The NY Times has decided to hold the terror trials elsewhere:
U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City
By SCOTT SHANE and BENJAMIN WEISERThe Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.
“I think I can acknowledge the obvious,” an administration official said. “We’re considering other options.”
Friday afternoon was the obvious time for an official announcement but that has apparently not been made:
The Obama administration official said the decision to back out of plans for a New York trial had broad support but had not yet been made public.
I'm sure the Times is right abut this. But by way of comparison, here is the more restrained WaPo:
Trial of alleged Sept. 11 conspirators probably won't be held in Lower Manhattan
The Obama administration has all but abandoned its plan to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, on trial in Lower Manhattan, according to administration officials.
A senior administration official said no decision has been formalized, but the Justice Department is already considering other venues. Said another official close to the discussions: "New York is out."
I'll bet the raging dispute is over what poor fool has to make the announcement. Does the DoJ pressie get stuck with this, since the original decision was ostensibly Holder's baby? I am hoping to get the word from Robert Gibbs while his brothers stand in the background singing "I Started A Joke". Just one man's vision...
Now, why the switch (other than the obvious surrender to common sense and ghastly polling data)? Here we go from the Times:
The story of how prominent New York officials seemed to have so quickly moved from a kind of “bring it on” bravado to an “anywhere but here” involves many factors, including a new anxiety about terrorism after the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day.
Ultimately, it appears, New York officials could not tolerate ceding much of the city to a set of trials that could last for years.
“The administration is in a tricky political and legal position,” Julie Menin, a lawyer who is chairwoman of the 50-member Community Board 1 that represents Lower Manhattan, including the federal courthouse and ground zero, said of President Obama and his Justice Department. “But it means shutting down our financial district. It could cost $1 billion. It’s absolutely crazy.”
So let's see - they were serious about the threat from terrorists but not really, really serious until the Christmas package from Al Qaeda. And it only recently dawned on them that the trials would be long, expensive, and disruptive to lower Manhattan. Good luck with that spin! The impact on Manhattan was obvious in an instant. Oh, well - if the Admin wants to go out and explain that they prefer to make decisions and then afterwards introduce themselves to reality, good for them.
The only sensible thing about that cover story is that it ducks the legal issues swirling around a civilian trial
NYPost says the trial might well be in Gitmo by military tribunal *(I said this yesterday or maybe even the day before). The administration which was so critical of Gitmo and military tribunals under Bush is apparently citing Congressional refusal to pay the high cost of civil trials as its reason.
My guess..that's true, but it's also true that Holder's idiocies are costing them in the polls and they know it.
LUN
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 08:05 AM
That link didn't work for me Clarice; here is another shot at it. I have a hard time believing the Administration will go through with it, mostly because of this:
Politically, this is a loser, alienating the only solid support base the President has left. Though again, I hope I'm wrong.Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 30, 2010 at 08:26 AM
Oh, mighty TM, you are so funny! Gibbs is one of the Bee Gees! Hysterical. "I Started a Joke" was a hit when I hit puberty. Its whingey melody resonated with me as I went through hormonal changes.
You the man, Tom Maguire.
Posted by: peter | January 30, 2010 at 08:28 AM
Let me see:
Olympics = denied
Virginia = denied
New Jersey = denied
Copenhagen agreement = denied
"the Kennedy seat" = denied
Coerced bi-partisanship = denied
TSA Director = denied
Health Care Reform (so far) = denied
Lower Manhattan trial site = denied
I's also be bored, lethargic and tired of this job. Where's the love?
Then on top of everything else, this guy Scott Brown and his American Idol daughter are calling me out for a game of b-ball. Its almost like the Rodney Dangerfield presidency.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 30, 2010 at 08:53 AM
Imagine the realization that all of your ideas are stupid?
That's gotta hurt.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 30, 2010 at 09:03 AM
Prosecution of Bybee and Yoo =Apparently denied.
Cap& Trade=pretty certain to lose
Global Warming=Hoax
Stimulus pkg=not a dent in ever growing unemployment
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 09:03 AM
I don't think he has ideas. Just repeats what the puppet master tells him.
Posted by: pagar | January 30, 2010 at 09:08 AM
Perhaps a poll restricted to the unicorn and rainbow set (the only solid support base the President has left) could be commissioned?
