Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Thank friggin'God the 911 trial is NOT going to be held in NYC. Some people finally got some damn sense. As far as this matter goes, disagree all you want, but if you don't live here, until you do, I don't really care what you think.
I totally wasn't following this, but think having it in NYC is a horrible idea. The negative vibes alone are enough reason. The city doesn't need to deal with that.
I don't understand the big to-do about having them in NYC. So where else would they have them, DC?
I can't answer that question. I just know that I heard Governor Paterson explaining that while he thought it would be safe in NYC, he felt that it should be moved anyway. He explained the commotion it would cause, creating a lot of traffic and other problems. He also mentioned that for the 2 years (or so) that the trial would be going on, any loud noises in the city could cause a panic for people.
But I don't know where would be much better? Anyone with more knowledge on the subject care to weigh in?
Well if its about being mildly inconvenienced by traffic and such, well that's a lame excuse. Plenty of large trials have been held in Manhattan. I also don't understand the "The people of NY have been though enough already" argument either. That's like saying the family of a murder victim would be better served by having the resulting trial out of state.
I really don't care where we have the trials I just want them to get on their way and get it over with.
^^I kinda work in the system. A regular old murder trial could take that long. It's just the slow trudge that our legal system moves at. I'm sure these will go on even longer than that. There'll be several months of motions, and then jury selection before the trial ever gets started. I don't know how you could ever find an impartial jury for terrorists.
which is another reason to not have it in NYC. They may be terrorists, but they still deserve a fair trial.
True, which is why I don't understand how they could hold the trial anywhere in the U.S. Is it even possible to find someone in the U.S. with impartial feelings about 9/11?
Well if its about being mildly inconvenienced by traffic and such, well that's a lame excuse. Plenty of large trials have been held in Manhattan. I also don't understand the "The people of NY have been though enough already" argument either. That's like saying the family of a murder victim would be better served by having the resulting trial out of state.
Here's one article where they say that it's not so much that they don't want the trial in NY. It's that they don't want it in the NYC area that it's planned to be. Read below:
-------------
Residents living in Lower Manhattan have urged the U.S. Justice Department to change its plans to bring the five accused plotters of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks to New York for trial in a civilian court. The group believes holding the trial in their neighborhood will bring unwanted security concerns and will hurt local businesses.
Dozens of Lower Manhattan residents turned out for a Community Board meeting late Tuesday to express their concerns about the planned New York terror trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. The trial would be held just blocks from where the World Trade Towers fell.
The residents, part of Community Board 1 in Manhattan, say the trials will bring added security concerns to the streets of downtown New York City. Community Board members are appointed by the Borough President and make recommendations to government agencies about significant matters affecting the district. Speaker after speaker blasted the decision.
"In what communities in the United States of America are children required to walk by military convoys and snipers on a daily basis on their way to school?," a resident asked.
New York City officials have estimated the cost of hold the trials in Manhattan federal court will top $200 million annually. This will included added security throughout downtown - a clogged and busy area close to two major bridges.
The community board had originally recommended moving the trial to Governor's Island, a former military base about 700 meters from Manhattan. But New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that was not an option. Mayor Bloomberg, who has supported Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to hold the terror trials in downtown Manhattan, also says he would be amenable to moving them.
"It may very well be that there are other places that a trial could be held - a civil trial - if that's what the federal government wants to do," he said. "In New York state, if that's where they want to hold it."
The Community Board resolution has some other suggestions for trial locations: The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a federal courthouse in nearby White Plains, and Stewart Air National Guard Base about 100 kilometers north of New York and a federal institution in Otisville in the northern part of New York State. -------------
I don't think that argument is that unreasonable. These people want it moved to a different area because of financial and safety concerns, and offered up suggestions to other NY areas.
I don't care about the "NYers have already been through so much" argument either. But this one at least is reasonable and logical.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Jan 29, 2010 13:47:22 GMT -5
and here's another passage from a BBC article where Bloomberg explains why he doesn't want it in NYC but isn't opposed to it being in NY.
--------- Last month officials said the trial would be held at a federal court in lower Manhattan, after announcing the move in November.
Mr Bloomberg initially said it would be fitting that the suspects should face trial near the site of the World Trade Center.
