- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Poll: Feinstein backs federal terror trials
November 18th, 2009, 8:44 am · 31 Comments · posted by Dena Bunis, Washington Bureau Chief
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Attorney General Eric Holder this morning that she fully supports his decision to bring the masterminds of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to New York City for federal trials.
“I happen to believe that our federal judges are our best and I happen to believe that New York City is able to handle this in a very professional and definitively legal matter,’’ said Feinstein, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Holder was questioned by the Judiciary Committee about his decision to send five 9/11 conspirators to a court that is just blocks from World Trade Center ground zero. Click here for Holder’s statement.
“The attack in New York was both a major attack of war and a major and horrific criminal event,’’ said Feinstein, who said in the past seven years only three cases were tried by military commissions.
Republicans on the panel criticized Holder’s decision, saying these terrorists should be treated as war criminals and tried under military justice.
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
31 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
DENA BUNIS, Washington bureau chief, 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com
BRIAN JOSEPH, Sacramento correspondent, 916-449-6046 or bjoseph@ocregister.com
JENNIFER MUIR, County government reporter, 714-796-7813 or jmuir@ocregister.com
JOEL WALSH, Washington bureau intern, 202-628-6381 or jwalsh@ocregister.com
MARTIN WISCKOL, Politics reporter, 714-285-2867 or mwisckol@ocregister.com twitter.com/MartinWisckol
Click here for bloggers' biographies
-
-
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
This is a military matter . . . anything less is an insult to the dead and their survivors.
They arent complaining.
Bad decision. This wasn’t a criminal event and shouldn’t be tried in a civil court. Terrorism against a civilian population is an act of war. No rights should be granted to non-citizens who commit acts of terror which are acts of war against the United States.
As an Independent, I have voted for Diane Feinstein, but no longer. The decision to try these terrorists in civilian court is idiotic and I emphatically disagree with her support for the Holder decision. This is the straw that broke the camel’s back! Next election, I will vote against Feinstein in whatever she decides to run for.
Is she drunk? I thought Feinstein was a little more in tune than that dingbat Boxer, but now I know. She is just as bad.
The first step is to get rid of Boxer. We have extreme leftist elitists representing our state, and they are driving us into bankruptcy.
that’s what happens when San Francisco and Sacramento politics combine into one evil force and are allowed to take over. unfortunately, L.A. County, though opposed on some local issues, is collectively also delusional and buys into most of their ridiculous shenanigans.
Holder asked his wife and brother-in-law what they thought !!! . Obama is pulling the strings of his puppet.
unbelievable… and you thought Geithner was bad!!
You guys are really missing the point…having this go on in New York, in freaking New York, you think that any prosecutor could get an easier conviction? The jury or judges, dont know what kind of trial this will be, will hang these guys in 5 seconds flat. Whats wrong with having a civilian trial? Domestic Terrorists have had civilian trials. The reason its not a military trial is because they dont represent a country or occupied territory per se. Its different from the Nuremburg trials, where the Nazis were part of the government that started a war. Now if Hussein was to be tried by the US and not Iraq, then yes, it would be a military trial. Plus, these are nothing more than criminals, not war heroes or real soldiers. Giving them a military trial only solidifies that status in the eyes of others. Giving the rats that Bin Laden pipes to a trial no more up there than any other murderer shows the US will take care of business but that their actions are not very glorious.
No, you are missing the point. Having them tried in New York presents tremendous problems for law enforcement and eminent danger for New Yorkers. It will only take one car bomb, one terrorist with bombs around his body to kill hundreds of people. Wouldn’t happen in Gitmo. The cost of trying to keep this from happening would be tremendous. A civil trial allows the prosecutor to argue that his confession was coerced and the smallest infringement of civil rights will allow him to walk by law. Stupid to put everyone in jeopardy just to get back at Bush for waterboarding, which saved a lot of lives.
Excuse me, I meant the defense to argue, not the prosecution.
There is a reason that confession by coercion is not admissable, you would say anything to stay alive! The US needs to prove to us that these are the guys, they cant just grab some dude off the street in Afghanistan and make him confess. Plus, there is more evidence than just confessions. Just because the guy was tortured doesnt mean there is no evidence leading to him in the first place right? This has to be done the right way, otherwise we look stupid, they walk and there is a lingering doubt that the US didn’t actually capture the right people, and isnt that the important thing? Bush was retarded and once could claim that the info saved lives. How do we know that? Someone could “confess” to planning an attack but they may have never been going to and just said it to get out of torture. Thats why you dont use torture, because you need to know the truth for sure, and getting someone to confess is not the way to do it. Would you put an innocent person in jail just because they said something to get out of torture or to cover up for someone else? No, you need to know the truth, thats important, otherwise one could claim Bin Laden was not the real mastermind and confess to running Al Qaida and be put away. Plus, it didn’t take a trial in New York for someone to ram two planes into two towers full of desk jockeys. Make the police officers work for their money.
