Baseball Crank: WAR: The Governor Dissents

November 17, 2009

WAR: The Governor Dissents

Add New York Governor David Paterson - surely, no right-winger - to the list of critics of trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in Manhattan, and he adds an additional concern, that the expense and additional security will interfere with the endlessly-delayed plans to rebuild on the Ground Zero site:

"This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn't just attack, it's anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country," he said.
Paterson's comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President's decision.

"Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost," he said. "It's very painful. We're still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers."

H/T James Taranto, who wonders why we're just hearing all this now if the White House warned Paterson six months ago.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 4:23 PM | War 2007-09 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

As a New Yorker (upstate), I think his comments are a lukewarm protest at best. He could have said "Hell No!", but instead he said he would go along with the decision and then gave some tepid comments of protest. He is a wimp!

Posted by: Lee at November 17, 2009 7:15 PM

I couldn't disagree with you more!
Jeffrey Dahmer got a trial, so did Timothy Mcveigh!
Hitler deserved one too and maybe Cheney will get one at the Hague?
After reading your bio it is not hard to see where you are coming from.
A lawyer who defends the moneychangers on Wall Street
Hardly a moral arbiter.
Puhleeze!

Posted by: James at November 18, 2009 2:31 PM

James:

The question isn't "does he get a trial or not." The question is, does he get tried in a civilian court of law, with the attendant benefits afforded by our constitution, or does he get tried in a military tribunal, which has the capability to keep secret some important intelligence relevant to two wars that we're currently fighting. Those facts don't apply to Dahmer, McVeigh, or even Hitler.

I suppose I'm wasting my breath, however, with someone who seriously proposes that Cheney be tried as a war criminal.

Posted by: Joel in Seattle at November 18, 2009 3:41 PM

KSM and friends was willing to plead guilty and be executed in the military courts-why not let him?

Holder admitted today that if KSM and friends are found not guilty or the indictment was tossed that they would not be freed because they are enemy combatants?????????????????????? Why are we having a trial then?

I really want to hear the responses to both of these questions?

Posted by: dch at November 18, 2009 3:59 PM

interesting 24 hours and not one attempt by lefties to even attempt to answer. Thank you. Games, set, match

Posted by: dch at November 19, 2009 2:55 PM

If Cheney belongs on trial for policy decisions what about FDR he imprisoned American citizens and stole their property without any due process. Japanese were imprisoned because of their race and nothing more.

Posted by: John Gorman at November 19, 2009 7:31 PM