But on Thursday he called Attorney General Eric Holder to ask for the trial to be moved. Several lawmakers from around the country have made similar requests.
"There are places that would be less expensive for the taxpayers and less disruptive for New York City," he told journalists.
"For example, military bases away from central cities where it is easier to provide security at much less cost." However, Mr Bloomberg said that if necessary "we will do what we're supposed to do". ----------
I think holding the trial in NYC is perfect. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this trial does produce a verdict of not guilty...
Do you really think the cleared defendants would last very long with everyone in the city that was attacked knowing exactly when and where they would be released into the public?
I think holding the trial in NYC is perfect. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this trial does produce a verdict of not guilty...
Do you really think the cleared defendants would last very long with everyone in the city that was attacked knowing exactly when and where they would be released into the public?
As nice as it would be to "attack" you need to realize that the defendants will be protected and the protectors will unfortunately do what they need to keep them safe. Mace, batons and rubber bullets oh my. I would hate to see my fellow Americans hurt for trying to do the right thing by killing these terrorists with their own hands.
i am feeling conflicted about obama right now. coming from a predominately red state, i was the few and far between with an obama sticker proudly on my car. my whole family is also conservative and so you know i got crap from them too. i still support him, but lately he has been making me sad. i know it has only been a year in office, but some of the things i was hoping he would 'change' (gay marriage, women's rights, enviromental) are just not really happening. everyone here is also so against universal healthcare it is starting to make me depressed that a good system will never happen.
the older i get the more it seems like we will never have a president that the majority is happy with and this is no fun.
i know it has only been a year in office, but some of the things i was hoping he would 'change' (gay marriage, women's rights, enviromental) are just not really happening. everyone here is also so against universal healthcare it is starting to make me depressed that a good system will never happen.
I feel that he has so much opposition on anything he says/does (be it from pundits or GOP) that it makes it almost impossible to get anything halfway finished. some (not all) republicans will oppose anything obama does just based on the fact that he's doing it.
That is nice and all, but kids should not care about politics until they are about 15-16. Having "views" of the world at 10 years old is simply learned from their parents. Though most of us do get our views from our family the ability to disagree with them early on a political level is non-existant.
That is nice and all, but kids should not care about politics until they are about 15-16. Having "views" of the world at 10 years old is simply learned from their parents. Though most of us do get our views from our family the ability to disagree with them early on a political level is non-existant.
I think you're taking the picture too seriously. Those kids don't care about politics and probably didn't know anything about the candidates at the time. It was just a photo that gained popularity because it was seen as a metaphor for race relations. Just fluff. I wouldn't worry about those parents and them forcing their views on their children.
Also 15 and 10 aren't much of a difference as far as knowing much about politics. There are probably some 10 year olds who know more then some 15 year olds.
EDIT: One more thing......this thread is called "Current issues under Obama" and you choose to comment on something posted in November of 2008 lol? I think you missed the mark just by a little bit. Anyway.....like I said....I wouldn't worry too much about this.
That is nice and all, but kids should not care about politics until they are about 15-16. Having "views" of the world at 10 years old is simply learned from their parents. Though most of us do get our views from our family the ability to disagree with them early on a political level is non-existant.
I think you're taking the picture too seriously. Those kids don't care about politics and probably didn't know anything about the candidates at the time. It was just a photo that gained popularity because it was seen as a metaphor for race relations. Just fluff. I wouldn't worry about those parents and them forcing their views on their children.
Also 15 and 10 aren't much of a difference as far as knowing much about politics. There are probably some 10 year olds who know more then some 15 year olds.
EDIT: One more thing......this thread is called "Current issues under Obama" and you choose to comment on something posted in November of 2008 lol? I think you missed the mark just by a little bit. Anyway.....like I said....I wouldn't worry too much about this.
First of all knowing facts about politics is different then the ability to have an opinion on politics. Second off someone had to say to those kids "hold the sign together and hold up a peace sign". Sure the kid may have given him the sign and that is really cool. Third, the terrorist have to be tried in the area in which they committed the crime. It does not matter where you have the trial, they are going to be found guilty. If President Obama has "a current issue" it is jobs, so more people can afford the $280 Bonnaroo ticket. In my opinion he is wasting a lot of time on other things, and people are catching on.