1. Which of the President's broken promises do you find most disappointing in light of his party's control of Congress*:
A. Failure to withdraw troops from the ME.
B. Failure to close Guantanamo.
C. Failure to achieve health care reform.
D. Failure to halt Predator attacks upon innocent civilians.
E. Failure to stem losses in employment.
F. Failure to stem rising foreclosure rates.
G. Other failure ________________
* Response to this poll is mandatory. Failure to respond will result in waterboarding pursuant to DoJ guidelines.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 30, 2010 at 09:11 AM
Wouldn't work, Rick..His base base doesn't even know about most of those things.Those questions do pose a delicious possibility for a series of targeted push polls.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 09:17 AM
Good morning all-
If this works right, a Michael Lewis story on Goldman will be found here .
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 30, 2010 at 09:21 AM
Hmmmm.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 30, 2010 at 09:22 AM
We need an all of the above choice.
Posted by: pagar | January 30, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Clarice,
Your reply to Rick about his base reminds me - we haven't heard from MoveOn.Org in a while. I thought they were his official apologists and propagandists? You'd think they would continue to provide a "blame Bush" cover, at least.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | January 30, 2010 at 09:23 AM
Here.< /a>
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 30, 2010 at 09:24 AM
I'll go practice someplace else, sorry.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 30, 2010 at 09:25 AM
Not to worry, Melinda. My New Year's resolution for the past three years has been to learn html. Easier to lose fifteen pounds. try the LUN
Posted by: peter | January 30, 2010 at 09:43 AM
HERE!
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | January 30, 2010 at 09:49 AM
this guy Scott Brown and his American Idol daughter are calling me out for a game of b-ball.
I think if Bambi gets beaten by a girl he will have a breakdown.
Actually maybe the stakes should be: Brown and Brown win, Bambi resigns.
Posted by: Jane | January 30, 2010 at 09:49 AM
Oh, mighty TM, you are so funny! Gibbs is one of the Bee Gees! Hysterical. "I Started a Joke" was a hit when I hit puberty.
Another timely Bee Gees hit: "Massachusetts."
Posted by: Porchlight | January 30, 2010 at 09:56 AM
Bambi resigns, we have Biden. That is why Biden was picked in the first place. Houston, we have a problem.
Posted by: pagar | January 30, 2010 at 09:57 AM
Palin on the terrorist trials - a jab at "never let a crisis go to waste" Rahm:
Stay Focused: Relocating Terrorist's Trial Doesn't Solve The Problem
Posted by: Porchlight | January 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM
I'd prefer Biden. He's stupid but not an ideologue.
Posted by: Jane | January 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Rick,
The party of "NO" is responsible for Obama's failures. I found that out this morning. ::sigh::
Posted by: Sue | January 30, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Guantanamo military trial an option for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Fox News
By Major Garrett
In the aftermath of the White House's decision to seek alternative sites for trials of the 9/11 plotters, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a senior administration official said Friday it is possible the suspects could be tried under military charges at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
The official stressed this is not the preferred option, but said using military commissions at Guantanamo for these high-visibility trials is "part of the range of options" the adminstration is "looking at in light of the fact some in Congress are planning to prevent the trials from occurring in New York City."
There is no timeline for deciding where to hold the trials of the five suspects charged in the 2001 attacks. Senior White House and Justice Department officials are reviewing a "wide panoply" of options and Guantanamo is merely "one of many," the official said....
Posted by: windansea | January 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM
See, an ordinary person of ordinary intelligence would have figured this out right away, but really nuanced Ivy League grads like Obama and Holder--no so fast..They have to get their pants pulled down in public to understand why the notion of a criminal court proceeding anywhere in the US is idiotic.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Iowahawk bringing down T Coddington Voorhees, as only he can, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Yeah, like dumb ol' Sarah Palin, who figured it out pretty quickly.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 30, 2010 at 10:30 AM
Exactly,cecil. Or anyone of the real people you interact with every day..who either know the score or suffer the consequences of their fecklessness.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Concur. You know what else this is reminiscent of? Scalia's dissent in Hamdi (in which he proposed giving citizen combatants the right to habeas corpus)--brilliantly argued--which effectively sided him with the court's "meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention" requirement. Only Thomas was pedestrian enough to uphold US war powers:
At least now Thomas is pulling four votes with the "common sense" approach. Doesn't look like he'll win any time soon, though, so the ball is back in Congress's court.Posted by: Cecil Turner | January 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Re: Obama talking to the GOP. I have only seen a few clips here and there, but did anyone else notice Obama doing the middle finger gesture to the temple, again?
