Hello Everyone:

I definitely think that Obama and Eric Holder have made a very big mistake to hold the 9/11 trial in New York City because it is a VERY divisive issue (even among Democrats), there will be many possible complications that could happen which would cost Obama a lot of his political capital & credibility, and it will more than likely be a major distraction from health care and from other important issues:

1) Holding the 9/11 trial in New York City is a VERY divisive issue even with credible Democrats like Sen. Jim Webb:

A) Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33913564/ns/politics/

Lawmakers differ on Gitmo trial decision

McCain warns of 'mixed message' sent by trying detainees in civilian court

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 1:31 p.m. CT, Fri., Nov . 13, 2009

WASHINGTON - "The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Friday that the decision to take Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantamao detainees to New York to put them on trial in a federal civilian court is the right one.

Democrat Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terror cases.

Putting the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind and the other suspects on trial in federal courts demonstrates to the world that "the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system," he added.

But former Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that suspected terrorists should be treated as war criminals and tried in military tribunals...

Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, also supports the use of military tribunals in terrorism cases.

Bringing Mohammed and the other detainees to New York for trial could be "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive," Webb said Friday."

B) Regardless of who is right or wrong, just the very fact that Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) disagree on this issue shows how VERY divisive that it is which is NOT a good thing:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/13/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

9/11 Suspects Headed to Civilian Court; Palin Picking New Fights

Aired November 13, 2009 - 16:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "You know, let me just read to you, Congressman -- hold on, Governor, for a second -- because not only governors are being critical of the president's decision today. Democratic Senator Jim Webb of Virginia released a statement that said this in part -- and Congressman, I want you to react to it -- "Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disrupted, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts."

That statement from Jim Webb.

Go ahead and respond to Senator Webb.

REP. JOE SESTAK (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Absolutely. I have great respect for Jim Webb, but we disagree..."

2) There will be MANY possible complications that can happen which would cost Obama a lot of his political capital & credibility:

CNN's senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained how complex that this trial will be, what can potentially go wrong, how that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed & the four others for all practical purposes in the federal courtroom have all the rights of U.S. citizens, how we cannot predict what will happen at this point, how long that this trial will take, and the risks that Obama is taking (I realize that this is a lot of information but it is VERY important in my opinion and I summarized it as well as I could):

A) What Jeffrey Toobin told Wolf Blitzer on CNN in The Situation Room:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/13/sitroom.02.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Lawyer: Fort Hood Suspect Paralyzed; 9/11 Plotters to Get New York Trial; H1N1 Takes Heavy Toll on Minorities; NASA Confirms Water on Moon

Aired November 13, 2009 - 17:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: "Wow! What -- what is he (Eric Holder) referring to, access to information that hasn't yet been made public?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, that -- that certainly piqued my interest as well, Wolf. The context of that statement suggests this -- obviously, one of the big problems with this case is going to be the waterboarding. No American courtroom is going to admit testimony -- admit statements that someone made while they were being waterboarded.

What Holder's statement suggests is that there is other evidence of statements made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other defendant who was waterboarded. There's other evidence not tainted by the torture that will prove their guilt.

But remember, the defense here is going to argue that the waterboarding alone is so egregious that that's going to justify the dismissal of the case. I don't think that motion will win, but those are the kind of legal issues we're going to see sorted out over these many, many months it will take to get this case to trial.

BLITZER: Do Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and these four others, for all practical purposes in this federal courtroom, have all the rights of U.S. citizens?

TOOBIN: Absolutely. They're -- they're -- you're either an American defendant in an American courtroom or you're not. If you are a defendant, there are restrictions on your rights. And that mean including access to the evidence.

And that's what's so important here, because a defendant has the right to prior statements that he made. He may have the right, for example, to the videotapes of his waterboarding, if they still exist. He could broadcast them. He could use them in the courtroom. That could have tremendous propaganda advantage.

He could have access to very secret intelligence matters, which certainly are part of this investigation.

There's something called the Classified Procedures Information Act, CIPA, which limits the public disclosure of classified information. But defendants get access to this sort of information. That's something that's going to be very difficult to manage and very important in this case.

BLITZER: Because that raises the question about classified secret information.

How much access will the -- the defense attorneys have to classified information?

Will they be allowed to put it out in public?

How damaging could that be to U.S. national security if sources and methods of al Qaeda, for example, are exposed?

