Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Blumenthal, GOP Foes Oppose Prez On KSM Trial

by Paul Bass | Feb 2, 2010 2:38 pm

(19) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Legal Writes, Politics

Melissa Bailey File Photo Try alleged 9/11 terrorists in New Haven—or in a military court?

The leading Republican candidates in Connecticut’s 2010 U.S. Senate race—Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons—offered the latter answer Tuesday. They seized on a rumor to try to put their leading Democratic opponent, Dick Blumenthal, on the defensive on a hot-button issue, terrorism. The utterly unsubstantiated but widely circulated rumor: That the Obama administration might move the trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators from New York City to the Elm City.

Not only did McMahon and Simmons say the trial shouldn’t take place here—they called the idea of holding the trial in Connecticut “a direct threat to our state” (McMahon’s words) and argued that it shouldn’t take place in a civilian court, period.

Blumenthal responded by agreeing with his opponents that the trial should take place in a military court. In a conversation with the Independent, Blumenthal (pictured), a former U.S. attorney, said he does have “great confidence” in civilian federal courts to handle terrorism cases. He argued that this specific case belongs in a military tribunal because it involves a foreign “enemy combatant directed by foreign terrorists and a foreign government to attack this nation.”

The back-and-forth Tuesday was the latest echo of the recent Senate election in Massachusetts. Ever since the Tea Party-backed Republican Scott Brown won an upset in that race, Connecticut’s GOP Senate contenders have sought to claim his mantle and portray Blumenthal as the pro-Obama establishment liberal—while Blumenthal has sought to portray himself as a crusader against big interests and the D.C. status quo. (For instance, Blumenthal came out against the confirmation of Federal Reserve Chaiman Ben Bernanke.)

In New Haven, meanwhile, a leading Connecticut Democrat who’s not running for higher office this year, Mayor John DeStefano, echoed the Obama administration’s argument that the 9/11 case belongs in a civilian court, though he wasn’t necessarily “shopping” to host the trial here.

From A Thin Thread

By raising the military tribunal question, McMahon and Simmons reframed the story—and made it a campaign issue—on day two of speculation over whether the Obama administration might move the 9/11 trial here.

On day one, Monday, the story concerned the wildly inflated rumor that the trial could in fact come here. A speculative article in the Connecticut Law Tribune led mainstream media outlets to report that “sources” have “reportedly” suggested that the Obama administration is considering moving the trial from New York City to New Haven. It turns out those “reports” came from a Jan. 29 New York Post story quoting in passing an unnamed source about where a likely new location for the trial could be.

Sure, New Haven has a federal courthouse. Sure, the trial could come here—or a slew of other places. But there was no further hard information to suggest New Haven was seriously under consideration, despite the avalanche of unsourced stories (all leading back to the Post) claiming otherwise. (The last time the Post reported on a national news story in New Haven, the Annie Le murder, police scurried to refute what they called outright false information.)

That was enough for McMahon and Simmons to come out swinging about “today’s report confirming that the White House is considering such a move,” as Simmons put it. (In fact, the story Simmons was referring to, in the Hartford Courant, didn’t confirm the report. It merely reported that the New York Post had previously reported the speculation. In fact, the Courant story reported in the lead paragraph that “experts on Monday were downplaying talk that New Haven could emerge as an alternate location.”)

Separate from the question of what city hosts the trial, Simmons and McMahon struck out at the Obama administration’s decision to hold the proceedings in any civilian court. They challenged Blumenthal to take a stand on the question.

“I strongly oppose holding the 9/11 terror trials in New Haven,” McMahon said in a press release. “This is not only a potentially grave security threat that puts our state at risk, but it will also cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

“Holding terror trials in Connecticut provides a public stage in our state for Khalid Sheik Mohammed to denigrate the United States and
justify the 9/11 attacks.  The only acceptable venue is a military tribunal, where we can protect sensitive national security secrets and silence the deadly rhetoric of mass murderers.”

Ben Johnson File Photo“Now that these civilian terror trials pose a direct threat to our state,” McMahon (pictured) concluded, “we can hope that Attorney General Blumenthal will finally take a stand against them.”

McMahon was first asked about the terror trials last fall. She took heat for not yet having formulated a full position on the issue. (Read about that here.)

Simmons, in his own statement issued Tuesday, echoed the call on Blumenthal to “stand up for Connecticut.” And he presented himself as the oracle of the brewing threat.

“For months, I have warned about the possibility that Connecticut could be identified as an alternative venue for the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” Simmons said. “Today’s report confirming that the White House is considering such a move should be extremely troubling to Connecticut’s political leadership. As New York finally realized, the costs and security risks that come with such a trial are enormous, and Connecticut is in no position to assume them any more than Manhattan.”