Can't remember where I saw it, maybe Jake Tapper's ABC report (maybe not).
Anyhow - once a jerk, always a jerk.
Posted by: centralcal | January 30, 2010 at 10:49 AM
I noticed that with some of the decisions at the appellate level, (notably Cotelly-Villar
and Urbina) who took pains to deliberately
ignore the relevant precedents, and relied
on cases like Councilmen, which concerned
on prosecuting enlisted navy personnel???
As Cecil pointed out, and Thiessen goes into greater detail, they deliberately ignored the reasoning of their own prior decisions, without any evidence that would dictate the change
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 10:58 AM
The fundamental problem with trying these guys to a military commission in Gitmo is that is so simple, easy and efficient. Right away that puts it off limits for this bunch.
I'm wondering whether Holder and Rahm last the year.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 30, 2010 at 10:59 AM
ahem--per Voorhees (Iowahawk) Obama is "the big pianist" we've been waiting for.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Per Ras, looks like Obama got a solid bounce from the SOTU (he's up to -12), but only among Dems/strong supporters. GOP/independent support unchanged. And majorities were unconvinced by most of his claims in the speech.
Ed at HotAir has a good analysis: Post-SOTU poll shows disbelief among most voters on Obama claims
I'm encouraged that only the left seems to have found the SOTU and the Q&A to be positive and energizing. That's a shot in the arm for Obama, to be sure, but it means he hasn't changed any minds where it really counts.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
So, it's curious that Pelosi was able to force
them to stop funding moderate candidates in Iraq, yet she couldn't do the same for waterboarding, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
p.s. Meant to add, it also means he isn't truly pivoting to the center, but doubling down to rev up the base. So he's not following the Clinton path, at least not yet.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 30, 2010 at 11:09 AM
porch--don't forget that right AFTER that speech we get hints that Bybee and Yoo are cleared and that KSM will probably be tried by a military tribunal in Gitmo and that he okayed more spending for nuclear weapons.
Wait till that news hits the base.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Where are the stories about Bybee and Yoo?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 30, 2010 at 11:18 AM
Never mind--found 'em.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM
This is all and all, a confused take on the populist moment, which loses out and more than he get right, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 11:33 AM
“I think I can acknowledge the obvious,” an administration official said.
No wonder he stayed anonymous. This administration doesn't look kindly on people who do that.
This isn't strictly a BeeGees number, though the cameo is pretty good, and it was timelier a year ago, but - Yes He Can!
Posted by: bgates | January 30, 2010 at 11:37 AM
--Per Ras, looks like Obama got a solid bounce from the SOTU (he's up to -12)--
Perhaps the perception the economy is improving also contributed, with the GDP number?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM
An interesting take on what China and Russia are doing while we are not focused, in the LUN
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM
Wait till that news hits the base.
True, that probably didn't have much of an impact in the Friday sample since the news came out so late.
Ignatz, GDP could have been a factor but I don't think Ras mentioned it - he seemed to be concentrating on the SOTU in his analysis.
Posted by: Porchlight | January 30, 2010 at 11:48 AM
"I Started a Joke" was a hit when I hit puberty. Its whingey melody resonated with me as I went through hormonal changes.
I hope that means you're putting your affinity for it in the very distant past.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM
It's nice that Susan Collins said what she did about the crotchbomber fiasco, but every time I hear her speak I wonder if she isn't slightly retarded.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 30, 2010 at 11:57 AM
Pelosi sings "Ain't no mountain high enough"
"We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in," Pelosi said. "But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people."
Posted by: windansea | January 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM
Hey Clarice
Do you think this commenter Mary over at Empty's place could be Mary McCarthy...LUN and then scroll down for a another lengthy one.
Also, hilarious Jason Leopold is apparently a commenter at Empty's that she engages.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | January 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM
I agree DoT - what is wrong with her speech?