TOOBIN: And the stakes could not be higher, because there is nothing our government cares about more at this moment than the intelligence efforts to stop terrorism -- wiretapping, bugs, etc. And these are the worst of the worst, as Donald Rumsfeld said.

So they will have access to the greatest secrets, potentially. We'll see how the judge manages that. That's why, it, in particular, some people are worried about whether this case is a bridge too far for our legal system.

BLITZER: Can they get a fair trial in New York City?

TOOBIN: Well, you know, think about this question -- jury selection. This courtroom is about a 15 minute walk from ground zero. All the jurors will have exposure to 9/11 one way or another. Certainly, the defense may ask for a change of venue.

Is there another courtroom in America that would be secure enough for this trial?

A big issue.

But what the government will certainly say here is we will have detailed voir dire of all potential jurors. They'll fill out questionnaires. They'll be questioned under oath and that will be able to ensure a fair trial, just on the jury issue -- and that's only one issue. But, again, that's going to be very tough and the judge it's going to have to take a farm hand and he or she, in that area, like many others, will have his or her work cut out for him.

BLITZER: Jeffrey Toobin knows a lot about this stuff.

He's a former U.S. -- assistant U.S. attorney himself..."

B) What Jeffrey Toobin told Anderson Cooper when he was filling in as the guest host for Campbell Brown:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/13/ec.01.html

CAMPBELL BROWN

President Obama Delivers Speech in Japan; 9/11 Terror Suspects Headed to Civilian Court

Aired November 13, 2009 - 20:00 ET

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: "You say this -- this trial is going to be the biggest challenge to the federal court system. How so?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This is -- it is not entirely clear they can pull this off.

COOPER: Really?

TOOBIN: There's so much -- so many moving parts here.

Just think about how many difficulties they have. For example, the process of discovery, where the defendant and his lawyers are entitled to see the evidence against him and to see in fact more than that, to see their own statements.

COOPER: So, these guys will have all the rights afforded to any suspect in the United States?

TOOBIN: They are no different from any other defendant in Foley Square, the criminal courthouse in Manhattan. And that includes rights of discovery.

There is some of the most classified information all of the federal government at issue in this case, wiretaps, intercepts, national security agency material.

How will the government manage to give that to people who are considered the worst terrorists in the country?

COOPER: But doesn't a lot of that information concern events post-9/11, not the actual attacks themselves?

TOOBIN: Yes, some of it does, but remember that there are names of cooperating witnesses that they will learn. There are names of other potential al Qaeda operatives that they will learn.

There are procedures in place. There's a law called the Classified Information Procedures Act, CIPA, which attempts to strike that balance. But it's just going to be very hard, because this is information they don't want to see in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

COOPER: The fact also that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been water-boarded, not just once or twice, but more than 100 times, how does that play into it?

TOOBIN: That's an enormous issue in this case, because, certainly, any statements that he gave while being tortured in that way, the government won't even try to admit, as Eric Holder more or less acknowledged at his press conference...

A lot of things are going to happen here that don't even -- we can't even predict at this point.

COOPER: What is the timeline on here? I mean, this thing would take a long time.

TOOBIN: Slow.

COOPER: Slow.

TOOBIN: I -- look, they're not even indicted yet.

I think it is unlikely a trial -- that is, opening statements to a seated jury -- will begin before 2011. I think we're talking at least a year of pretrial proceedings and possibly more, and possibly a trial that might last a year...

COOPER: So, that basically puts it right in the heart of the next presidential election?

TOOBIN: Absolutely.

And there are going to be rocky moments. The judge is not going to act predictably. The defense is not going to act predictably. This could become a political problem for the Obama administration, if it looks like the case isn't going well or information isn't properly disclosed. It's a real risk...

COOPER: What about the argument that they can't get a fair trial in New York, which, certainly, likely their attorney would argue?

TOOBIN: Yet another huge issue, change of venue, the jury pool here.

As Holder pointed out, the -- Foley Square is about a 15-minute walk from ground zero. You can hardly avoid it. What the government will argue is that everybody in this country knows something about 9/11. It's not unique to New York. So, if you do close voir dire, if you really examine the juries, make sure they have no direct connections to victims of the attack, that's enough to guarantee the defendants a fair trial.

But some judge might want to order a change of venue. And what other courthouse in the country has the security in place to deal with a trial of this type?

COOPER: Right. Obviously, security issues would be another huge...

TOOBIN: It becomes -- the courthouse becomes a big target.

Now, they have done high-profile terrorism cases before, the Blind Sheik from the '93 attack on the World Trade Center. He was tried in this courthouse. But, again, this is much, much bigger.

Where are you going to put all the victims' families who want to watch? You know, in the Oklahoma City bombing case, there were 165 people killed. They had to have a single courtroom just for the victims' families to watch on closed-circuit TV. What are you going to do with 3,000 families? The complexity is enormous.

COOPER: And in terms of what kind of a defense team this guy will get, is this something that -- a public defender or paid by the...

TOOBIN: Paid by the government.

COOPER: Paid by the government.

TOOBIN: Yes, and not just one lawyer either. Under the provisions of the federal death penalty law, he will have a separate legal team for the guilt phase and for the death penalty phase. If there is, it will be enormously expensive. This whole thing will be incredibly expensive.

COOPER: It's remarkable. Jeff, stick around...

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: I want to bring back CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin for more of the other big story of the day...

The biggest challenge is what?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: The biggest challenge is having Mohammed have enough access to the information to have a fair trial, but not so much that the U.S. government, the CIA, the National Security Agency says, look, we can't turn over this...

COOPER: But in terms of the length of this, I mean, this is going to drag on into the presidential election?

TOOBIN: I think. No one knows for sure, but I think a year of pretrial proceedings is virtually guaranteed. And remember, he's not even indicted yet. They've just announced that they're going to present it to a grand jury, so he'll probably be indicted sometime in early 2010..."

C) What Jeffrey Toobin told Anderson Cooper on his own show:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/13/acd.01.html

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES

9/11 Suspects Headed to Civilian Court; Sarah Palin Revealed

Aired November 13, 2009 - 22:00 ET

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: "Jeff, you say this may become one of the biggest challenges the federal courts have ever faced. How so?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely.

Think about the different problems bringing this case to trial. Can you get a fair jury just blocks away from ground zero? Can you have security that makes everyone feel like this is not a battle zone in Lower Manhattan? How do you deal with the fact that he was tortured?

What happens to the evidence? What happens to the statements that he made? Can you turn over in discovery material highly classified information that will undoubtedly come up in this trial to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is one of the most dangerous people in the world? What risk do you take to national security to disclose this information?

All of that has to be dealt with by one judge, one set of lawyers for the prosecution, one group of defense lawyers. And it's not clear that it can be done. It probably can be, but it's not a sure thing.

COOPER: A lot to talk about..."

On a side note, Republican media apologists consider Jeffrey Toobin to be a liberal and he is not a conservative based on what I have seen so far. That means he cannot be accused of showing anti-Obama media bias in his comments in my opinion:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/10/05/cnns-toobin-again-touts-very-conservative-vs-liberal-supreme-court

CNN's Toobin Again Touts 'Very Conservative' vs 'Liberal' Supreme Court

By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)
October 5, 2009 - 16:23 ET

"The analyst recently gave a gushing endorsement of New York Times editor Sam Tanenhaus’s new book, “The Death of Conservatism,” in which he proclaimed it a “fascinating intellectual autopsy of the conservative moment.” So it is no surprise that Toobin’s ideological labelings have the slant that they do."

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/booknook/entries/2009/08/13/is_conservatism_dead.html

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/09/17/roland-martin-jeffrey-toobin-cnn-s-resident-obama-spokesmen

Roland Martin & Jeffrey Toobin: CNN’s Resident Obama Spokesmen

By Matthew Balan (Bio | Archive)

September 17, 2008 - 16:37 ET

"On Tuesday’s Election Center program, senior correspondent Joe Johns fact-checked some of the Obama campaign’s recent ads and followed Kaye’s lead in giving an overall neutral examination. After his report concluded and a commercial break, (Campbell) Brown turned to (Jeffrey) Toobin for his take: "Jeff, I've got to start with you here because -- start with you here because I know that you think John McCain's exaggerations, falsehoods, whatever you want to call it, are far more extreme than Obama's." Wow, Toobin has that viewpoint?"

3) This issue will probably be a major distraction from health care and other important issues.

How can it not be when it is so controversial and when Obama will completely own this IF just any one of the many things that Jeffrey Toobin mentioned above goes wrong right up to the 2012 election?

Every minute that this issue comes up in the media, that it is debated, and especially if ANYTHING goes wrong is a minute that Obama CANNOT use to talk about health care and other important issues!

Also IF ANY ONE THING that is very serious does go wrong with this trial, then Democrats in Congress will more than likely run as far away from Obama as they possibly can just like how Republicans tried to run as far away from Bush as they possibly could during the 2006 and 2008 elections.

