Political Hotsheet
November 16, 2009 9:00 PM

David Paterson: New York Terrorism Trial a Mistake

This post was written by WCBS' Marcia Kramer.

(AP Photo/Mike Groll)
Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

"This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country," he said.

Paterson's comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President's decision.

"Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost," he said. "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 so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers."

Paterson also said that the White House warned him six months ago this very situation would happen. He said while he disagrees with the decision, he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state's Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.

Republicans, including former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, have said the group should be tried in a different location under military tribunal because the attacks are considered an act of war.

Instead, the five suspects will be tried at the federal court house, just steps from Ground Zero.

Attorney General Eric Holder said he decided to bring the suspects, currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial in New York because of the nature of the undisclosed evidence against them, because the 9/11 victims were mostly civilians, and because the attacks took place on U.S. soil.

New Yorkers are taking sides over the terror trial for the accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks. "I think it's a logistical and security nightmare for the American People," Alice Hoagland, mother of a 9/11 victim, said.

Hoagland's son was a passenger on United Flight 93 when terrorists crashed it into a Pennsylvania field on that tragic day. Hoagland worries that bringing the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and his accomplices to New York would make the city an even bigger target – and some security experts agree.

"Keeping the courthouse secure, keeping downtown secure, we've got the manpower to do that, but what we worry about is suicide bombers, something that could attract other terrorists like the ones that are being tried," Robert Strang, of Investigative Management Group, said.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the NYPD is fully prepared.

"We've handled high profile events, certainly high profile trials in the past, and we'll be able to do it," Kelly said.

"I am pleased that they're moving these trials to New York near the scene of the crime, giving the families that were most affected [the opportunity] to see the trials," Lorie Van Auken, wife of a 9/11 victim, said.

Van Auken lost her husband, Kenneth, on September 11, and she said she'll be in the federal courtroom for the terror trial. She said the military court proceedings in Guantanamo Bay were not open enough.

"It would be very assuring to me and a lot of others to see the American system of justice work," Van Auken said.

Some relatives fear the suspects could be freed on a technicality that a defense attorney could challenge Mohammed's confession to planning the attacks. The government admitted to using water-boarding interrogation techniques on him 183 times in 2003.

"But ultimately, the administration would not have put these five individuals into the federal system, I think, if they weren't convinced they could get a conviction," CBS News security consultant Juan Zarate said.

Defense lawyers could argue that Mohammed's six years in detention have already violated his right to a fair trial. They could also challenge if it's possible to get an impartial jury in New York, where nearly 3,000 people were killed on September 11.
Tags:
David Paterson ,
KSM ,
trial ,
terrorist
Topics:
In The News
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 38 Comments
by hungry1968-17 November 17, 2009 8:43 AM EST
by endurorob_5 November 17, 2009 8:34 AM EST
I don't think anyone is following Patterson. The repubs who are apposed to this debacle came out and said so long before this dem opened his mout about the situation.






The republicans oppose it, because a democrat proposed it.

If a democrat opposed the trials altogether, and said that Guantanamo should stay open forever, the republicans would be crying about that too.

There's NOTHING the democrats can do, that the republicans won't oppose - except for tax breaks for the wealthy.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-17 November 17, 2009 7:33 AM EST
The worst governor in the country said something?

Is anyone supposed to care?
Reply to this comment
by bubbadubba November 17, 2009 7:02 AM EST
Well by all means if that nut case governor says the trial is a mistake we must do what he says.
Too funny, Republicans are following and agreeing with the suggestions of Paterson like little blind puppies.
It is funny who the Republicans will suck up to these days.
LOL
Reply to this comment
by endurorob_5 November 17, 2009 8:34 AM EST
I don't think anyone is following Patterson. The repubs who are apposed to this debacle came out and said so long before this dem opened his mout about the situation.
by searingtruth November 17, 2009 4:45 AM EST
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

A Future of the Brave
Reply to this comment
by DSR_57 November 17, 2009 4:15 AM EST
AndyMaxo ,

You should tryout for cheerleading ! That way you can get a little closer to Obama's Nutz.
Reply to this comment
by billards53 November 17, 2009 3:49 PM EST
Thank you . Why after six years plus for some of these detainees didn't the Bush administration charge and try these terrorists , why has this problem been dumped on a new administration and why the torture of suspects that have so much evidence against them . Mindless stupidity .KSM's guilt is undeniable and yet the government uses torture to learn more intelligence ? Now the left will be blamed for the weakness of providing a fair trial in accordance with the US constitution and international law . When we abrogate the Geneva Conventions you are throwing the baby out with the bath water .
by searingtruth November 17, 2009 4:14 AM EST
"The indefinite detention of extra judicially abducted American and foreign citizens in secret prisons without charge or representation where they are subject to institutionalized torture and murder is not only illegal, it is abhorrent, disgusting, and disgraceful to the nature and soul of any American."
SearingTruth