“It is Attorney General Blumenthal’s responsibility to stand up for Connecticut,” Simmons continued. “Thus far, he has openly backed these misguided civilian trials and failed to speak up for Connecticut’s interests, even as the specter of a trial here gains steam.”

Blumenthal responded to the challenge in an Independent interview just prior to an unrelated press conference (in which, in his capacity as attorney general, he was ruling on whether a fellow Democrat, Susan Bysiewicz, can legally run for AG).

Like Simmons and McMahon, Blumenthal called for moving the Mohammed trial to a military tribunal. He agreed with his opponents’ concerns about alleged security problems and intelligence leaks. But the “crucial issue,” Blumenthal said, involves the nature of the crime.

“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is quintessentially an enemy combatant, allegedly guilty of war crimes against civilians this country. He is a foreign national trained and directed by foreign terrorists and perhaps coordinated by foreign governments,” Blumenthal argued. “He should be tried and convicted in a military tribunal.

“Military tribunals are part of the American system of justice—an appropriate in cases where enemy combatants committing war crimes and attacks on American civilians trained and directed by foreign terrorists and foreign governments.”

Blumenthal served as U.S. Attorney for Connecticut in the late 1970s under then-President Jimmy Carter.

“As a former federal prosecutor, I have a great confidence in civilian courts to try and convict terrorists,” he said. “The goal here is to try and convict and punish Khalid Sheik Mohammed for these alleged crimes—including execution.”

DeStefano Sees A Reason

A passionate rebuttal to the Simmons/McMahon position came from a different Connecticut politician, New Haven Mayor DeStefano.

DeStefano said the 9/11 trial belongs in a civilian court.

“These guys perpetrated a crime against Americans on American soil and ought to be tried in an American court of law in an open, transparent environment,” DeStefano said in a conversation Tuesday.

“That said, I think few of us, from what we know, have any doubt about what we’d like to see happen to them. The American legal system is capable of trying them successfully in an free and open courtroom in a transparent courtroom. That’s what differentiates us from them. I don’t think we should run away from that.”

Should that civilian court be New Haven’s federal court on Church Street?

DeStefano said he doesn’t know the answer. He said he’s “open” to discussing the idea with federal officials.

“I’m not shopping for it,” DeStefano said. “I’m not aware that New Haven is being considered for this. But frankly, if the federal government were to want to have a discussion about New Haven, I would certainly engage in that discussion with an open mind. The issue is: Could it be done in a fashion that’s safe and with respect for the need to be in an open and transparent fashion?”

Police Chief James Lewis said Monday that he doubts New Haven would make an appropriate host city for the trial.

“I think it would be too much for New Haven” to handle, Lewis remarked, “from the standpoint of the congestion with all the news media. There’s not that many hotels downtown. It would be too difficult to handle.”

Tags: , ,

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Comments

posted by: William Kurtz on February 2, 2010  2:51pm

What’s with this irrational fear about providing “a public stage in our state for Khalid Sheik Mohammed to denigrate the United States”  and “the deadly rhetoric of mass murderers”?  Have I missed something? I have watched a lot of Law & Order and have never seen a criminal defendant given access to the media to spout their dangerous, hateful, irrational, sexist, racist, reactionary and insane ideas—unlike Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

posted by: newhaventaxpayer on February 2, 2010  3:06pm

oh boy what next in New Haven

posted by: thebpp on February 2, 2010  3:49pm

While I appreciate that this is a complicated issue, a lot of the fear surrounding this case is unfounded paranoia. While our criminal justice system has its flaws, i am completely confident in our systems ability to conduct a fair and open trial that leaves no doubt as to the defendant’s guilt.  That said, there is some risk associated with the trial of an international terrorist, mainly a retaliatory attack on the venue of the trial itself.  Seemingly one compromise solution would be to have a civilian trial at a more secure venue rather than downtown New Haven. Perhaps at the national guard base in New London.

posted by: republicanblack on February 2, 2010  4:21pm

Did we relocate for Richard Reid, Mussouii, terry nickols, or even Timothy McVeigh? No we had the trial like we normally do, at the scene of the crime. Americans don’t let the terrorists change our country, if we relocate…they win cuz they will have changed our justice system. I saw this article that details and explores the legal aspect to having federal trials over military, and how this administration as well as the prior administration choose federal over military

http://bit.ly/tribunal-or-civil

check it out

posted by: Ed Cook on February 2, 2010  4:46pm

Has everyone forgotten… We are at War!!

These guys are not criminals, they are combatants and as such they belong in a military court not in civilian courts.

What has this country come to? We let them out of Gitmo and they immediately pick up guns and start fighting us again. Obama and DeStefano are bumbling fools.

