Sunday, January 31, 2010

STOP Terror Trials in Pittsburgh; Tim Murphy Vows NO Terror Trials

That is it!!! This is the last freaking straw!!! These libtards are really pissing me off!!! BIG TIME, PISSING ME OFF!!!! I just received an email from my Representative, Tim Murphy (R-PA), that Obama and Holder are looking to move the terror trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four accomplices from NYC to another location trial , and that they are considering Western PA, and specifically right here in Pittsburgh as a place to hold the terror trials. HELL NO!!!! Tim Murphy is doing everything within his power to hault this travesty from happening. I don't want these freaking terrorists right in my backyard.

The safest place to try these terrorists and achieve justice without breaking the government's piggy bank and increasing the deficit, and keeping everyone in the United States safe is at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Having the trials at Gitmo would take care of all the issues revolving around these trials for enemy combatants or terrorists. Murphy vows NO PITTSBURGH TERROR TRIALS. Everyone in the Pittsburgh area and in PA must stand up and say no terror trials HERE. This cockamamie B.S. Must stop!!! The Obama administration seems to be doing everything in their power to undermine our national security. And, by having the trials anywhere within the United States proper they are endangering U.S. citizens' lives and exposing the United States to an increased possibility of another major terrorist attack.

For anyone to think that these extremely dangerous terrorists who plotted to kill 3000 innocent Americans, who were captured on a foreign battlefield, should receive the same rights as civilians living within the United States is absurd, despicable, irresponsible, and plain callous with respect to American lives and our safety. These people lack the necessary intelligence and conceptual ability to understand about how our military system works as opposed to the laws of common criminals within the United States. These terrorists do not have miranda rights. People who are applying American rights to terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield are displaying cultural imperialism of the worst kind.This lunacy must stop!!! We must stop these terror trials from being located in Pittsburgh or any other city within the United States. These terrorists must be tried in front of a military tribunal.

Here is the email from Rep. Tim Murphy:

As the Obama Administration seeks to move the trials of self-professed 9/11 plot mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four accomplices out of New York City to the Western District of Pennsylvania, Congressman Tim Murphy (PA-18) released the following statement:

“The forum shopping by the Justice Department for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial clearly reveals the underlying problems in trying international terrorists and enemy war combatants as domestic criminals in the U.S. criminal justice system.

“We aren't talking about shoplifters or tax evaders, these terrorists are murderers of thousands of innocent Americans and have committed unspeakable acts of war against our country.

“No amount of federal funding can compensate for the risk that this trial would place on the people of Pennsylvania or any other state in our Union. It is outrageous, insensitive and misguided for the President and the Attorney General to unnecessarily jeopardize the safety of U.S. citizens by moving these trials to anywhere outside of the military base at Guantanamo.

“We are seeing universal rejection across party lines and state lines because the American people do not want the government treating terrorism as a U.S. law enforcement issue. Bringing terrorists into Pittsburgh for trial would put a target on our local judges, jurors and all the citizens of our region for a terrorist attack and is a move that that I will fight on all fronts to stop.”

From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Politicians began lining up Friday against a potential trial of 9/11 terror suspects in Western Pennsylvania, where one of the hijacked airliners crashed.

"Although we are not dead set against it, we would have to hear two things," Gov. Ed Rendell said after New York's top police official said he thinks the trial won't take place there. "First, why it would be safer for Western Pennsylvania than for New York City; and second, what portion of the cost for security and other things would the federal government absorb?"

The Obama administration is drafting plans to move out of Manhattan the trials of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged accomplices, two administration officials said.

"As Pennsylvania directly experienced part of the attack on September 11th, we are acutely interested in seeing the perpetrators brought to justice," said Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato. "However, the last thing Pennsylvania needs is a terrorist trial that raises security concerns and places even more of a burden on our taxpayers."

The Sixth Amendment dictates that civilian trials for the suspects must be held in one of the areas where planes crashed Sept. 11, 2001, according to Bruce Antkowiak, a law professor at Duquesne University. That leaves the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia -- the location of the Pentagon -- or the Western District of Pennsylvania, which includes Somerset County, where United Flight 93 crashed.

