UBL's son-in-law to be tried in U.S. federal court

[gator85jd]

Obama is moving forward with trying terrorists in the U.S. federal courts. I suppose they'll be given all the protections the U.S. Constitution provides. That's probably the most idiotic move anyone could dream up.

"A top Al Qaeda spokesman who is the son-in-law of Usama bin Laden has been captured overseas and charged in the United States with conspiracy to kill Americans, according to an indictment unsealed Thursday."

"He is expected to appear Friday morning in a federal court in New York City to face the charges."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...ght-in-jordan/

[G8trGr8t]

So he is going to make NYC a target again. Why not try him at Levenworth or some backwater that would be much easier to secure and be a less attractive target? This will make sure that NY gets hundreds of millions of $$$ more for additional security and seriously inconvenience anybody that has any business wherever the security ring travels.

[GatorAvatar]

Facepalm

[Swampmaster]

will the us pay millions for muslim brotherhood lawyers to provide the legal defense?

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by G8trGr8t

So he is going to make NYC a target again. Why not try him at Levenworth or some backwater that would be much easier to secure and be a less attractive target? This will make sure that NY gets hundreds of millions of $$$ more for additional security and seriously inconvenience anybody that has any business wherever the security ring travels.

Obama wants his sideshow to make him look like a king. Talk about distractions and unnecessary publicity to this whole charade. OBL is dead, no need to grand-stand for this terrorist.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Gatorrick22

Obama wants his sideshow to make him look like a king. Talk about distractions and unnecessary publicity to this whole charade. OBL is dead, no need to grand-stand for this terrorist.

I agree.

Also this move confirms recent comments from Obama insiders and outsiders that he is overplaying his hand. The fool has no idea how much of a lame duck he will be when (not if) AQ executes a terror operation in New York.

Also the trail will be a drag in his term. Thus will not be like "Law and Order" on TV where the arrest and trial are days or weeks apart. The defense lawyers can drag this trial out way beyond the 2016. It could take another two or three years for the trail to start. In that time this terrorist will be getting way more attention then he would in Gitmo.

[wgbgator]

Nevermind that there have been more terror suspects convicted in Federal Courts than Gitmo military tribunals.

[HudsonGator]

They wouldn't be trying him in Fed Court unless they felt confident that they were going to get a conviction.

A conviction in court affirms that we are nation of laws, we are civilized, etc.

Good PR

[DieAGator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

They wouldn't be trying him in Fed Court unless they felt confident that they were going to get a conviction.

A conviction in court affirms that we are nation of laws, we are civilized, etc.

Good PR

What pisses them off is that we try him for conspiracy to kill Americans but overlook how many Muslims have been killed by US military efforts.

[gator85jd]

Originally Posted by northgagator

I agree.

Also this move confirms recent comments from Obama insiders and outsiders that he is overplaying his hand. The fool has no idea how much of a lame duck he will be when (not if) AQ executes a terror operation in New York.

Also the trail will be a drag in his term. Thus will not be like "Law and Order" on TV where the arrest and trial are days or weeks apart. The defense lawyers can drag this trial out way beyond the 2016. It could take another two or three years for the trail to start. In that time this terrorist will be getting way more attention then he would in Gitmo.

Exactly. This trial will drag on for years. His taxpayer attorneys will purposely drag it out endlessly. Why not -- they're getting paid by the U.S. government. Not to mention they're going to have a hayday with discovery.

[g8rjd]

I don't know if you guys know this in your rush to attack the administration for trying him in federal court, but there are serious doubts, because he is not charged with a war crime (but rather with conspiracy and material support), whether he can be permissibly tried in a military tribunal, making the only proper venue is a federal court (which seems to contradict the PR justification asserted above).

On the surface, Abu Ghaith would appear to be a perfect candidate for the military commissions tribunal at Guantanamo Bay. That is where the alleged 9-11 defendants - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men - are on trial ... But from the charges that were unsealed today it may be that the administration decided that the only alternative was federal courts and that's because they appear to be charging him with this conspiracy charge and this material support charge and those are the kinds of charges that aren't internationally recognized as war crimes but are very common in federal courts in the United States.

Reiterating that point, Bob Chesney, a law professor who specializes in national security at the University of Texas, writes in a blog post for Lawfare that "it is of course quite uncertain at the moment that the [military] commission system has the capacity to charge conspiracy in this instance."

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...ed_in_new_york

Perhaps you should reconsider blaming it all on the administration. I'd personally prefer that a conviction actually stick. And for those who are concerned about the expense, doing it once usually costs less than doing it twice.

Not to mention, if, on the off chance, he were acquitted, I'd love to see him walk out of a courtroom in the Southern District of New York. That's probably going to be a worse punishment than if he were convicted.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

I don't know if you guys know this in your rush to attack the administration for trying him in federal court, but there are serious doubts, because he is not charged with a war crime (but rather with conspiracy and material support), whether he can be permissibly tried in a military tribunal, making the only proper venue is a federal court (which seems to contradict the PR justification asserted above).





http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...ed_in_new_york

Perhaps you should reconsider blaming it all on the administration. I'd personally prefer that a conviction actually stick. And for those who are concerned about the expense, doing it once usually costs less than doing it twice.

Not to mention, if, on the off chance, he were acquitted, I'd love to see him walk out of a courtroom in the Southern District of New York. That's probably going to be a worse punishment than if he were convicted.

I heard the same thing on the news today, but no matter to the shoot first and ask questions later crowd.

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Row6

I heard the same thing on the news today, but no matter to the shoot first and ask questions later crowd.

Isn't that what we do with our drones.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Isn't that what we do with our drones.

Actually I don't think that is what we do with them. They aren't cheap.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Nevermind that there have been more terror suspects convicted in Federal Courts than Gitmo military tribunals.

.

[Gatorrick22]

Originally Posted by northgagator

I agree.

Also this move confirms recent comments from Obama insiders and outsiders that he is overplaying his hand. The fool has no idea how much of a lame duck he will be when (not if) AQ executes a terror operation in New York.

Also the trail will be a drag in his term. Thus will not be like "Law and Order" on TV where the arrest and trial are days or weeks apart. The defense lawyers can drag this trial out way beyond the 2016. It could take another two or three years for the trail to start. In that time this terrorist will be getting way more attention then he would in Gitmo.

Yep, Holder should have just "Droned" this SOB instead, and saved the American taxpayers millions..

[northgagator]

Originally Posted by Row6

Actually I don't think that is what we do with them. They aren't cheap.

Don't we take out lower level terrorist in Yemen and Pakistan? That had to cost some bucks.
This guy is higher up in the food chain. I am am sure that earns him enough credit for a drone attack.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by northgagator

Don't we take out lower level terrorist in Yemen and Pakistan? That had to cost some bucks.
This guy is higher up in the food chain. I am am sure that earns him enough credit for a drone attack.

Gee, I don't know, but I'm sure there's something to bitch about us catching a high level AQ operative if one tries hard enough.

[Minister_of_Information]

At least the Federal criminal justice system is already rigged. I wouldn't lose that much sleep here, he's going to get the death penalty (this being the only situation in which I support it).

[MichiGator2002]

When they were humiliated in their foolish attempt to remove Gitmo detainees to the civilian criminal courts, they must have realized they needed to find some free range evil to put on trial.