If that ever happens, then forget about red state/district and swing state/district Democrats in Congress supporting Obama on health care or on any other important but controversial issues. You could also possibly see Republican landslide wins in 2010 and 2012 mainly because of Obama's unpopularity just like how Bush's unpopularity was a major factor in the 2006 and 2008 Democratic landslide victories!

I totally understand and get the point that Jamie Rubin is making below that we have to repair the "great damage to the reputation of the United States" under Bush during his eight years in office:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/18072

ANALYSIS: Did Obama deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 31, 2009 - 11:54pm.

However I completely agree with David Gergen (who I think is a very pragmatic thinker) about the "risk" that Obama is taking and with his reasoning that the people in Nazi Germany who murdered and slaughtered people are not different from people who came here and slaughtered people:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/13/lkl.01.html

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

President Obama in Japan

Aired November 13, 2009 - 21:00 ET

JAMIE RUBIN, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN, PRESIDENT CLINTON, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: "There is a -- a problem. And problem is that the United States believes it is important that our standards of justice be restored after eight years of waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay and the events of Iraq and the prisons there. And that did great damage to the reputation of the United States as the -- the country that has used the rule of law as our benefit around the world.

And I think the administration -- I don't know this. I haven't consulted with them. I did hear the attorney general give some extensive answers to this. And he distinguished between those where the evidence may have came -- come more from secret intelligence or overhead reconnaissance or interrogations that would be used in the military commissions, where the cases that would go before the civilian courts was a much easier case to try...

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER TO NIXON, FORD, REAGAN & CLINTON: Well, I must say -- confess that found it mystifying. And I think it -- I haven't had a chance to read everything Eric Holder had to say. I do think that Jamie is right about one point and that is that the Obama administration is trying to treat the 9/11 not as a beginning of a war by terrorists, but more as a law enforcement question, as taking it into American courts.

But I'll tell you this, if the -- if we wind up with long, engaged very litigious trials that then wind up with all sorts of appeals and then we have -- and we go around and around on this -- and lawyers can wrap us into knots -- and don't get swift justice, the administration is going to pay a heavy price for that. That's the risk they're taking.

It may be the right thing to do legally, although I'd like to understand it better. But it's very clear to me that if there's not swift justice -- we've already got a lot of these families protesting this. They do not like this. They think they should be treated as terrorists, not as -- just as -- like other people...

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: David Gergen, do you understand why the attorney general, Eric Holder, decided that these five detainees would be tried in a civilian court in New York but other detainees will be -- go before a military commission and a military trial?

There's one standard for some, another standard for another. I don't have a good explanation for that.

GERGEN: I don't, either, Wolf. But in fairness to -- to the attorney general, I'd like to study it more closely.

And Jamie Rubin makes the point that the cases against these five seem very strong and therefore they should be able to get swift justice.

And I hope that Jamie Rubin is right. The Obama administration better be sure he's right.

But, I must say, Jamie, it does seem to be, for the person in the street watching this, that there's a real distinction between a foreign national who comes to these shores and commits a terrorist act, kills -- helps kill 3,000 people. That seems like a war criminal who deserves a military tribunal, to be treated like a war criminal, versus a U.S. citizen who commits a crime of one sort or another, who, of course, ought to be tried in U.S. courts.

It does seem to me that most people would look at that and say there's a difference and that John McCain and Ben Stein both have a point in making that distinction. I don't quite understand why they're one and the same and why you would think that people who, in Nazi Germany, who murdered -- slaughtered people are so different from people who came here and slaughtered people. It's not the number, it's the fact that they -- you know, they're foreign nationals who go and recklessly and -- and murderously kill people...

BLITZER: All right, James...

GERGEN: ...and brutally kill people the way they have..."

In conclusion, I think that Obama, Eric Holder, and Jamie Rubin have the right idea that we need to repair the great damage to the reputation of the United States under Bush BUT I think that they are going about it in the wrong way by holding the 9/11 trial in New York City. I agree with Jim Webb and David Gergen and I think that Obama is taking a very huge, a very dangerous, and a very unnecessary risk!

Mitch Dworkin

http://mitchdworkin.com/
Check out my political website!

http://www.securingamerica.com/

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16039
RESOURCES: Speeches, Articles, and Career Highlights to help define Gen. Clark!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 7, 2008 - 2:51pm.

http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!