"The presumption is the trial should take place in the district that the crime was committed," Antkowiak said.

Officials in this district's three federal courthouses in Downtown, Erie and Johnstown said they had no word of a move to Pennsylvania. Chief U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster said he couldn't comment on any matter that might come before the court. Federal agencies in Pittsburgh referred questions to the Justice Department.

Justice spokesman Dean Boyd said he couldn't confirm whether the trial would move, or where it would go.

"We are considering our options," he said.

Mary Beth Buchanan, the former U.S. attorney for Western Pennsylvania, said holding the trial in this district would be expensive and drain resources.

"It's impossible to predict how long this trial might take," she said, noting the complicated charges. It would tie up U.S. marshals who protect courtrooms, she said.

"It would be outrageous to put the financial burden of these trials on the citizens of Western Pennsylvania," Buchanan said.

Sens. Bob Casey Jr. and Arlen Specter said they had no information the trial would move to Pennsylvania, but they oppose the idea and told the Obama administration.

"Mayor Bloomberg has given good reasons why the trial should not be held in New York City, and that same reasoning would apply for Pennsylvania as well," said Specter, D-Philadelphia.

Specter's opponent in the May primary, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, said he supports civil trials in U.S. courts for terror suspects, no matter the location. Republican Senate candidate Pat Toomey opposes holding the trial anywhere but before a military tribunal.

"Holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's trial in New York City was a terrible idea from the beginning, due to the many security concerns, but moving the trial elsewhere does not solve the problem," Toomey said.

The plan to hold the trial in New York started to unravel when police Commissioner Raymond Kelly detailed costs and logistical challenges of ensuring security at the Federal Courthouse in lower Manhattan, he said.

Criticism of the plan that Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year reached a crescendo this week when Mayor Michael Bloomberg reversed his earlier support.

New York Gov. David Paterson said he was "elated that our concerns are being considered by the president and the federal government."

Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl would have similar concerns, his spokeswoman said.

"The same ones outlined by Mayor Mike Bloomberg -- that the trial could put our citizens in danger, as well as the exorbitant costs associated with the trial, something that we could not withstand," spokeswoman Joanna Doven said.

Hosting such a high-profile trial poses a slew of security challenges, from international terrorist organizations seeking to disrupt it to domestic hate groups, said Danny Defenbaugh, a security consultant and 33-year veteran of the FBI. The threats remain the same no matter where the trial takes place, he said.

"An example that is much less magnified is when we moved the Oklahoma City bombing trial from Oklahoma City to Denver," Defenbaugh said. "We still had the same types of hate groups (to guard against). It didn't matter to them whether we were in Oklahoma City or St. Louis, Mo."

Moving the trial would be a setback for President Obama. His administration spent weeks defending its handling of terror threats after the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner, which reignited the debate about whether terror suspects should face civilian or military justice.

Obama long has supported trying some terrorists in federal, civilian court, while Republicans argue terrorists should be tried in military tribunals where other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be judged.

White House spokesman Bill Burton said Obama believes Mohammed and his alleged accomplices could be successfully and securely brought to justice in a federal court.

Here is a Channel 4 news video on this matter (unfortunately embedding was disabled).  


LSP said...

Great post - tell it like it is...

Bad Karma said...

Can we please bring the terror trials to Texas?

Liberty said...

"For anyone to think that these extremely dangerous terrorists who plotted to kill 3000 innocent Americans, who were captured on a foreign battlefield, should receive the same rights as civilians living within the United States is absurd, despicable, irresponsible, and plain callous with respect to American lives and our safety."

Like these people?

Teresa said...

Yes, like those people who are clueless about our military and civilian judicial systems during times of military actions.

This is one reason why: The sure conviction that unraveled.,9171,1101031027-524419,00.html

Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested on U.S. soil. Here is the Timeline of events leading up to his arrest and sfterward:

Moussaoui trial turned into a circus:

He even proclaimed that the trial was a circus:

Looks like KSM might be tried in front of a military tribunal.

Teresa said...

Bad Karma,
Texas would probably one place where justice would be served properly. Although, I have pondered the question as to whether Alcatraz would be appropriate place for a military Tribunal.

