February 1, 2010 4:58 AM

Obama Seeks $200M for Terror Trials

(CBS/AP)  The Obama administration is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting the trials of accused terrorists such as Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

This funding is not specific to the Guantanamo detainee population, reports CBS News Correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Under the proposal, the money would be used to pay for security costs for the trial of a terror suspect arrested on U.S. soil.

The money will be included in a budget plan for 2011 of roughly $3.7 trillion that President Obama will submit to Congress on Monday, administration and congressional aides said Saturday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the spending blueprint hasn't been announced.

The administration said late last year the trials would take place in federal court in lower Manhattan, near where the World Trade Center once stood. But there's growing opposition from the city, and it now seems likely that the White House will decide to hold the trial elsewhere.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has put the cost of tighter security at $216 million just for the first year after Mohammed and the others were to arrive from the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. New York City officials had warned of massive gridlock in lower Manhattan due to the extraordinary security steps that would have been required to host the trial.

Options for alternative trial sites include the northern Virginia city of Alexandria, which hosted the 2006 sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who pled guilty to helping plan the 9/11 attacks.

Republicans have led the opposition to hosting Guantanamo detainee trials in the U.S.

States such as Illinois would welcome the detainees since holding them is a source of federally funded jobs. Democrats controlling the state government want to sell a prison in the rural northwest portion of the state to the federal government to house Guantanamo detainees.

Despite his promise to take on the deficit, Mr. Obama's budget submission for the upcoming year is shaping up as a mostly stand-pat blueprint - like most presidents propose during election years.

"It is critical that we rein in the budget deficits we've been accumulating for far too long," Mr. Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address. "Deficits that won't just burden our children and grandchildren, but could damage our markets, drive up our interest rates, and jeopardize our recovery right now."

But Mr. Obama won't offer politically dangerous cuts to costly federal benefit programs that are driving massive budget deficits, administration and congressional officials say. Nor will it propose broad-based tax hikes that could help close a deficit that is requiring the government to borrow almost 40 cents for every dollar it spends.

The president has instead announced a freeze on some domestic programs. He also wants to appoint a bipartisan commission to recommend a plan to deal with deficits that reached $1.4 trillion last year and are likely to approach - or exceed - $1 trillion for many years to come. The savings from the freeze will be mostly symbolic, while the deficit task forces recommendations might not ever get a vote in Congress.

Mr. Obama's blueprint will instead mostly tinker at the edges of the budget - cutting lawmakers' pet projects, for instance - but not the real cost drivers of the deficit: spiraling health care costs from Medicare and Medicaid.

The White House is reprising a plan to reduce the benefits wealthier people take on itemized deductions like charitable gifts and mortgage interest. The idea could soon raise more than $30 billion a year, but is sure to be dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.

The administration has already announced it will propose freezing, on average, the budgets of domestic agencies for three years, a difficult but largely symbolic step, saving just $10 billtion to $15 billion in 2011.

Some Cabinet departments such as Homeland Security, Justice, Education and Transportation will enjoy budget increases, officials familiar with the budget say. But Commerce will face a big cut because of lower costs for the Census Bureau, while the Environmental Protection Agency would bear cuts in accounts funding local clean water efforts. The Interior Department would face a budget freeze.

The White House announced Saturday that Mr. Obama will propose to kill off or cut back 120 programs to save $20 billion. They include the Save America's Treasures program, originally designed to preserve "irreplaceable" U.S. cultural and heritage resources such as the bus in which Rosa Parks launched the Montgomery, Ala., bus boycott. Lawmakers, however, often direct the money to refurbish projects such as old small-town movie houses and county courthouses.

The White House also reprised a plan cutting abondoned mine payments to Western coal states that have already cleaned up their mines, with Wyoming bearing the bulk of the cuts. It's again likely to try to kill a program that helps states with the cost of incarcerating criminal illegal immigrants.

Government documents projects a $708 billion budget for the Pentagon next year, which includes $159 billion for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's roughly equal to war estimates for the ongoing budget year that started in October.

The core Pentagon budget would receive about a 3 percent boost.

A Treasury official said Saturday Mr. Obama's proposal also calls for repealing a widely ignored tax on the personal use of company-issued cell phones and other mobile devices. A 1989 law - passed when cell phones were considered a luxury - says that personal use of a company cell phone should be taxed like other fringe benefits, such as a company car.

© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 115 Comments
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 9:12 AM EST
Justice in civil courts during the Clinton administration. There were no further attacks on U.S. soil while Clinton was Preident.

"After the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993, the FBI began to investigate Rahman [Omar Abdel-Rahman, "the Blind Sheikh"] and his followers more closely. With the assistance of an Egyptian informant wearing a listening device, the FBI managed to record Rahman issuing a fatwa encouraging acts of violence against US civilian targets, particularly in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan area. The most startling plan, the government charged, was to set off five bombs in 10 minutes, blowing up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building housing the FBI. (See New York City landmark bomb plot.) Government prosecutors showed videotapes of defendants mixing bomb ingredients in a garage before their arrest in 1993. Rahman was arrested on June 24, 1993, along with nine of his followers. On October 1, 1995, he was convicted of seditious conspiracy, and in 1996 was sentenced to life in prison."
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 8:41 AM EST
After conviction, the terrorists will be incarcerated at an unused maximum security prison in Illinois.

It will be an economic shot in the arm for that poor Midwestern community, supplying needed jobs.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 8:43 AM EST
Ther terrorists who planned the first attack on the WTC, the blind Sheik and his followers, have been in a maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado for many years.

