Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Monday, November 16, 2009


“‘It should show that our legal system is the most mature legal system in the history of the world,’ [he said], ‘that it works well, that that is the place to seek vindication if you feel your rights have been violated.’”(1) [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

 “[M]any who were bruised by the traumatic event were certain that no verdict by a jury or punishment by a judge will exorcise the pain and terror that remain. …[He]i declared that the verdict ‘demonstrates that New Yorkers won’t meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon — the law.’ (2) [The New York Times, 3/5/94]

 “I think it shows you put terrorism on one side, you put our legal system on the other, and our legal system comes out ahead,” [he said]. (3) [CBS Evening News, 3/5/94]

(1), (2), (3) Rudy Giuliani

Weeks after Sept. 11, Giuliani “framed the attacks in the language of crime, describing the hijackers as ‘insane murderers’ and calling for restoration of the ‘rule of law.’



Fact Sheet: Prosecuting and Detaining Terror Suspects in the U.S. Criminal Justice System

I. Terror Prosecutions in the Southern District of New York

Since the 1990s, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) has investigated and successfully prosecuted a wide range of international and domestic terrorism cases — including the bombings of the World Trade Center and U.S. Embassies in East Africa in the 1990s. More recent cases include those against individuals who provided material support to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as against international arms trafficker Monzer al Kassar and the Somalian pirate charged in the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama.

Major Historical Cases in SDNY:

1993 World Trade Center Bombing: After two trials, in 1993 and 1997, six defendants were convicted and sentenced principally to life in prison for detonating a truck bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring hundreds more. One of the defendants convicted at the second trial was Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack.

1994-95 Manila Air Plot: Ramzi Yousef and two others were convicted in 1996 for plotting to plant bombs aboard a dozen U.S. commercial aircraft that were timed to go off as the planes were flying over the Pacific. The defendants were sentenced to substantial prison terms. Yousef concocted the plan with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is currently detained at Guantanamo Bay and has been indicted in SDNY for the Manila Air conspiracy since 1996.

1995 "Blind Sheikh" Trial: Ten defendants associated with a mosque in Brooklyn, N.Y., were convicted of plotting to blow up the World Trade Center, United Nations headquarters, and various bridges, tunnels and landmarks in and around New York City. The lead defendant, Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the "Blind Sheikh," was sentenced to life in prison, while his co-defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging between life and 25 years.

Bin Laden Indictment and Embassy Bombings Trial: Shortly after the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, SDNY indicted Usama Bin Laden and approximately 20 alleged al-Qaeda loyalists for conspiring to murder Americans worldwide. Many of the defendants were also charged for their roles in the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in East Africa, including three defendants who were convicted after a six-month trial in early 2001. Those three defendants, and a fourth al-Qaeda member who was tried with them, were all sentenced to life in prison.

Recent Cases in SDNY:

James Cromitie et al.: On May 20, 2009, four individuals -- James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen -- were arrested on charges arising from a plot to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx, N.Y., and to shoot Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles at military planes located at a the National Guard Base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, N.Y. On June 2, 2009, all four defendants were charged in an eight-count indictment and face potential life in prison, if convicted.*

Oussama Kassir: On May 12, 2009, Oussama Kassir was convicted of charges related to his participation in an effort to establish a jihad training camp in Oregon and his operation of several terrorist Web sites containing instructions about how to make bombs and poisons. Kassir was found guilty of all 11 charges against him, including providing material support to al-Qaeda and distributing information on explosives and weapons of mass destruction.

Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse: On April 21, 2009, accused Somalian pirate Abduwali Abdukhadir Muse was transported to the SDNY to face criminal charges stemming from his alleged participation in the April 8, 2009, hijacking of the Maersk Alabama container ship in the Indian Ocean. Muse is charged in a 10-count indictment and faces a mandatory life sentence, if convicted.*


aoindependence said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shaw Kenawe said...

To the commenter who came here using the name "aoindependence:" I found your rant over at The Magic Negro blog.