A Future of the Brave
Reply to this comment
by veteran71 November 17, 2009 2:07 AM EST
I've never seen so much panty wetting over a couple of bearded Koran Thumpers in my life. I imagine the peripheral information which might be released during these trials is what's really causing all the hand-wringing.
Darth and Shrub's War Crimes, committed while theiving most of the worlds known Oil reserves, could become part of an actual call for accountability for crimes committed by the Neocon Nazis over the last 8 years. Can't have that now, can we........
Reply to this comment
by rank_n_file November 17, 2009 1:15 AM EST
For reasons few people understand, Paterson has turned into a money grubbing misanthrope. When he first took over as gov I supported him. He had a candor that was refreshing. Then he slowly drifted away, into an oppressive, money-grabbing malcontent whose sanctimonious drivel attempts to bleed the state to death with pointless charges and surcharges while justifying it all as a sin tax attempt to clean up the neighborhood. Meanwhile, he has been instrumental in squandering precious federal dollars repairing roads that don't need repairs, while ignoring the more complex infrastructure repairs that are desperately needed. Paterson needs the voters to show him where the exits are located.
Reply to this comment
by sl3_007 November 16, 2009 11:49 PM EST
Last declared war was WWII. What was the war in Korea or Vietnam? Kind of difficult to declare war against the terrorists as they are religious extremists with no country. I think most reasonable people will agree that what happened on 9/11 was an act of war, declared or not. It should be a military trial. It should have occurred much faster than this with film footage of a firing squad at the end.
Reply to this comment
by sl3_007 November 16, 2009 11:29 PM EST
Can we ever get a decent Attorney General inthis country. Holder is an idiot. Bush had Gonzales and Clinton had Reno. With all the oversupply of lawyers out there can't they find anyone better? The only good decision I have heard out of Holder's office is the one not to waste gov't resources on marijuana in states that have more or less legalized it. How much gov't time and money is being spent on that preliminary investigation on the CIA? How about coming out with the results of that about the same time the trial starts in NYC?
Reply to this comment
by cwdfreedom November 16, 2009 10:54 PM EST
obama is just crazy for bringing these american murders to our soil. obama has made a ton of bad decisions and hard to rank which is worse but this one is up at the top sum where. these terrorists committed an act of war and so therefore are war criminals and should never be tried in a civilian court. That is why we have military tribunals. what is wrong with obama? there is something seriously wrong with this mans mind
Reply to this comment
by AndyMaxo November 16, 2009 11:21 PM EST
ref cwfree 10:54

No, you are WRONG! We never delclared war you see. They are not prisoners of war. Why not? Ask Bush, he knows. Nothing to do with Obama, nothing at all. You, are totally wrong.
Stop saying it's Obamas fault - its a LIE!
by patocc123 November 17, 2009 12:22 AM EST
They are enemy combatants. Its kinda of a grey area with no define grey area on protocol. However that being said its up to the AG to determine the next way to proceed. I believe it should be a Tribunal but since former President Bush screwed up by not expediting the trials, President Obama is going to use this as a political opertunity. If the defendants use the trial to self promote themselves and thier agenda then Obama looks like a genius. If the trials get dragged out and if anyone of them are set free then Obama looses.

Its all politics not about Justice or about the Image of the US.
by bmirarck2 November 16, 2009 10:25 PM EST
We'll give them a fair trial and hang them!! Why is everyone so terrified of a bunch handcuffed/chained prisoners. These guys are going nowhere. Why should they be tried by a military court? Please help me understand what the difference is.
Reply to this comment
by AndyMaxo November 16, 2009 10:43 PM EST
ref bmirarck 10:25

You got it, damn best statement.
by retm-w November 16, 2009 11:17 PM EST
A military court wouldn't take months of legal stalling, as there is in a civilian court. Plus the cost to the taxpayers would be less.
by 50BMS13 November 16, 2009 10:19 PM EST
BIG MISTAKE HAVING TRIAL IN NY. Obama and democrats are just using the City of New York to show how bad the Bush administration was with torture tactics. These muslims WILL WALK. NO CONVICTION. What are you liberals gonna do when that happens? Praise Obama? The Islamic radicalists worldwide are praising Obama for this circus chow in New York. The BULLSEYE IS PAINTED AGAIN ON NYC. Thanks to liberals and Obama, promoters of Abortion, gay marriage, and muslim domination in the world.
Reply to this comment
by bmirarck2 November 16, 2009 10:32 PM EST
Wow, what a MORON! Do you really believe deep down in your heart that any jury in America would let these guys walk!
by AndyMaxo November 16, 2009 10:33 PM EST
ref 508 10:19