Amusing Bunni said...

OMG Teresa, this is distressing news for you. I sure hope they don't have this in they are putting gitmo right outside Chicago!
If obummer loves the terrorists so much, why doesn't he house them in the White House, he can bow and scrape and pray to mecca with them all day long then. These bums piss me off to know end too!

Ron Russell said...

They just need to be shot while attempting to escape to Cuba! The only expense here is that of a bullet or two or three or maybe a whole box of ammo. Serious it should be a military court and it may end up being just that. I think Obama and Holder have figured out they have stepped in a big cow spat and are figuring how to get the mess off their feet.

Matt said...

Great post. This descision isn't so difficult. Put the trial on at a former military base out in the desert somewhere, or in Alaska.

Or, better yet. Military tribunal, considering these maniacs are NOT US citizens in the first place!

Just a conservative girl said...

Well, legally speaking it looks like it is going to be Virginia.
It has to be done within a certain amount of miles from the scene of the crime. I don't know how far Pittsburgh is from where the plane went down. But, it seems that Holder is leaning towards Alexandria, VA.
Lucky me!!! I went to the courthouse and took some pictures of not just the courthouse, but everything that is around it.

Very distrubing.

Liberty said...

Teresa- according to this article
87 terror suspects were tried in Federal court. It wasn't just Moussaoui.
According to this, in 2008, 693 suspected terrorists had been convicted. 228 of those actually got a 'terrorism' sentence. Of those, 98 have actually been convicted. Dismissal or mistrial accounted for 25. There have been 130 resolved terrorism trials, and 98 more are on the list to be brought to trial.

In NYC itself, there have been 14 terrorist trials, all of which, with the exception of one (a mistrial), ended in convictions. They have 31 pending. And, this was in 2008.

This move to try Mohammed here is not without precedent. It is not Obama's fault; it was being done all throughout Bush's reign as well. So, bashing Obama for this is not right. He's merely following in his predecessor's footsteps.

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...

I misread your statement and saw it as being accusatory regarding the issue to the blame or not blaming Obama and overreacted so I took down my original post.

It is Obama, Holder and Holder's lawyer cronies fault that these terrorists were charged in federal court instead of a military tribunal. It is Holder and Obama's cronies fault for delaying the military tribunal process while aiding and abetting them in federal court with pro bono lawyer work being done for the terrorists. With all due respect, I am not wrong to blame Obama, Holder and his cronies because prior to this Obama, Holder and their cronies, because of their anti-American policies, FORCED the Bush administration to have these people tried in a civilian court. Plus, were these people captured in the United States or a battlefield? There lies the difference. But, regardless, the same people that aided these terrorists, who aided our enemy in doing pro-bono work defending these terrorists are now working for the Obama Justice Dept. In my opinion, you are wrong in asserting that Obama and his thugs are not to blame for this decision. The fact is that we have not had many military trials because of Obama, Holder, and their cronies blocking military tribunals at every step of the way while the Bush administration was doing everything in their power to have the trials in front of a military commission. Obama, Holder and cronies are the REASON for their NOT being as many military trials.
Look here:

I have every right to blame these anti-American pigs for delaying the military tribunals, which is the proper setting for our enemy to be tried, as history has shown throughout many, many years.

But, some people want to give MORE, ADDITIONAL RIGHTS, to the terrorists NOT REQUIRED by International Law. You want to absurdly grant rights reserved for citizens and civilians living within the United States to our ENEMY which is considered aiding and abetting our enemy.

The precedent was set by Obama, Holder and their cronie lawyers and not by the Bush administration. It is because the Left is clueless and out of touch about the differences in rights granted to U.S. citizens and civilians living in the U.S. and the rights given to the terrorists, who are enemy.

Liberty said...

Teresa- no problem. I've done the same thing, LOL I've found that, if something someone says makes me really mad, it helps to just type out a huge, long, withering comment and then delete it and start over with something nicer. :) It keeps me from going insane, but also keeps my argument free from personal attacks.