I don't know if he's necessarily wasting his time... he didn't exactly inherit a nation in tip-top shape to begin with. I think it's asking too much to expect eight years of W's damage to be undone during his successor's first year. Hell, I think it might take longer than eight years to recover from the eight that W had...
The terrorists DON'T have to be tried where they committed the crime. I personally don't care where they have it or if it's a civilian trial or military. Just get it over with and convict them. This is a stupid argument to have.
Jobs is Obama's current issue. Everyone looks to the gov't for new jobs, but then get pissed when they increase spending in order to create more jobs. It's a double-edged sword.
I don't know if he's necessarily wasting his time... he didn't exactly inherit a nation in tip-top shape to begin with. I think it's asking too much to expect eight years of W's damage to be undone during his successor's first year. Hell, I think it might take longer than eight years to recover from the eight that W had...
You sound like President Obama when you talk about how it was inherited every time he is asked about this question, since him it has not gotten better. Passing the stimulus, cash for clunkers, and the health care bill have not been to successful. Since we are one trillion more in debt since Obama. I really do not how you can argue he has done a really good job at anything. Guess all those earth summits he is attending, (which is the 21st most important factor to Americans currently). If you ask me I blame sub-prime loans being handed out, not Bush.
The terrorists DON'T have to be tried where they committed the crime. I personally don't care where they have it or if it's a civilian trial or military. Just get it over with and convict them. This is a stupid argument to have.
Jobs is Obama's current issue. Everyone looks to the gov't for new jobs, but then get pissed when they increase spending in order to create more jobs. It's a double-edged sword.
First of all it really does not matter they will be "hung" unless they are tried inside of a terrorist camp. I agree with you there, I am no lawyer nor trying to prove you wrong but I just thought that was always the case. As for people looking for the government to get jobs they should just get what they can get until they get something better. I realize in some specialized locations there are only certain jobs available (coal miners, limited jobs in cities). To many people are looking for handouts. I consider myself a Libertarian for the record (small government, left on social issues with the exception of global warming).
So let's just write down the issues under Obama, not talk about them. Good idea.
What she means is that you may just get attacked at some points instead of actually get a good debate. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.....but she was kinda giving you a warning about this thread. It's erupted into some chaos at times.
So let's just write down the issues under Obama, not talk about them. Good idea.
What she means is that you may just get attacked at some points instead of actually get a good debate. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.....but she was kinda giving you a warning about this thread. It's erupted into some chaos at times.
Ah, my apologies. I thought they meant there was another thread for that... Or the title was about issues, not debating issues.
What she means is that you may just get attacked at some points instead of actually get a good debate. Hopefully it doesn't come to that.....but she was kinda giving you a warning about this thread. It's erupted into some chaos at times.
Ah, my apologies. I thought they meant there was another thread for that... Or the title was about issues, not debating issues.
oh no, please feel free to debate / discuss any issues that you please. just keep in mind that sometimes people let their emotions get the best of them and may lash out. most of the people can keep their cool, but sometimes the discussion steers towards negativity.
basically just bump this thread anytime you want to discuss a topic and i'm sure a few people will respond/argue/debate. just make sure to link to your sources so we can know where you're coming from when discussing a news story or something.
I don't know if he's necessarily wasting his time... he didn't exactly inherit a nation in tip-top shape to begin with. I think it's asking too much to expect eight years of W's damage to be undone during his successor's first year. Hell, I think it might take longer than eight years to recover from the eight that W had...
You sound like President Obama when you talk about how it was inherited every time he is asked about this question, since him it has not gotten better. Passing the stimulus, cash for clunkers, and the health care bill have not been to successful. Since we are one trillion more in debt since Obama. I really do not how you can argue he has done a really good job at anything. Guess all those earth summits he is attending, (which is the 21st most important factor to Americans currently). If you ask me I blame sub-prime loans being handed out, not Bush.
Yeah, you're right... it's not like Bush increased the deficit during his tenure anyway. Nope, twas smooth sailing til all those subprime mortgages Let's just conveniently pretend all those itemized segments of the 2009 line have absolutely nothing to do with cleaning up W's mess while we're at it...
And what's this I see? The projected deficit at the end of what would be Obama's second term is smaller than the one he started out with? WTF does he think he's doing? This man must be stopped!