What will it take for people to open up their eyes and realize the danger these men are to our country, freedom and way of life? Should we wait until they attack again? Maybe after they set off a dirty bomb on American soil? Kill a few thousand more innocent Americans?

Let’s make this easy on everyone… and save the taxpayers a ton of money we don’t have

FIRING SQUAD!!! The only cost is the bullet and the wooden box.

posted by: abg on February 2, 2010  4:57pm

Is Chief Lewis leaving New Haven to become a pundit on Fox News? OK I get that he didn’t enjoy the Annie Le media circus and doesn’t want a repeat but I thought his job was to keep criminals off our streets, not to be publicly fretting about whether Anderson Cooper can get a 4-star hotel and a mint on his pillow. And how does he think the Independent is going to win its well-deserved Pulitzer unless we get the KSM trial?

posted by: robn on February 2, 2010  7:31pm

Al Qaeda are a bunch of petty thugs like the mob. Round them up and tri the daff yeggs in court. Bunk to security issues…if any of their ilk comes to the Elm city we’ll give them the old town and gown booyah hooray and show them whats what!

posted by: Lucy on February 2, 2010  7:39pm

The scarier thing about Mr. Blumenthal is that he apparently is quite an enthusiastic war hawk. 

He’s an unquestioning supporter of the Obama Afghan troop surge (unlike, say, the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, who warned strongly against it) and he appears to have no problem with our “targeted” drone attacks—which are killing more Pakistani innocents that actual “targets.” 

Worse, Mr. Blumenthal appears to actually support pre-emptive strikes in new countries.  He said on WNPR’s “Where We Live” that,

“In Yemen, Somalia, we need to anticipate where the terrorists may be likely to go before they establish footholds and set up shop.”

CT progressives who admired how hard Mr. Blumenthal fought as an AG should stop and wonder whether, as a U.S, Senator, he would fight for peace at all.

posted by: AndersonScooper on February 2, 2010  10:12pm

God, please tell me that Senator Blumenthal is going to resemble Chuck Schumer or Sheldon Whitehouse, and not be another Lieberman!

In this case I feel certain he just ducked a potential controversy, (the Simmons campaign has already called him out for flip-flopping on this issue), but it stinks to have him parroting the GOP line on this non-issue.

Fingers crossed.

posted by: Downtown resident on February 3, 2010  3:36am

Well, I’m not an expert on hotel capacity in New Haven, but I live right next to a couple of downtown hotels, and let me tell you, they don’t have a lot of lights on these days.  Business is really, really bad.  My guess is that now is not actually such a bad time for a massive national media event to descend on New Haven.  Restaurants, hotels, local vendors of various kinds could all use a little boost.

And as for those of us who live downtown, we’ll adjust to a little security disruption.  It’s not that big of a deal.  I’m proud to live in the kind of city that can handle this kind of major national thing if it has to.

And as to those who fear that the terrorists! will! be! in! our! midst!, please, if you find yourself too anxious to get along in the world, seek medical help.

posted by: streever on February 3, 2010  8:17am

DeStefano and Lewis are the only two spoken to with a handle on reality in the story.

Yes, Blumenthal/et all have their careers to consider, so I’ll give them a pass on the rhetoric & inane comments.

Lewis is clearly the most realistic of the bunch, and understandably so. Remember, this guy was flown here & dumped into an apartment by Crown street. No way does he have a positive view of New Haven’s capacity to host someone!

posted by: eddie on February 3, 2010  9:34am

Have we really become such a nation of wusses?

If we’re too frightened to try terrorists under our own laws, in our own courts on our own soil, let’s just pack it up. They’ve won.

posted by: William Kurtz on February 3, 2010  10:43am

Mr. Cook:

It might reasonably be argued that we’re not, technically, “at war” since there has been no declaration of war on anyone by Congress, as is required by the Constitution.  In the mid-to-late 20th century, the term “police action” has sometimes been used as euphemism for war, so maybe a criminal court is exactly the right place to try terrorism suspects.

“Combatant” is a term of art, not a technical or legal definition of any kind.  If we’re prepared to recognize these individuals as soldiers, albeit enemy ones, then maybe the military should deal with them but that designation puts a whole other group of requirements on the U.S., most of which are being ignored (or acknowledged begrudgingly) at places like the prison at Guantanamo.

posted by: ctscoots on February 3, 2010  12:06pm

Ed Cook - can you explain to me part of your view that I have heard espoused by a number of conservative pundits:  why is it an ideal punishment to kill terrorists without a trial or due process?  I honestly don’t understand how killing people who want to be martyrs is any kind of punishment.  Putting them through a civilized trial and locking them up in a maximum security prison for the rest of their natural lives seems like a far worse punishment than giving them what they want….

posted by: blue dog dem on February 3, 2010  12:30pm

WK,

“Combatant” is both a technical and legal term (see Black’s Dictionary) and has been recognized in this country since before the Civil War and later by international bodies such as the Geneva Convention. 