It's not hard to discover frauds.

My blog is not a forum for you to copy and paste your rambling, disconnected thoughts. Please use the walls of the local gas station to share your insights with your fellow travelers.

Thank you.

Shaw Kenawe said...

PS. It is typical of some of these ranting commenters to be deceptive on who they are.

These are the seething, spittle fleckers who go postal because they believe Mr. Obama is a liar.


Incredible hypocrites--and really dumb because their deceptions are so easily found out.


dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Botton line is.........
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn't own."

Proof Positive said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Petition to Barack Obama said...

Shaw Kenawe said...

PS. It is typical of some of these ranting commenters to be deceptive on who they are.
These are the seething, spittle fleckers who go postal because they believe Mr. Obama is a liar

YES, Mr. Obama IS a liar
and he's a Marxist also, and is seeking total dictatorship over all in America. Obama is a liar which can be proven over and again. A country will not remain free if the press becomes beholden to a political party. The Democrats and Obama are now dictating what the major media reports.
Wake up America…we are being lied to by Marxist Obama and the Democrats in Congress and the major media. Of course,,Marxist Obama and the Democrats in Congress are considering a new bill to provide the Pres. complete control over the internet. This means that Marxist Obama could block this post as it is not friendly to him and his goal..i.e. dictatorship. At least Hitler had been a corporal before he became a military genius, this guy was mealy a Community Organizer.
He lied to us from the moment he stepped onto the national stage to campaign for the presidency, Obama has consistently lied to the American people in order to convince us to trust him with our economic and national security. Since becoming our president, he has betrayed that trust.

During his first eight months in office, Obama has exhibited his admiration for dictators and disdain for our allies. He offended the Queen of England and bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. He praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega, kissed Socialist Hugo Chavez on the cheek and endorsed the Socialist Evo Morales of Bolivia. He sided with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras, a country that followed its constitution and stopped its president from illegally turning himself into that country’s dictator. Obama announced that he would meet with Iranians with no pre-conditions, while they’re building their nuclear weapons.

dmarks said...

"YES, Mr. Obama IS a liar
and he's a Marxist also, and is seeking total dictatorship over all in America"

Yawn. I heard the last part over and over again during the Bush years. It did not fly then, it does not fly now.

And no, I am not an Obama voter, and I have a lot of disagreements with him on policies.

Petition to Barack Obama said...

Sorry Mr.dmarks it's not the same, it's very different. At least Mr. Bush loved America.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shaw Kenawe said...

My goodness, it appears the inmates have taken over while I was out.

Let's see, an anonymous commenter @ 10:21 deposited a drive-by useless comment; Proof Positive drops in and does some name-calling [always a fall back when one has nothing intelligent to say--kids do it in the schoolyard all the time; "Petition to Barack Obama" is, by far the most hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

PtBO says Obama is a liar then offers not one shred of evidence to back up its moronic allegation. It's easy to call someone you don't like a "poopyhead" when you haven't anything smart to say, eight-year old children do it all the time when they're frustrated. LOL!

Schoolyard taunts, accusations, rants, lies, and tantrums are all "Petition to Barack Obama" has going for it, and PtBO beautifully expresses its deeply felt and deeply deserved inferiority complex by doing so.

Anger and the inability to deal with their own failures define these sorts of commenters.

Then, finally, the moronic "Anonymous" @ 12"48 comes by to further infect my comments.

What sad, rudderless, foolish people.

Please, all of you, go find an angry, fearful, apoplectic rightwing blog to vent your frustrations and to show off your atrocious writings.

Thank you. And have a nice day.

Jim said...

I'm wondering SK why you didn't mention Rudy G's reversal of his opinions this past Sunday?

Click Here for Fox News Sunday interview.

Oy Vey! said...

"Sorry Mr.dmarks it's not the same, it's very different. At least Mr. Bush loved America."

