Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 04:15, 19 November 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 04:29, 19 November 2009 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Propaganda:)
Next diff →
Line 71: Line 71:
|width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Pro==== ====Pro====
 +
 +*'''There will be no TV cameras in trials of 9/11 suspects.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18simon.html?_r=1&ref=opinion Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009]: "Which brings us to the idea that allowing Mr. Mohammed to take the stand will give him a soapbox. The truth is, if the trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side. [...] First, federal courts do not permit TV cameras in the courtroom, so the opportunity for “real time” jihadist propagandizing won’t exist."
 +
 +*'''Judges can quash irrelevant speeches from terrorists.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18simon.html?_r=1&ref=opinion Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009]: "while defendants and their lawyers can question witnesses, they cannot make speeches; judges are kings in this domain and can quash irrelevant oratory."
 +
 +*'''Past court speeches by terrorists were not propaganda victories.''' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18simon.html?_r=1&ref=opinion Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009]: "Some point out that in earlier terrorism trials, like those of the plotters of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the defendants did ramble at length. True, but does anyone who fears a circus now remember a single word from those earlier trials?"
 +
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
Line 78: Line 85:
|- |-
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
- 
=== Pro/con sources === === Pro/con sources ===

Revision as of 04:29, 19 November 2009

Should 9/11 suspects be tried in New York, as ordered by US attorney general Eric Holder?

Background and context

Write Subquestion here...

Pro

  • KSM will almost certainly be found guilty in NY civilian courts. Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009: "Others complain that Mr. Mohammed might take advantage of quirks of the criminal justice system and go free. That’s highly unlikely. First, he has already confessed to the crime; and, given the zero acquittal rate for terrorists in New York previously, any anxiety about a “not guilty” verdict seems unwarranted."


Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Write Subquestion here...

Pro

  • Trying 9/11 suspects in civilian courts will not reveal key intelligence. Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009: "John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer, argues that the trial would be an “intelligence bonanza” for our enemies. Also unlikely. Our prosecutors are certain that there is enough unclassified evidence to make their case. Moreover, the most prized intelligence is recent, specific and actionable. Al Qaeda today is most concerned with discovering when and where the next drone missile attack will take place in Pakistan, information not likely to be disclosed during a trial about a conspiracy hatched more than a decade ago."


Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





Propaganda:

Pro

  • There will be no TV cameras in trials of 9/11 suspects. Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009: "Which brings us to the idea that allowing Mr. Mohammed to take the stand will give him a soapbox. The truth is, if the trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side. [...] First, federal courts do not permit TV cameras in the courtroom, so the opportunity for “real time” jihadist propagandizing won’t exist."


Con

Pro/con sources

Pro


Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.