re: #445 drcordell

The opposition to this trial is so unbelievably transparent. If Obama were supporting military tribunals the same chorus of National Review idiots would be squealing about Obama perverting our legal system and demanding that a trial be held in New York.

Rudy Giuliani is case and point. He’s such a blatant hypocrite that the Daily Show was able to edit together video so he debates himself over this very same issue.
Here.

There is no additional terror threat to New York City. There is no risk of KSM being set free considering the overwhelming case we have built against him, and considering the US is 145-0 when prosecuting terror cases in Federal Court. Since when did hardcore “war-on-terror” conservatives become such bedwetters when it comes to bringing a single terrorist in a cage to NYC?

I’m opposed to the trial because the tribunals were the appropriate venue, not access to the federal courts. The Administration made the wrong choice, and the City will now have to put up with years of inconvenience with trying them at Foley Square (and I’ll be sure to blog all the craziness experienced by both myself and my wife, who often finds herself in the area).

However, given that this decision was made (wrongly in my book), the SDNY is the appropriate venue because the prosecutors here are best suited to the task and the NYPD can provide security like no other law enforcement force in the nation.

As for the 145-0 case, does that count mistrials and retrials? Is Holy Land included? And if we’re presupposing a conviction (which President Obama did just today), why are we not doing so in a tribunal, where the evidence and national security concerns are better addressed, and issues such as unindicted coconspirators are better addressed? Again, I have heard nary a voice or an explanation as to why tribunals are not sufficient for all the detainees that will go through this process?