. And give that poll free publicity.
And they did. A poll of only one state. A state that Obama carried by 20% in 2008.
In the U.S. as a whole, only 29% favor the trial, while 51% are opposed, according to the Rasmussen Poll.
Posted by: Speaking truth to power | November 17, 2009 5:55 PM
Vivian, the dudes are admitted terrosists and admitted to partaking in the planing and execution of the attacks on September 11. Thats good enough for me. Let them hang.
Posted by: Brian | November 17, 2009 6:38 PM
Posted by: Vivian | November 17, 2009 2:14 PM
Think back to that post once this starts. I bet you will be seeing things in a whole new light and I think you may not like what you see.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 17, 2009 7:43 PM
Brian and Crooks--the events of the past eight and 1/2 years have totally consumed us as a nation in so many ways. There is a generation of young 20 somethings that since they were in the 9th grade--all they have known is WMDs, war on terror, OBL, emergency war funding, terror level alert warnings, Saddam and IEDs. This has been BS, and crap for everyones' life. No beauty, no fun, no lightheartedness. I want someone to pay--and if it involves some in our own gov't-- so be it. At least we'll know. I'm pretty pissed that joy was taken away, and that our treasury was looted soon after 9/11 for the wild goose hunt in the Mid East. Things have never added up, and I would like an extremely bright search light put on this matter. I'd like to know more about the money trail--so we can burn it. I'd like to know the why. I want to know the how--with a flow chart of events. I want to know more about the who, and the who behind the who. And, who in our gov't knew and who dropped the ball--a flow chart would be good here as well. I want to know when the accused admitted to 9/11 and how it benefits them--other than the standard pitch that they get a bunch of virgins in heaven. There has to be much, much more to the story.
Posted by: Vivian | November 17, 2009 10:17 PM
This is upsetting. I cannot imagine the uproar this could cause if they are not prosecuted the way most Americans believe they should be...
Posted by: Scott B | November 18, 2009 2:00 AM
Posted by: Vivian | November 17, 2009 10:17 PM
I understand but, look I signed up for Navy on Oct 31 1979. Check the history at the time and you will see I was thinking along those lines.
The who and why of this goes all the way back to that time and before. Can it be what we did in Iran back in the 40s and 50s? We do not know now and after this trail we may not still know.
I fear its the terrorist who will win in this trail. And I do not mean the case.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 18, 2009 11:03 AM
So Holder says they won't be released in the U.S. if not convicted. So, then the head chopper of Daniel Pearl and the mastermind behind 9/11 will be released in another country to do it all over again? KSM wasn't in the U.S. when he chopped off Daniel Pearl's head. He wasn't in the U.S. when he took part and planned the 9/11 assaults. Holder's and Obama's logic on this matter are as illogical as usual.
Posted by: John D, still right, as usual | November 18, 2009 11:58 AM
Was any of Eric Holder's family killed in the 9/11 attacks??? Wonder what his decision would be if they were??
Posted by: Marc H | November 19, 2009 1:19 AM