Oh. So now the Goopers can read Mr. Obama's emotions and know what is in the deepest recesses of his mind?

Beware of idiots who tell you THEY KNOW what someone else is thinking and feeling.

You will recognize these folks by the tinfoil hats they wear.

Tom said...

It is NOT the tradition of Americans to say such things about their President. It IS the tradition of Americans to support their President in times of war.

I've heard Bush called Hitler, now I've heard Obama called Hitler. What garbage!

Our enemies must be licking their chops (it gives them comfort) listening to how some of us negatively define our own President.

Such speech aids our enemies, and that is as un-American as it gets. Those who claim free speech, must be responsible.

These prosecutions should have taken place years ago. I only hope that the illegal treatment by the Bush administration of these killers, does not harm the prosecutions case.

There are procedural differences in whether they are tried civilly, or militarily. Convictions in either court means they will be put to death.

There is a debate to have over which court is best to use, but that is an internal debate for those responsible to make.

Attorney General Holder has made his decision. Like other disagreements we have, the debate is over, it's time to get behind the process and practice American justice upon these killers.

The extreme "right" (haters of the President) also seem to have no confidence in and hate our judicial system. Also, as un-American as it gets.

They sound like Stalin when he said of the Nuremberg trials, "Trials are a waste of time, just shoot them (Nazis)."

Stalin practiced that thinking against millions of his countrymen.

We live by the rule of law, thank God, and those who want to reject that system, should be labeled anti-American.

Our judicial process needs to be supported. It's more important than who is President.

Seems the right would rather see the President fail, than these trials succeed.

libhom said...

New Yorkers deserve justice in courts of law. Giuliani has sold out to fringe GOP primary voters.

TRUTH 101 said...

The irony of the deluded right never fails to amuse me Shaw. On one hand, they will praise the Founding Fathers and demand we follow their intent. The say follow The Constitution and the rule of law. Then they want trial by jury to go away when it becomes inconvenient to their agenda.

Shaw Kenawe said...


In that interview, Giuliani never says WHY a military court is better than a civilian court, and he doesn't speak to the fact that the Bush Administration never handled this problem but left it unresolved for 8 years for some other administration to clean up.

And I would never NEVER trust the judgment of a man who nominated Bernie Kerik, now a convicted felon, to be the head of Homeland Security! I don't believe Giuliani didn't know what a scumbag Kerik was.

Shaw Kenawe said...


John Adams made himself very, very unpopular when he was the defense lawyer FOR the British soldiers during their trial for the Boston Massacre:

"It was the most controversial case of its day — the defense of the British soldiers accused of carrying out what would come to be known as the Boston Massacre. Amid the outrage and fury that followed the shooting, which resulted in the deaths of five colonists, one young Boston attorney courageously took the case to ensure that justice was served.

The presence of British troops, who had occupied Boston since 1768 in an effort to put down resistance to the Crown’s policy of taxation without representation, had been a source of mounting tension in the colonial city. Things came to a head on the snowy evening of March 5, 1770 when a small group of Bostonians gathered to taunt a British sentry. As the crowd grew into a mob of hundreds, several soldiers under the command of Captain Thomas Preston came to the assistance of the besieged sentry. Rocks and snowballs were thrown and soon the soldiers opened fire. When it was over, three civilians lay dead at the scene with two more mortally wounded.

With a public enraged by what they saw as an act of brutality by their British occupiers, Captain Preston and his men were indicted for murder by the colonial government. Because of the virulent anti-British sentiment in Boston, no lawyers in the city would agree to defend the soldiers, believing it would be the end of their legal careers. But John Adams, an outspoken critic of the British occupation, recognized the importance of a fair trial for the accused and agreed to represent them. Adams later wrote that he risked infamy and even death, and incurred much popular suspicion and prejudice, for the sense of duty he felt to offer the British soldiers an adequate defense.

Of his decision to represent the British soldiers, Adams wrote in his diary:

"The part I took in defense of captain Preston and the soldiers, procured me anxiety, and obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country. Judgment of death against those soldiers would have been as foul a stain upon this country as the executions of the Quakers or witches, anciently.”

Captain Preston and six of his men were acquitted while two others who were convicted of manslaughter were sentenced to be branded with an “m” on their thumbs."

Arthurstone said...

There are a lot of people not at all eager for the exposure they will receive once these trials start. The 'war on terror' has taken more illegal shortcuts than it's enthusiasts care to admit. Giuliani's craven action is completely in character. The man hasn't yet met a principle he couldn't compromise.

Jim said...

Tom said, "It is NOT the tradition of Americans to say such things about their President."

I'm not sure what you mean by "such things" but let me assure you it is an American tradition since Washington to criticize the sitting President in the most vile manner.

Now, about this civilian trial. It does not seem to be a good idea on several levels. First, these men acted not as criminals but as combatants. They stated that their acts were acts of war. Second, they weren't given Miranda. It is my belief they were captured on the field of battle. We have never given combatants the Miranda. Third, they were tortured. Water boarding is torture, no doubt about it. Fourth, they are given Constitutional rights as non-citizens and can be acquitted and let free. Is this the justice we want?

Military tribunals are an effective way to get justice. Why risk an acquittal in our fickle criminal justice system? I wonder what Daniel Pearl would think of this? Just asking.

Jim said...

Hey, here's something to really think about.

Illinois could not protect the public from Al Capone. One wonders how they will do with Al Quaeda?

Just asking.

Tom said...

Comments like:

Obama is Hitler
Obama is not an American citizen
Obama is a Marxist
Obama hates America
Obama wants to destroy America
Obama Eats Babies
Obama is a Muslim
Obama is a racist

And the list goes endlessly on, with even more vile examples.

These courageous haters of the President of the United States hide their hate in anonymity, with statements that are simply vulgar lies.

It feeds the same kind of propaganda and lies that our enemies are trying to tell the World about our President. Why help our enemies?

McCarthy was stopped from spewing his lies and harm to people by a simple statement from an American reflecting American civil manners. We need more of that, NOW.

Capone died in prison.

If the Bush administration had acted legally in the first place, we would not have to worry about our justice system judging these killers.

A "fickle" civil justice system?

We have lived by it for over 200 years and it has served us well. It has successfully convicted some of the most heinous criminals on Earth. Just last week a sniper killer was executed.

Sure, military trial would be easier, it has less rights for the accused and limitations on what can be made public.

Shaw gives a GREAT example of the meaning of our justice system.

The key to our justice system is not giving punishment, but defending those who are accused of criminal acts.

Let the World see and hear it!

What are we afraid of?

Why are we afraid to practice our laws in openness and transparency?

Anonymous said...

Tom said:
If the Bush administration had acted legally in the first place, we would not have to worry about our justice system judging these killers.

Ya forgot to mention Nixon.

And then you asked, "What are we afraid of"?

We are afraid that some Liberal PC judge will throw out the whole case.

That's what!

Shaw Kenawe said...

To the Anonymous commenter @ 4:50:

Another rightwinger who has absolutely no faith in the United States Criminal Justice System.

Your comment is inane.

Jim said...

Tom, our enemies are going to say whatever they are going to say whether or not we, as Americans, comment on OUR president or not. No need to worry about what is not in our control.

However, feeding the propagandists of our enemies will be immensely helped with a civil trial of our government, and don't doubt that the lawyers defending the terrorists will do just that. Just how much transparency do you want? Till we are totally defenseless?

Just asking.

Jim said...

Let's see, a fickle justice system that produced:

1) OJ walking away from murder due to jury "nullification".

2) Southern racists walking away from murder due to racist juries.

3) During the 60's and part of the 70's it was either jail or Vietnam.

Though our system of justice is the best ever devised it is not without its quirks.

Tom said...

How does having a public trial leave us defenseless?

TRUTH 101 said...

Why not just shoot them now and forget about our justice system Jim?

I love my Country enoughthat I will trust the system that separates us from the scum of the world.

And for your info dude, I have several friends who are prison guards in Illinois. They know how to handle punks just fine. Relax. Or are you mad a prison in your state will not be opened and the jobs that could have been but weren't. The public safety of having a place to put criminals instead of on the street because legislators were too panzi to ask taxpayers to pay a few more bucks to keep them locked up.
Last I heard the Blind Shiek was still behind bars. So was Charles Manson. Tookie Williams got executed. So far, so good Jim. Relax.

Jim said...

Tom ole buddy, state secrets will be revealed don't ya know. Figure it out for yerself, if you can.

I ain't got no beef for jobs there t101. But when Al Capone was king there were less, well, restrictions on law enforcement, and Illinois could not prevent Al from killing at will. I'm sure your guard friends are good, so they are as well in California, but they get hurt in a mass riot. Don't think Al Quaeda can't do a simple prison riot?

Tom said...

Have a little courage Jim, we have cops that will protect you.
Have a little confidence in our system Jim, it has worked for hundreds of years and millions of people.
What secrets are we afraid of JIM? That Saddam has WMD's. That the CIA is in Afghanistan, Iraq, China, etc. How we torture?
Did you hear Jim? President Obama is sending over 100 GITMO prisoners to Illinois prisons. Better head for your bunker Jim. Pull a blanket over your head. I'll email you when they have left Illinois.
You are a wimp of an American. Ronald Reagan would not be proud of you, or John Wayne either.

dmarks said...

Truth said:

"because legislators were too panzi to ask taxpayers to pay a few more bucks to keep them locked up."

If Illinois is a typical state, the taxpayers are paying more than enough to keep the criminals locked up.

Jim said...

Tom, a personal attack? Typical of libs. How appropriate that you use Daffy to portray yourself.

Tom said...


"Figure it out for yerself, if you can."

I saw this statement by you as to infer I was to stupid to understand the issue. You get the respect you deserve. If you can't spell try using a dictionary, or at least spell check.

Jim said...

Tom, I did not imply stupidity at all. Sorry if you took it that way. If I wanted to call you stupid I would say so.

BTW, Capone did not die in prison. Click here to find out where.

Tom said...

There is no other way to read your comment, except as an insult.

What is it you meant to say?

You say one thing and then say it meant something else. Typical conservative irrationality.

Your original comment about Capone is that the authorities could not and did not stop him, they did.

The humanity of our justice system, allowed him to die outside of prison.

To try and claim that supports your original comment, is irrational.

Having a conversation with someone as irrational as you, is useless.

Jim said...

Hey Daffy, you need pictures or what?

Again, Illinois did not have anything to do with Capone going to jail. Do you know what put him there? Here's a hint; he did not go to prison in Illinois.

As to this comment: "
The humanity of our justice system, allowed him to die outside of prison." So. Am I to imply that according to your justice it is OK to let vicious killers out of prison because they may die in that prison? Of natural causes of course and not due to forced death by the system.

So. Let's look at a scenario that may happen to the killer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The trial lasts for months. Intelligence gathering procedures of the military and other government agencies are made public, therefore made useless in the defense of the country. The sheikh uses the publicity to recruit. Lawyers make millions off the taxpayer. In the end the Sheikh gets a life sentence. He begins his term in the federal prison recently obtained from the State of Illinois. In 6 years the sheikh develops terminal cancer of the prostate. He is sent home due to the humanity of our justice system. The 9/11 families are outraged. The sheikh has a boondoggle of recruits before his death.

Maybe t101 has a point, just shoot 'em now.

Tom said...

He went to prison in Florida on a federal tax rap, but again it's useless to have a conversation with such an irrational, insulting person. Have a nice life.

Jim said...

Hey Daffy, you are so right about being irrational and insulting. Next time, do your research and you won't look so bad. ;-)