Congress passed a law a few years ago wherein those persons captured outside the US, such as KSM, were to be tried in military tribunals and not in civilian courts, making it moot as to whether or not they COULD be tried there. 

If the strict Rules of Evidence were to be applied in a civilian criminal court, most, if not all of the evidence in this case would have to be tossed because none of the defendants were Mirandized at the time of their capture making it “fruit of the poisonous tree.”  Further, Gibbs, Holder and Obama have tainted the jury pool by removing the presumption of innocence, thereby making a “fair” trial unobtainable.  Last, they have stated that even if the defendants are found not guilty, they would never be released making a mockery of the system before it begins.

You are absolutely correct, however, when you state that WE are not at war.  Unfortunately there are thousands of jihadists throughout the world that are at war with us.

posted by: eddie on February 3, 2010  1:52pm

Blue Dog:

The military tribunal system set up under the last administration was so flawed that the government was unable to bring a single case to it for years—and when it finally did, two of three cases were dismissed and the third was plea-bargained out.

The previous administration’s misstep in introducing this ill-conceived basket-case of a tribunal system was compounded by its unfortunate decision to ignore U.S. and international laws regarding the treatment of prisoners, rendering much of the information collected useless in any fair court.

If, indeed, these are war criminals as you suggest, then perhaps they should have been turned over to the United Nations (e.g., Slobodan Milosevic).

Barring that, the U.S. criminal courts are the proper venue. KSM committed a grave crime that cost American lives on U.S. soil.

To that end, the United States has a robust and well tested criminal justice system capable of meting out justice to the most heinous of criminals. (And I see KSM not as a soldier but as a cowardly thug and murderer—a common criminal.) Our justice system is transparent and has credibility both with Americans and internationally. As a patriot I am proud of it (although I recognize its imperfections) and believe it is an appropriate venue to bring justice to thugs like KSM.

posted by: blue dog dem on February 3, 2010  2:47pm

eddie,

Actually KSM’s trial had just begun when Obama was sworn in and they stopped the proceedings.  The fact that the trials were slow to start was based upon all the frivolous pre-trial motions filed by activists rather than by the defense or prosecutors.  Neither the previous administration nor the military had any control over whether or not some idiot with a law license was going to file an amicus curae motion to slow down the process.  They can be considered frivolous because none of them had merit and did anything to change the case except for slowing down the process.

The major problem with how to treat these prisoners was that the US had little experience with acts of terror occuring on our soil.  One of the only times it happened previously was by Germans prior to WWI in New Jersey, when they blew up a munitions plant and cracked the Statue of Liberty.  Therefore there was no case law nor statutes dealing directly with this kind of criminal caught on foreign soil. 

You are entitled to your belief that our court system is justified, though I believe you to be mistaken.  Also you never addressed the fact that all of the evidence is tainted and therefore charges should be dismissed. 

KSM’s “grave crime” is conspiracy and if the gov’t has to remove all evidence gathered without warrant or that was obtained without Miranda warnings, there is no conspiracy.  That is the easiest crime to convict, but only if you can prove two or more persons were involved.  I don’t know what other crimes they want to bring.

So using your logic, it is perfectly fine to have the case in federal court, and in the first pre-trial conference, defense moves for dismissal for lack of evidence and its granted because you can’t pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you are going to allow the terrorist and which ones you won’t.

posted by: ct web design on February 3, 2010  4:30pm

For once I agree with DeStefano, if NYC is willing to be cowed, let them do it here. Fear of what could be is no reason to curtail how our society deals in justice and I believe that people like this should face open court, albeit under heavy security. Let them see how American’s deal with terrorists. To do so behind closed doors is not our way.

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on February 4, 2010  1:40pm

“Let them see how American’s deal with terrorists. To do so behind closed doors is not our way.”

Extract intelligence from these enemies of the nation, try them in a court of military justice and shoot them.  Obama/Holder believe the enemy should have the benefit of a civil trial—a symbol of Western civilization, which the enemy abhors and would destroy.  They are not entitled—in any way—to the rights of American citizens.

get ANDI

Events Calendar

loading…

SeeClickFix »

Alarm Noise
May 25, 2012 2:24 pm
Address: 610 Whitney Avenue (Alarm Noise Coming From This Direction) New Haven, CT
Rating: 1

Alarm noise coming from 610 Whitney Avenue direction

UI unneccesarily blocking traffic
May 25, 2012 1:49 pm
Address: Temple And Chapel New Haven, CT
Rating: 2

UI has blocked the center lane on the green side of Temple Street for work on the other side of...

more »

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design