Posted by: Jane | January 30, 2010 at 12:06 PM
I have wondered for years about Collin's speech pattern (impediment?). You would think that if she did have some sort of speech impediment, that it would have been sympathetically publicized at some point, so as to not make her appear "retarded."
But, I don't know of any such explanation ever being given. Reporters, commentators just seem to pretend she is speaking normally.
Posted by: centralcal | January 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM
"...I wonder if she isn't slightly retarded."
I haven't seen anything which indicates that she has improved to that point.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 30, 2010 at 12:29 PM
I have no idea, tops. moreover, I haven't a clue about what Mary's talking as it seems to ramble on and on...except she seems to be attacking Margolis, who is widely respected and eperienced. She seems upset that a non-partisan atty who did know what he was doing and who has an impeccable reputation for smarts and probity was tasked for this decision.
Are those people so nuts they honestly believed Bybee and Yoo would somehow be punished for their opinions, opinions which spared us IMO and in the opinion of most people who do not regard national suicide as a serious option.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Yes, they are certifiable, "Bush Hitler, Halliburton, Blackwater," that is the extent
of their knowledge. Thiessen goes into a fair
amount, dismantling the pretensions of Mayer,
Danner, Ratner, et al, He could have added
Carol Rosenberg, our own local ray of sunshine
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM
47/47 in gallup
Posted by: bio mom | January 30, 2010 at 02:00 PM
the BeeGees remix i'm anticipating is "New York Election Disaster 2010."
Posted by: macphisto | January 30, 2010 at 02:09 PM
...but did anyone else notice Obama doing the middle finger gesture to the temple, again?
Pres.Cool hates that, but his overlords force him do it to remind him of their control.
If the trial is moved to a military court, it will be cosmic justice for BHO. A NY town, however, has offered to "host" the trial.
Posted by: Frau Tierfreund | January 30, 2010 at 02:38 PM
"47/47 in gallup"
I think that's from a week ago.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 30, 2010 at 02:53 PM
Congress would have to approve funs for transferring KSM here and at least $200 million to cover the security costs of the trial, the trial 2/3 of Americans believe should not occur in uS civilian courts.
Not going to happen.
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 03:00 PM
Nope Danube. It's from today.Approval down 1 and disapproval up 2.
Posted by: bio mom | January 30, 2010 at 03:29 PM
**funDs**
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 03:51 PM
Clarice, I think during the era of funemployment, we should try to make people happy about government funs too.
Posted by: bgates | January 30, 2010 at 04:02 PM
*thwack*
You try typing with a crazy cat hanging from your right arm because she wants you to toss her Da Bird toy around for another hour or two..Go on, try it!
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 04:14 PM
Clarice, I may not like cats much, but I'd never toss one Da Bird.
What do you think I am, President?
Posted by: bgates | January 30, 2010 at 04:23 PM
Funny you should say that, bgates..Well, the light in here is a bit dim..
Posted by: clarice | January 30, 2010 at 04:29 PM
"We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in," Pelosi said. "But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people."
Pretty interesting metaphor there, windandsea.
"One way or another, we will get inside."
Posted by: Extraneus | January 30, 2010 at 05:15 PM
Extraneus,
"Imagine the realization that all of your ideas are stupid?"
Imagine the realization that reality is not a post-modernist construct, altered at will?
Though I don't think they are ready to acknowledge either yet.
Posted by: Katherine | January 30, 2010 at 05:19 PM
I'd always had the impression that post-modernism was a b.s. concept, but never had the urge to look up what the term was supposed to mean.
Thanks, Katherine.
Kinda reads like b.s.Posted by: Extraneus | January 30, 2010 at 05:54 PM
Don't have the LUN just yet, but apparently Sarah Pac raised 1.4 million dollars for the last half of the year
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 06:05 PM
Extraneous,
Pomo is for people who support the repeal of Ohm's Law so that power may flow more freely to the masses and want Congress to pass a bill making pi = 3 in order to make geometry more accessible to the disadvantaged.
BS doesn't even scratch the surface.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | January 30, 2010 at 06:13 PM
It does recall that Bea Arthur line in the Roman section of History of the World, did
you 'philosophize' bs, or plan to bs, this
week
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 06:17 PM
Did I miss this and did you guys know this?