They haven't escaped -- nobody ever has from there -- and there have been no terrorist attacks on Colorado in reprisal.
by starving1968-2 February 1, 2010 8:14 AM EST
by RobAla February 1, 2010 7:43 AM EST
It is irresponsible to spend $200 million of the taxpayers money, when we can do this for next to nothing at GITMO. This is nuts! Why should we like terrorists rob us even more? There is absolutely no reason to hold civilian trials for foreign terrorists.







You're an absolute idiot.

It costs a FORTUNE to keep Gitmo open - ALL OVERSEAS MILITARY BASES are many times more costly to operate, than domestic military bases are.

Just think about supplying it with everyday items like toiletries, food, clothes, etc, etc.

You REALLY think it's cheaper to keep that place supplied by the air or sea, than it would be a domestic base by rail or truck?

Try thinking BEFORE you post next time.
Reply to this comment
by RobAla February 1, 2010 7:43 AM EST
It is irresponsible to spend $200 million of the taxpayers money, when we can do this for next to nothing at GITMO. This is nuts! Why should we like terrorists rob us even more? There is absolutely no reason to hold civilian trials for foreign terrorists.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 5:45 AM EST
Reagan's Defense Secretary, Caspar Weinberger, on the Marine Barracks Bombing.

(He warned Reagan, but Reagan wouldn't heed the warnings.)

"Weinberger: Well, that's one of my saddest memories. I was not persuasive enough to persuade the President that the Marines were there on an impossible mission. They were very lightly armed. They were not permitted to take the high ground in front of them or the flanks on either side. They had no mission except to sit at the airport, which is just like sitting in a bull's eye. Theoretically, their presence was supposed to support the idea of disengagement and ultimate peace. I said, "They're in a position of extraordinary danger. They have no mission. They have no capability of carrying out a mission, and they?re terribly vulnerable." It didn?t take any gift of prophecy or anything to see how vulnerable they were.

When that horrible tragedy came, why, as I say, I took it very personally and still feel responsible in not having been persuasive enough to overcome the arguments that "Marines don't cut and run," and "We can't leave because we're there," and all of that. I begged the President at least to pull them back and put them back on their transports as a more defensible position. That ultimately, of course, was done after the tragedy."

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/qt/me081022.htm
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 5:47 AM EST
Reagan did nothing wrong ?

His own Defense Secretary accused him of negligence.
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 4:30 AM EST
by ffoulkes-2009 February 1, 2010 3:55 AM EST
Wow...I hadn't realized the President was responsible for the layout and defense of bases. Never knew they were that detail oriented. I always thought the commanders on the ground took care of that sort of thing...
=================================================

Tell that to all the folks who blamed Obama personally over the Fort Hood shootings and the lapse in security at the airport in the Netherlands.

Oh but of course that's completely different, isn't it ?
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 4:26 AM EST
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 1:50 AM EST
by edlarson January 31, 2010 3:22 PM EST
...So, how is this Reagan's fault? Or are you suggesting that President Reagan should have been able to tell the future and predict that the truck bomb would take place and be successfull? You cannot expect that the President would have foreseen something like that, especially when the US military had no previous experience dealing with Hamas.
================================================

"It is a gross insult to the United States Marines to suggest... etc. etc."

Insulting the Marines was not what edlarson was trying to do, obviously.

Maliciously twisting and mischaracterizing other people's words is a bad habit of mine. I do it way too often.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 2:23 AM EST
I close with this.

If (God forbid) Barack Obama is in a similar situation, and he then argues that it wasn't his fault, that he was just obeying United Nations directives concerning rules of engagement when those 220 Marines were killed...

... Don't hold your breath until edlarson rushes in to defend him with "So how is it President Obama's fault ?"

'Cuz you'll be turning mighty blue if you do.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 2:12 AM EST
OAS or Oas may refer to:

Organization of American States, an international organization of the Americas.

...Organisation de l'armee secrete, a short-lived, French far-right nationalist militant organization founded by Rush Limbaugh during the Algerian War.
=========================================

I knew that.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 2:02 AM EST
"President Reagan should have been able to tell the future and predict that the truck bomb would take place and be successful?"

That was not -- contrary to the poster's implication -- the very first truck/car bomb attack in history, or in that region -- i.e. something no human being should have been able to foresee.

The Viet Cong guerrillas used them at the end of the First Indochina War and throughout the Vietnam War.

The OAS used them at the end of the French rule in Algeria.

The Sicilian Mafia used them to assassinate independent magistrates up to the early 1990s.

The IRA used them frequently during its campaign during the Troubles in Northern Ireland and England. The Omagh bombing by the Real IRA, an IRA splinter group caused the most casualties in the Troubles from a single car bomb.

During the Soviet-Afghan war, at a variety of training camps in the tribal areas of Pakistan; the Pakistani ISI with the aid of the CIA trained mujahadin in the preparation of car bombs.

Agents of the Chilean intelligence agency DINA were convicted of using car bombs to assassinate Orlando Letelier and Carlos Prats, who were opponents of the regime of Augusto Pinochet

In the 1980s, the Latin American drug lord Pablo Escobar used vehicle bombs extensively against government forces and population centers in Colombia and Latin America.
Reply to this comment
by erb0087 February 1, 2010 2:08 AM EST
"The OAS used them at the end of the French rule in Algeria."

Why the Organization of American States was interfering in the Algeran conflict, is anybody's guess.

Didn't they have enough problems in the Western Hemisphere ?
by ffoulkes-2009 February 1, 2010 3:55 AM EST
Wow...I hadn't realized the President was responsible for the layout and defense of bases. Never knew they were that detail oriented. I always thought the commanders on the ground took care of that sort of thing...
See all 115 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook