Get News & Views Updates
Progressive Community
The press releases posted here have been submitted by
America's Progressive Community
For further information or to comment on this press release, please contact the organization directly.
Most Popular This Week
Today's Top News
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: Human Rights First |
9/11 Widows, National Security Experts, Federal Prosecutors Say Fearmongering Must Stop
"Those opposed to federal court trials for these men have speculated about a lot of things – our safety, procedural problems, time. I don't want speculation. I want results. Since the 9/11 attacks, the only forum that has given victims' families results in the war on terror is our federal courts," said Lorie Van Auken, a 9/11 widow.
Monica Gabrielle, also a 9/11 widow, added, "Holding these trials in New York City guarantees victims' families and New Yorkers a front row seat to the justice we deserve and have waited for, for eight long years. It will allow us to watch our Constitution fulfill its promise of protecting our society, and it will mark another chapter in this painful journey to justice."
In a recent study of 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants filed since 2001 in the normal federal court system, Human Rights First found that of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. By contrast, the military commissions are a failed system that has secured only 3 convictions and their continued use threatens to perpetuate the legacy of failed trial and detention policies at Guantanamo.
Van Auken is not alone is her support for bringing the federal trials to New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Charles Schumer, and New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have all voiced support for Attorney General Holder's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in federal court.
Retired Brigadier General James P. Cullen, a New Yorker and former member of the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, agrees, stating, "I lost a good friend at the World Trade Center, and I lost a good friend in Baghdad, but I think that the symbolism of bringing these guys to trial in New York is as equally important as assuring the world that when they are tried, they are going to get a full and fair trial. Bringing them to New York, which was the scene of the crime and the terrible incidents of September 11th, is particularly appropriate. When we convened the Nuremberg Trials, we deliberately chose Nuremberg as the site where we were going to convict those people who had formulated, and the symbol of the formulation had occurred in the city where so much of the horrendous work of the Nazis carried out was first imagined. I think we are going to do the same when we bring these people to New York and conduct their trials here."
A chief concern among experts who support federal trials for those accused in the 9/11 conspiracy is ending the misconception that these men deserve "warrior status" – a distinction that has been one of Al Qaeda's most effective recruiting tools.
From the organization's New York City office, Human Rights First President and Chief Executive Officer Elisa Massimino concluded, "The victims of 9/11 and the American public deserve to see justice done, and the best way to achieve that is by prosecuting these men in a credible criminal justice system where the focus will be on their culpability, not on the legitimacy or fairness of the proceedings. Moving these cases out of military commissions and into the federal courts is smart counter-terrorism strategy. It treats the perpetrators as the criminals they are and deprives them of the warrior status they crave. This is an important distinction and will help thwart their ability to recruit others to their cause."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


2 Comments so far
Show AllThe U.S.A, innocent victim of (C.I.A. created as part of Charley Wilson's war) Al Qaeda, Is not innocent. The courts, civilian or military of the world's greatest terrorist have no legitimacy. They play the same role for the U.S. gov't that Stalin's played in an earlier time...
Quote: "In a recent study of 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants filed since 2001 in the normal federal court system, Human Rights First found that of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea".
This is a little late for posting on this article; probably no one or else very, very few people will ever see this post, much less read it. However, the above-quoted statement does not prove beyond any and all doubt that the convictions were really correctly handed down. For one thing, there were NOT 195 "terrorists" involved in the whole story of the 9-11 attacks. Secondly, WE did not see the evidence against these convicted people, so all we have is a news media report that tells us basically nothing about how the judgements were arrived at. Thirdly, NO trials regarding the perpetration of the attacks on 9-11 will ever be complete without re-opening the 9-11 inquiry invesigation with thorough honesty and fully, leaving no pertinent and important questions unanswered unless some truly can't be answered. Most of the illegitimately unanswered questions, however, are of the answerable kind and Osama Bin Ladin was not responsible for the attacks according to his first words regarding the accusation that he was supposedly responsible; the accusation from the wholly and extremely rogue Bush-Cheney administration, which never really planned to capture, arrest and prosecute Osama Bin Laden, as even Bush Jr later said that he didn't care about the whereabouts of OBL and that he could just be left free.
Fourthly, a lot or most, if not all, of the confessions of people detained at Guantanamo Bay Prison were after a lot of torture and it's be repeatedly said by qualified people that these types of confessions cannot be justly considered valid.
The trials in NYC could be the just way of treating the detainees, but only if the 9-11 investigation is throughly re-conducted with complete honesty and access to all relevant documentation that Bush Jr, Cheney and the CIA refused to provide to the initial inquiry, the 9-11 Commission. And of course the confessions after a lot of torture have to be re-examined with great seriousness, instead of treated at face value.
We do NOT have a re-opening of the 9-11 investigation, let alone a thoroughly honest and complete re-investigation, and we don't know what the jurists heard, received for evidence against the 195 former detainees who are convicted of being guilty for terrorism and while this had to surely be in relation to the 9-11 attacks; unless it included judging these convicted people for the attack on the USS Cole and the two U.S. embassies in Africa during the Clinton administration. The latter two sets of events are not what I've learned that these trials in NYC are about though; only having read that these trials are about the 9-11 attacks.
What evidence was presented to the jurists who convicted these 195 people?(!)