I do not know if some of you have been following the controversy

But what do you guys think about where the terrorist trials will take place ?


Do you think that the trial should take place in military court ? or in the federal court ? 

Does it pose more risk to the U.S. by holding it in Federal Court ?

"Civilian trial or dangerous platform? That is the central question now in the debate over where the self-confessed planners of the 9/11 attacks should be tried.

On Sunday, the attorney for one of the defendants announced the five suspects would all plead not guilty, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks.

The attorney said the terror suspects would not deny their roles in the attack, but would explain "what they did, and why they did it" – using the trial as a political platform to criticize U.S. foreign policy.

Speaking before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Eric Holder said such rhetoric would only make the suspects look worse.

"I have every confidence that the nation, and the world, will see him for the coward that he is," Holder said. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid either."


http://wcbstv.com/local/9.11.terrorism.2.1329245.html

What about the trial of Georges Bush?
9/11 Was an Inside Job.

Horus:

What about the trial of Georges Bush?
9/11 Was an Inside Job.

according to conspiracy theorists.

What I wonder is why there is even a trial in the first place. This is a prime example of why certified terrorists should not be captured alive. This is a colossal waste of resources and time.

^^^^^ i think so too! In fact, i think that they should be taken to military court.

We might not get the chance to know what actually happened in 911 attacks, i mean the real story

yeswecan:

We might not get the chance to know what actually happened in 911 attacks, i mean the real story

Let them give an extensive interview to Babara Walters or any other media personality. A sham of a trial is not the avenue for that.

posakosa:
The attorney said the terror suspects would not deny their roles in the attack, but would explain "what they did, and why they did it" – using the trial as a political platform to criticize U.S. foreign policy.

What rubbish from the lawyers. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought trials were meant to establish guilt or innocence NOT provide a platform for murderers to give their side of the story.

Currently, there are about two or so existing indictments against KSM in courts in New York.  He was indicted in the Manila Air Plot, the Cole Bombing and the WTC bombing of 9/11, along with Osama.  

If you take him to a military court then you open a political can of worm that could implicate US military forces in allegations of war crime.  US military declared that it was fighting Qaeda in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as globally wherever they may be found.  If you try a Qaeda leader such as KSM in a military court then you set a precedent for future such trials.  How would you extricate a Qaeda leader from a country that does not share defense alliance with Pentagon?  

Beside, KSM or any of his lawyers in a military trial could petition the UN for a review of US military conduct during its war in Afghanistan and Iraq.  That would open the can on torture, Abu Ghraib, Special Renditioning. . .and a host of other accusations of abuse and crime that are so far locked up under the security and patriot act.  

Bringing him to NY for a civil trial absolves the military of culpability in any wrong doing or treatment of war principals captured or seized on international soil. . . and thus keeps UN from ever becoming engaged in what can now be declared a domestic issue.  There is a twist in that. . . in the sense that KSM's home country (wherever that is) has some remote authority, if it cares to. . . to petition the UN on grounds of sovereign interest in the case.  

In any case. . .bringing him to NY makes it a lot more easier to try him in person and convict on all the pre-existing indictments as well as the primary one for his entry onto US soil.  

Any other legal opinion on this?

Dats d problem wit d liberal nature of democrats,remember wot happened 2 d initator of d lockerbee bombing,he is free today,internatnal/local terror suspects shud b tried in military court, 'cause they r militias & d mass killing of civilians can b considered a war crime.personally i don't see anything wrong wit guantanamo bay or y it shud b closed down.these democrats sef