First off, let me say that I find many flaws in the things you stated about Holder, etc. From the link you posted, and the link in the link you posted, the guy's main argument is that Holder's law firm defended some terror suspects. And? Someone has to defend them. We can't just send them to trial, military tribunal or federal, without a defense lawyer.

Also, I'd like to bring up the fact that John Adams, Founding Father and second President of the US, did the same thing. He defended the British soldiers who shot the five Americans in the Boston "Massacre". He was derided and hated for it in some circles, but it didn't keep him from going on and becoming one of the greatest of the Founders. Someone has to defend even those we term our "enemies."

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself." Thomas Paine

I love how Bush can't be blamed for anything. I'm not talking just about your stance; I see it at my church, my friends all do it, and other people online. It's like Obama is guilty of everything since the Fall of Man, but Bush is innocent of all- even the stuff we can trace back to him.

The fact is that federal trials take less time (Abdulmutallab has already been convicted. His attempted bombing was on Christmas.), and military tribunals drag on for years. Federal trials have more results. Further facts- there is enough evidence from Mohammed that he'll get convicted. Unless, of course, there's something we're afraid to let out about those pesky "coercive interrogation techniques" he was subjected to.

The men who were let go should have been. We have the best legal system in the world. If there was no evidence against the "terrorists", then they deserved to be let go. They are still humans after all, and if there is no evidence, we can't just hold them for forever. Many of the men in Gitmo aren't even dangerous, they know nothing about al Qaeda or Taliban activities, and we could let them go quite safely. But we don't, because people are too darn spooked about stuff that happened nine stinking years ago to think straight!

I'm not going to let the Bush admin off about stuff that happened during their reign- just like I will not let the Obama admin off for stuff they did, either. Put blame where blame is due.

Teresa said...

It is good that John Adams defended the enemy, but at that particular period of time there was no other person willing to defend our enemy, except John Adams . The military tribunals provide for the terrorists defense. There is not a problem with a lack of lawyers willing to defend any of the terrorists in front of a military tribunal. Plus, there was no United States Consitution at the time when John Adams defended the British - our enemy. The United States has evolved over time and added amendments in which the Constitution ONLY applies to citizens or civilians living within the United States. The U.S. Constitution does not apply to foreigners living in another country, but especially not the enemy combatants or terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield who is our enemy. Otherwise the U.S. Constitution would be renamed the Global Constitution instead of the U.S. Constitution.

Would you admit that Bush favored military tribunals over federal court trials? Bush did favor military commissions. But, unfortunately because of the Bush admin not having the military tribunals in place when the shoe bomber was on trial they decided to try him in Federal Court. But, he actually plead guilty so the evidence was never tested to see whether it would hold up or not in a Federal Court system. After that the shoe bomber's pleading guilty the administration realized the mistakes that were made because of the trial being tried in Federal Court, and they decided from then on that the best way to try enemy combatants was in front of a military tribunal. But, because Holder and his lawyer buddies kept on challenging the Bush administration in court and the validity or allowance of military court commissions, the Bush administration wasn't allowed until around 2006, when the Supreme Court ruled to allow the Bush administration to try the enemy combatants in front of a military commission, to try enemy combatants in front of a miltary tribunal so then hence forward the Bush administration went through the process to try enemy combatants in military tribunals.

It was a mistake for the Bush administration to try terrorists in a Federal Court (the ones who were aliens and captured on a battlefield) and the Obama administration should not continue on with committing that same mistake.

Abdulmutallab has
not been convicted in Federal Court yet. He was indicted in January but there is still a heated debate going on on whether to try him in a Federal Court, or in front of a military tribunal.

Some of the men that were let go from Gitmo have gone back to aiding in acts of terrorism in Yemen. I do believe that the suspected terrorists should have trials and not held for forever without a trial. But, if there is legitimate evidence to suspect that the suspected terrorist is in fact a terrorist and they (CIA or FBI) need more time to gather evidence before putting him on trial in front of a military commission than I believe they should be allowed to keep the terrorist locked up.

Liberty said...

"Would you admit that Bush favored military tribunals over federal court trials?"