The Times of India has a new story out saying ">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Barack-Obama-seeks-USD-200m-to-help-cities-host-9/11-trials/articleshow/5518947.cms"> Barack Obama seeks USD 200m to help cities host 9/11 trials.
That didn't pop out at me up above.
"The Obama administration is proposing a USD 200 million fund to help pay for security costs in cities hosting the trials of accused
terrorists such as September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
A congressional aide familiar with the plan says the money will be included in the president's budget being released Monday. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the spending blueprint hasn't been announced."
Sorry if you guys already knew that and I just missed it.
Posted by: daddy | January 30, 2010 at 06:24 PM
Postmodernism provides adherants with protection against cognitive dissonance and the perksy constraints associated with the premise of a single reality we all inhabit.
No need for discredited notions like common ground or holding intentions responsible for their predictible consequences.
It does confer some rhetorical advantages for exploiting a certain amount of Cargo-Cult tendencies in society. It can also exploit an opposite idea where some people are convinced their perception is spot on reality. An unnecessary disadvantage worth discarding when dealing with postmodernism.
Posted by: boris | January 30, 2010 at 06:28 PM
* pesky constraints *
Posted by: boris | January 30, 2010 at 06:29 PM
Thanks, bio mom. Great news.
Even greater than watching the once-proud Blue Devils absorb a savage drubbing on national TV.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | January 30, 2010 at 06:48 PM
If you think PoMo is something, spend some time on PoCo. Whatever I say is legitimate because I say it, and you can't possibly understand.
Posted by: sbw | January 30, 2010 at 07:19 PM
--Even greater than watching the once-proud Blue Devils absorb a savage drubbing on national TV.--
Duke can go to hell!
That was your suggested "Carthage must be destroyed" motto, correct daddy?
Posted by: Ignatz | January 30, 2010 at 07:26 PM
That was your suggested "Carthage must be destroyed" motto, correct daddy?
Why yes, that is correct. Btw daddy, have you noted the team currently atop the ACC? Here's a hint: I'd hate to pay the head coach's dry cleaning bills.
Posted by: Captain Hate | January 30, 2010 at 07:32 PM
errr, uhhh, lot of weather we've been having here Captain Hate.
Posted by: daddy | January 30, 2010 at 07:41 PM
Reading this thread is like a flashback to Laugh-In. I'm waiting for Goldie Hawn in bikini or Ruth Buzzy in hairnet to post.
Postmodernism is a load of pure (Democrat) Bandini. Not convinced? Visit the Postmodernism Generator. LUN
Posted by: Frau Tierfreund | January 30, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Frau,
You thinks its nuts over here, wait'll you get to the next thread.
Posted by: daddy | January 30, 2010 at 10:16 PM
That's the truth, daddy, although I think the word Somprini fits better. I am reminded that Scott Shane was one of those reporters who put the torture meme in motion.
Also in your neck of the woods, the PPP poll indicates that skunks are running away from Begich he is so unpopular, 35% in the first
year. Or about as wanted as Zoidberg after he
ate the flag
Posted by: narciso | January 30, 2010 at 10:45 PM
skunks are running away from Begich he is so unpopular
That's great to hear Narciso.
See the ADN story I just linked to on the Jersey Girl thread about his tentative corruption investigation. It's like a scene from Futurama in the Neutral Zone. As to the investigation the FBI seems to have no strong feelings one way or the other, or, as the Neutral Zone Ambassador told us "My gut feeling tells me 'maybe'".
Posted by: daddy | January 30, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Good one on the postmodern generator, Frau. I thought it was serious at first.
Posted by: Extraneus | January 31, 2010 at 08:29 AM
O got a big bounce from the SOTU..Ras puts him at -7 today.
Posted by: clarice | January 31, 2010 at 09:11 AM
I figured he would get the bounce, Clarice. Democrats probably loved hearing him go after Republicans & the Supremes, Independents probably loved the call for bipartisanship, and outside of political junkies, most folks probably don't know just how much of the "substance" in his address was pure bullshit. The SOTU attracted a bigger audience than he's been getting, so I suspect a lot of the people who tuned in may not follow politics all that closely. The pattern of his disapproval numbers didn't change, but it's also probably worth remembering his latent popularity, which has never really tracked the cynicism on the policy front.
Posted by: JM Hanes | January 31, 2010 at 10:01 AM