There is no logic in the worry about the NYC Trials!!!

[KansasVoter]

I must be missing something in the worry about holding the trials in New York?

Is the worry another 9/11 type terrorist attack? If so, it really make no logical sense. So people think the terrorists can do an attack anytime they want and just need a reason to do one? So the terrorists are sitting around with a great idea for an attack on NYC but just need a reason to do it. So the trial will be a good enough reason, so they will do it then.

Don't you think if the terrorists had a terror attack ready to launch they would do it now anyway? Why wait for the trial? During the trial the city will be excepting something so security would be higher. Why not just do it now and catch them off guard?

Also, they are talking about the expense. If the city needs to spend money to get ready to prevent a terror attack then does that mean they are vulnerable to an attack all the other days when there is not a trial? I really don't know why you need extra security to put ONE MAN on trial. Does he have super powers or something?

So it comes down to this....

-Is NYC unprepared for a terror attack? If so, fix that problem regardless of the trial!
-Can the terrorists pull off a major attack any time they want, but are just waiting for the trial? I seriously doubt it or we would have them all the time. They would not wait. They have enough reasons to hate us regardless of the trials.

If I am missing something please let me know.

[Teaser]

1. I can see the logistical argument

It will be a pain in the ass for people. But as for actual fear, no, not really.

[KansasVoter]

2. But why change anything for the people........

If you need to tighten security during the trial of ONE MAN then that means the city is not prepared for a normal attack? The terrorists are not a worry except when there is a trial?

[dflprincess]

25. It has nothing to do with being prepared for an attack

Have you ever been in that area during the day - especially around lunch time or at rush hour? It's a pain to get around by foot or vehicle as is - the last thing anyone needs is having streets blocked off. There's a lot of smaller business that would probably be hurt by that as well. (And I've only been there as a tourist - enjoying the crowd and the rush - but I can't quite imagine dealing with it everyday.)

A change of venue would not be unusual in this sort of high profile trial. McVeigh was tried in Denver, not Oklahoma City.

[yellerpup]

3. Having spent the month of November on federal jury duty

and serving in the building where these trials would take place, I agree with our local politicians. During the trial that I served on, the 'gitmo' prosecutions were announced and drills involving police, fire, military, and police started taking place. Not wanting the trials to take place here is not a matter of fear but logistics. If you ever walked around in the neighborhood on your lunch hour you wouldn't doubt why it's a bad idea and you wouldn't be accusing New Yorkers of stupidity or cowardice.

[KansasVoter]

5. But that means NYC is not prepared any other day?

Then the terrorists should do the attack on an unprepared day. Totally worthless logic!

[yellerpup]

8. Just pointing out that you don't understand the problem.

New Yorkers are prepared as much as anyone in the world can be prepared on any given day. You misinterpreted what I said. I should have followed my instincts and not replied to your worthless thread.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yellerpup]

12. Hop in the truck and come visit the Big City.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

[KansasVoter]

13. LOL......classic! Sounds like Bush explaining his reasons for the WAR!

[yellerpup]

14. I disagree with you so you liken me to Bush?

It isn't my fault that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Jennicut]

4. Just the cost is an issue for me. Other than that it is ridiculous that our court system

cannot handle this sort of trial.

[KansasVoter]

6. My point is why is the cost higher......

If it is because security needs to be better, then any other day the terrorists should be destroying the city.

[Jennicut]

10. That is a good point.

NYC is hard to secure to begin with...maybe they need to look at their current security procedures.

[leftynyc]

19. It's not just security for US (New Yorkers)

It's security for HIM - millions of NYers want his head on a platter. Add into that all the world's press camping on the court's steps and the mayor is right. It would be too expensive and would add undue burden to the folks that work downtown. I wanted it in NY and even would love to sit on the jury. NY is as ready as any other city (more so) to withstand a terrorist attack so your entire premise is bullshit.

[Cassandra]

7. Apparently it's upcoming negotiations with unions.

Bloomberg doesn't want to be seen spending huge amounts on the trials and then say to the unions he can't find money for them. He'd rather say no to both. Nothing to do with fear.

[KansasVoter]

11. That sounds like a very good point.....

But I still don't understand why you need to spend so much more money for one trial unless the other days the place is not secure.

[CTyankee]

15. Kansas, you need to read "Securing the City:Inside America's Best Counterterror Force--the NYPD"

by Christopher Dickey, just out last year.

This book is a fascinating read about how the NYPD has taken one of its most potent assets--40% of its population are foreign born--to its advantage in protecting the city. They have the translators in a myriad of ME languages that our own federal agencies don't have, new cops from among the newly arrived immigrants who are dead set on protecting their new home land and a deadly serious police department that sends investigators everywhere that there are Al Quaeda attacks to do their own investigation and learn from Quaeda's latest techniques and bring their findings back to NYC. And much, much more about their intriguing police maneuvers to discourage an would be terrorist from even THINKING about pulling off an attack.