I have seen no evidence to back this up, so no, I wouldn't. According to the NYU report I quoted, 693 terrorist trials had been conducted. During the Bush admin. Federal trials. I haven't been able to find a breakdown of the nationalities of said 'terrorists', but I'd be willing to bet that at least a fair number of them were suspected terrorists captured by the ISI or Egyptian forces.

"The U.S. Constitution does not apply to foreigners living in another country, but especially not the enemy combatants or terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield who is our enemy."

But the Geneva Conventions do, and we've done a pretty poor job of upholding those. There was no significant move towards trying to get military tribunals completed during the Bush admin- until, of course, Obama got in office. Then military tribunals were the best thing since the War on Terror.

I think one thing you're missing in the report I quoted was that it was not just the "Shoe bomber" (not sure who that is. ^.^) that was tried in Fed. court. Lots of other men were, too. These were not isolated incidents.

"Abdulmutallab has
not been convicted in Federal Court yet. He was indicted in January but there is still a heated debate going on on whether to try him in a Federal Court, or in front of a military tribunal."

I was not aware of that. From what I had read, I thought he had actually been convicted.

"Some of the men that were let go from Gitmo have gone back to aiding in acts of terrorism in Yemen."


Even if so, if they were let go, there was a reason. We cannot hold these men forever.

If there is not enough evidence, keeping them detained indefinitely while we "Gather evidence" and give the FBI/CIA "more time to gather evidence before putting him on trial in front of a military commission" is wrong. Giving the FBI/CIA more time is just asking for trouble; the CIA is far from an ethical or an honest organization, and the FBI is little better.

Teresa said...

This is an interesting article on Bush and Military Tribunals:

I was extremely surprised to find out that somebody whom I disagree with on many issues is for miliatry tribunals. Here is an article on Cass Sunstein's defense of military tribunals:

Because of challenges by the Left which eventually was brought to the Supreme Court in Hamden vs. Rumsfeld, Congress didn't enact The Military Commissions Act until 2006 and that is the primary reason for so few military trials.

This is a very interesting and explanatory article going through time with the Bush administration:

Here is information on former detainees returning to terrorism:

I will view the article more throughly regarding the civilian trials under Bush.

Have you seen the fabulous HBO Special film, called John Adams? It was an excellent film. I hope to rent it again soon.

Liberty said...

I'm not calling issue against the tribunals themselves. Said tribunals are right by the Geneva Conventions. But I will say that there is nothing wrong with going above and beyond said Conventions. And it takes much longer for tribunals to be resolved, while trials can be over and done with with much less time put into the effort.

I also find it quite unlikely that, if Bush and the Republicans had been so eager to do this...why didn't they before? Bush had the Congress. He had the Supreme Court. I find it unlikely that a single law firm was able to block the entirety of our civil government.

The MCA-06 sounds a lot like a political play to me. The Reps saw they were going to lose, and so launched this campaign to crack down on terror. Same ole', same ole'.

Thanks for the links. ;)

I will stay stand by the position however, that if these men could not be convicted, or there was no evidence against them, we cannot hold them indefinitely. It is wrong. If they are recaptured, with further evidence that they were involved in terrorist activites, then fine, go ahead and give 'em another trial and see what happens from there. But just holding these men, when we really can't, is wrong.

Teresa said...


Regardless of whether Bush had a GOP Congress or not, if military tribunals are being challenged and being suspended during the duration of those challenges neither the President or Congress can ignore and bypass that suspension and that is why the law firm could hault the military tribunals from occuring.

But, like I said, regardless of whether Bush made mistakes trying the shoe bomber and Mouusaiou in civilian court that doesn't make it okay for Obama to continue those same mistakes by giving enemy combatants extra privileges, that ONLY apply to civilians and reserved for civilians living within the United States and NOT enemy combatants.

I do not believe that we should be holding the detainees indefinitely if there is NO reliable eveidence to prove that they in fact participated in terrorism or were aiding in those terrorist acts. But, if there is some evidence but more needs to be gathered to ensure conviction than I do think that our safety trumps an enemy combatant's rights.

I will just say that I do believe that military tribunals is the proper place to try enemy combatants in a time when we are engaged in military actions overseas. And, that goes for both Obama and Bush.

That was a good banter back and forth. Have a good night :)