First they are not true “War criminals” like g.w. bush, rumey and cheney because the United States has not legally declared a war on anybody. Second: Why not have faith in our criminal justice system? It has worked fine for over 200 years. Even the Nazis were given a trial and it worked then. I for one am not ashamed to be an American with a justice system that works and will be proud for the world to see it in action. All the rethuglicans like to quote our Constitution all of the time so why don’t you quit crying and let the Constitution do what it does best…WORK.
These examples of the laws of war address declaration of war, (the UN charter (1945) Art 2, and some other Arts in the charter, curtails the right of member states to declare war; as does the older and toothless Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 for those nations who ratified it but used against Germany in the Nuremberg War Trials), acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy’s uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.
-deliberately attacking civilians: yes
-inhumane weapons: yes
-engaging in attacks on said civilians while ununiformed without openly displaying / revealing weapons: yes
all of these are acts of war and violations of Geneva convention or other agreements.
further, the U.S. Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with the above.
(p.s. forgot to mention taking hostages while in flight: yes)
The majority of Dems voted to invade Iraq?
This is a real slap in the face for our military to bear. We trust you to fight and die for our country, but we don’t trust you to try the very war criminals you are protecting us from. This sets a terrible precedent. Feinstein and the rest should be ashamed of themselves. Eric Holder seeks the spotlight at great cost to our country and these idiots are supporting him.
this woman is clueless just like Pelosi. truly delusional to try them in a civilian court in N.Y.
Facts
-NY does not allow the death penalty.
-Military law does allow for the death penalty.
-The attackers attacked the Pentagon. This is a major military base for the United States.
-They attacked WTC which was a giant financial hub for the country.
To think that this was not an act driven by war and not intended to aim at our government, then you weren’t paying attention 8 years ago
This has NOTHING to do with trying these terrorists. This is about putting the CIA in a court room and answer questions about their procedures. The left wants to look for every possible opportunity to ruin the military, the CIA, FBI, Bush, and Cheney. Anyone with a D next to their name is an enemy of the United States of America. A vote for anyone with a D next to their name is a vote to lose your liberty, freedom, and your freedom of choice, and accept socialism.
Brian, I fully agree witht he first part and that will become evident shortly after the trial begins. The left has been looking for a way to go after Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld without making themselves look dirty in the process. Moving this trial to US soil is their best chance. Watch the tone of the media coverage.
Why are they even still alive????????????
Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi are nothing more then liberal elitists and only serve themselves.
This is going to be an interesting trial, because now the shoe is on the other foot. Liberals have been wanting a civilian trial for years so they could embarrass the conservatives by getting some of them off on technicalities with the help of the ACLU. Now there running around making sure they can find a judge and DA that won’t allow these people off with a light sentence. Holder himself was on TV before the Senate and guaranteed that they would not receive light sentences due to technicalities, which I’m surprised an attorney general would make that kind of promise since he is not trying the case.
Feinstein’s totally waaaaay off base (as usual!) Any one who thinks they’ll find a fair judge, or 12 of 12 jurors who will all believe in the death penalty in N.Y. is nuts. All it will take is a “friend of the ACLU” judge, and/or just one juror, to set these murderers free. Remember, folks…..after all, O.J. Simpson was “Not Guilty” !!! Right?
This decision by Holder/Obama is truly the best of the worst examples of a “travesty of justice” put upon the American People ever in our history. God Help Us!!!
Obama confounds the distinction between alien war criminal and a US citizen’s right to trial by jury. He addresses the runaway Medicare budget by increasing entitlements by $3 trillion dollars notwithstanding the Congressional Budget Office underestimate. He visits China and gets handled like a backwoods Kenyan. Obama is proof positive that affirmative action is a failure.
Holy smokes. That picture makes her look like a zombie!
These are the choices:
1. US military tribunal.
2. International court system.
3. US court system.
Results:
1. The rest of the world wouldn’t trust the verdicts.
2. The rest of the world would indict Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bush - maybe Rice too (and rightfully so).
3. The rest of the world will trust the verdicts.
Another worthless liberal from this welfare state.
She looks like she was beat with a bat!
I have a feeling the government hasn’t a clue what they just got themselves into. When Obama was in Japan he bowed to the emperor and with a 700 billion dollar debt to the Chinese he was on his knees. The Chinese have no respect for Obama and they even brought his half brother over to China to toy with him.
The bigger question here is…why weren’t they tried immediately after the 9/11 attacks? Why wait eight friggen years to try them?
And I agree with the decision to hold them in NYC….for one, the attack took place in a NON MILITARY zone, hence it is outside military jurisdiction (unless civilian courts are absent, which isn’t the case. We got civilian courts) and, two, we’ve tried terrorists in America before that attacked on our soil-look at Timothy McVeigh, look at the guys who bombed the WTC in 1993. It’s happened before and no harm came as a result of trying them in a civilian court. In military court, they are subject to the military commissions act which strips them of certain rights (As much as these guys are disgusting, they do deserve due process, the right to a trial, the right to a lawyer, the right to confront his/her accusers. it’s a part of any democratic justice system).
Over 100 terrorist have been convicted in civil courts and placed in our jails. Politics as usual.
Unlike the conservatives who claim to love America but are now showing their true colors of hating America I have faith in our system of justice.