To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (547086 ) 1/31/2010 11:40:19 AM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1576322 The NY Times Moves Terror Trials From ManhattanI'd like one of you liberal geniuses to explain how smart the Obama administration has been on the Guantanamo and KSM trial issues. The NY Times has decided to hold the terror trials elsewhere: U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City By SCOTT SHANE and BENJAMIN WEISER The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere. “I think I can acknowledge the obvious,” an administration official said. “We’re considering other options.” Friday afternoon was the obvious time for an official announcement but that has apparently not been made: The Obama administration official said the decision to back out of plans for a New York trial had broad support but had not yet been made public. I'm sure the Times is right abut this. But by way of comparison, here is the more restrained WaPo: Trial of alleged Sept. 11 conspirators probably won't be held in Lower Manhattan The Obama administration has all but abandoned its plan to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, on trial in Lower Manhattan, according to administration officials. A senior administration official said no decision has been formalized, but the Justice Department is already considering other venues. Said another official close to the discussions: "New York is out." I'll bet the raging dispute is over what poor fool has to make the announcement. Does the DoJ pressie get stuck with this, since the original decision was ostensibly Holder's baby? I am hoping to get the word from Robert Gibbs while his brothers stand in the background singing "I Started A Joke". Just one man's vision... [ Make Holder do it! He's the one who made this stupid decision. ] Now, why the switch (other than the obvious surrender to common sense and ghastly polling data)? Here we go from the Times: The story of how prominent New York officials seemed to have so quickly moved from a kind of “bring it on” bravado to an “anywhere but here” involves many factors, including a new anxiety about terrorism after the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day. Ultimately, it appears, New York officials could not tolerate ceding much of the city to a set of trials that could last for years. “The administration is in a tricky political and legal position,” Julie Menin, a lawyer who is chairwoman of the 50-member Community Board 1 that represents Lower Manhattan, including the federal courthouse and ground zero, said of President Obama and his Justice Department. “But it means shutting down our financial district. It could cost $1 billion. It’s absolutely crazy.”So let's see - they were serious about the threat from terrorists but not really, really serious until the Christmas package from Al Qaeda. And it only recently dawned on them that the trials would be long, expensive, and disruptive to lower Manhattan. Good luck with that spin! The impact on Manhattan was obvious in an instant. Oh, well - if the Admin wants to go out and explain that they prefer to make decisions and then afterwards introduce themselves to reality, good for them. The only sensible thing about that cover story is that it ducks the legal issues swirling around a civilian trialjustoneminute.typepad.com