BUT, author Dickey worries at the cost of all this to NYC. It is enormously expensive yet enormously effective. READ THIS BOOK.

I think this issue is largely driven by the concerns of costs to the city's economic base during the trial. Real estate people are against it because they think it will interfere with their day to day business (which it probably will), for instance.

My son and dtr in law both live and work in NYC. While I don't think it would disrupt their work (she works in publishing and he is a prosecutor) I can see the economic impact argument (I have also lived in the city, tho many years ago).

There is an idea afloat to have the trial moved to someplace out of Manhattan (Governor's Island was mentioned) that can be militarily protected while still having it be a federal court trial.

[leftynyc]

20. Have you ever been to NY?

Your questions make it sound like the answer is no. Have you ever had a high profile trial where you live? Was there not extra security for the defendant and for the lawyers? Was the world press cramming every street and making it impossible for the general population to get to work and home again?

[Bitwit1234]

16. What I want to know is this

Do the people of New York think so less of our security system that they are scared of a terrorist attack. Of terrorist walking right in to the courts or any place else and attacking.

No the people of New York don't think that. The republicans, who are edging on the media are the ones trying to push that idea. They know the bush administration was asleep at the wheel and didn't even have an inkling of the pending 9/11 attack. So they have to try to pin something on the Democratic administration.

I don't understand how they can convince the stupid people that it was OK for bush to try those terrorists in our courts, but the Democrats can't. And the Democrats have to do exactly what the republicans want because remember they KNOW how to give us security. Look at the original Twin Tower attack, the anthrax attack and even tho the terrorist did not attack New Orleans, we saw what give of level of assistance the bush administration gave there.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

17. Here's Bill Maher's take on the NY Trials

"President Obama made a point the other day in speaking at the Republican retreat to say he wasn't an ideologue, and while there was skepticism in his audience about whether that was true, there was agreement in both parties that not being an ideologue is a good thing.

Is it? Maybe the problem is that neither party has any ideology anymore -- it's just all about getting the money you need to run commercials at election time, and being against whatever the other party is for. For example, why is the decision to have the trial of Khalid "Shake Shake Shake" Mohammed in New York a Democratic position, and not having it in New York a Republican position? "

continued: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/to-pass-health-care-democ_b_443710.html

[Beacool]

18. If you think that it's a nothing issue, please have the trial in KS.

You are more than welcome to it. I think that NY has given enough lives and had enough stress for one city to bear.

The Downtown area is very congested. A trial of this caliber means that many streets will be closed. This is an inconvenience to the people who live and work in the area, aside from the loss of business at a time when business owners can't afford to lose any customers.

More importantly, it would be a stressful situation for many who of us who lived through 9/11.

:(

[harkadog]

21. +1

[Beacool]

23. I just love it how people who are not from this area think they can decide what's best for the city.

Many of us lived through that ordeal and don't need a reminder. Seeing every day the whole in the sky where two towers used to be is reminder enough of what that bastard and his buddies did to us. He can rot in hell. As far as I'm concerned they can put him against a wall and execute him. Better yet, leave him inside a burning high-rise and let him make the decision whether to jump out a window, be burned alive or go down with the building when it collapses.

x(

[KansasVoter]

22. Thanks, the terrorists love that! They once again scare us! I would BE GLAD to have it here!!!

[Beacool]

27. Good, have fun!!! Maybe Holder will change the venue to your state.

Next time around someone else can have the "fun" of seeing people jump to their death and have a jetliner almost land on top of them as it crashes into a building. Around here we don't need to be reminded of that day, it's a constant presence in our minds. Having lived it is not the same as watching it from the safe distance of your home.

It's not about being scared, it's about pulling the scab off a wound that hasn't yet fully healed.

:(

[Orlancolon]

29. By that logic, if a man rapes and kills many women in NY he should he be tried somewhere else

So that we are not reminded of the terrible crimes. Am I using good logic here?
Is that how our system was intended to work?

[jberryhill]

24. I guess that's why NY prosecutors don't do Mafia trials anymore... /nt

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I think the logic goes like this

The KSM will be a costly high profile trial like say the OJ trial, the Michael Jackson trial, or any other high profile trial and thus it will require more security and will bring a lot of press and cause a lot of chaos.

Trying KSM in a civilian court is "optional" because the Bush Administration's Justice Department said so. Therefore Obama is "opting" to spend more money than he has to.

[Orlancolon]

28. One angle we have failed to tackle: Bloomberg and President Obama get along very well

President Obama gave Bloomberg's opponent Bill Thompson an endorsement so tepid that the New York Times called it "sort of" an endorsement. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/nyregion/10endorse.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

I'm not going to get into whether it's a good move, a bad move, etc. All I know is that in politics, politicians usually want to give wealthy moderates (such as Bloomberg) what they want. If Bloomberg gets mad he may go ahead and endorse a Republican in 2012, which wouldn't be good electorally.

[boppers]

30. There is no logic in worry.

There is, however, politics in worry.