I'm going to fight nice - for now.
Can you read what you just wrote? What the hell? Are you drunk man? You can do better. You can't possibly be serious. Please, this is too important. Will you read some of the serious comments on this and simply try to focus on other opinions, just for a few minutes?
Give it a try, it won't kill you.
by bmirarck2 November 16, 2009 10:13 PM EST
There are at least a half dozen terrorists that were tried in civilian courts. They were all found guilty, most if not all of them are incarcerated @ Supermax in Colorado. I live in Colorado and I'm not afraid that any terrorists are going to attack here. You Neo-conmen are all afraid of your own shadow and you all talk so tough when it comes to sending someone else's kids to war. Bush's admin prosecuted some of these people in the states, where were your objections then? Please stop listening to the right wing idiots, none of whom EVER served a day for their country. All hat, no cattle!! Since when does an act of war REQUIRE a military court. The UCMJ covers American soldiers only!
Reply to this comment
by 6591Hou November 16, 2009 10:19 PM EST
Actually, having the trial in a Supermax would be a smart move - it would greatly alleviate any potential security concerns.
by talltimber41 November 16, 2009 9:54 PM EST
I agree with Patterson...don't give these guys a forum.
Reply to this comment
by Mokkie57 November 16, 2009 9:47 PM EST
Well I can see where this nation is heading With the Health care reform tax payers are going to pickup 1 Trillion Dollars Plus. Our government wants to bring 5 terrorists to New York. It also wants to buy a prison in Thomson Ill. to turn into a Supermax prison for Guantanamo detainees. Our founding fathers had something better in mind for this country then becoming a prison nation. I really don't think we want to have this country fill it's unemployment roll's with prison guards for the world? Or is that the plan?
Reply to this comment
by retm-w November 16, 2009 10:11 PM EST
Funny there is a brand new maximum security prison that's empty in Montana and everyone there is in favor of letting the government put the Gitmo prisoners there. Of course this is an Obama favor to Ill. politicians. Even though it would probably cost the taxpayers less to use the Montana prison.
by Mokkie57 November 16, 2009 9:45 PM EST
How many american's are going to be put in harms way with this?
Reply to this comment
by bmirarck2 November 16, 2009 10:18 PM EST
So, do you really believe that if we don't do this the terrorists will leave us alone. Fool!!
by 50BMS13 November 16, 2009 10:24 PM EST
bmirarck2
TRY THEM AND CONVICT THEM IN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL. NOW THAT IT IS IN A CIVIL COURT, RETRIBUTION IF CONVICTED, WILL COME AGAINST NYC. You are the fool!
by wdh3007 November 16, 2009 9:39 PM EST
Attorney General Eric Holder said "he decided to bring the suspects, currently detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial in New York because of the nature of the undisclosed evidence against them".

What Holder fails to understand is that becuase this was an act of war they should be tried as such in a millitary court. Now Holder will take full complete responsibility by putting his job on the line and making his boss and the entire administration look bad if something happens. This could also be the nail in the coffen for this president politically if these terrorists get anything less than a death sentence which might play into the hands of the republicans next election a death sentence might be possible but not probable in New York.
Reply to this comment
by retm-w November 16, 2009 10:16 PM EST
I don't think NY has the death penalty, but being tried in Federal court it may not make any difference. I aggree they should be tried by a Military court.
by AndyMaxo November 16, 2009 10:20 PM EST
I agree with exceptions. I always have believed the attacks to be an act of war and I think President Bush did as well. However, most of them were from Saudi Arabia remember? Now that threw a monkey wrench right into the works big time with respect to the President of the United States standing up and declaring war - against Saudi Arabia. He couldn't do it. The way out of that was Bin-Laden and Afghanistan. Bin-Laden was Saudi but he was in Kabul, with the Taliban letting him operate freely.
If I remember correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, The President and congress went to the United Nations for permission to invade rather than America declaring war on Afghanistan unilatterally.
Again, I may be wrong but I don't think a war was ever declared. If I'm right about that, then legally that means that since there was no war, then the absolute rules of war could not be proclaimed and thus the attacks of Sept 11, 2001 could not fall under the US Constitutions definition of war, because none had been declared.
It was something like that. Do you remember with more certainty?
If we arrived here because it was handled wrong in the beginning for whatever reason, then that was such a tragic mistake as well as a huge strategic and also tactical error, that we are just now having to face up to it after years of confusion and delay.
Knowing how smart Obama is, and we are talking about the brightest of mind in the elevator, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that that he might have conceived a plan to follow through with this and slam dunk it right down everyone's throats before we can get a grip on it.
If I were him, I would do exactly that. Use the office of the President to make everyone move in step, speed it up, no delays, from point A to b, come on, let's go, move it, no foot-dragging and do it as quietly behind the scences as possible for as long as he could.
If something goes wrong, he is the President and he can make things happen without having to get permission from anyone including the GOP minorities.
I think on this one, President Obama will be telling, not asking. No negotiations required. here are my orders so go do it or your replacement will do it.
If he does it that way, the five will be on death row quicker than we all would have ever believed possible.
by bmirarck2 November 16, 2009 10:28 PM EST
And your a lawyer? You know the law better than a lawyer or do only you understand that an act of war REQUIRES prosecution in a military court?
See all 38 Comments

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER