Memories of September 11

Uraniumfish,.. I have my own 9/11 story.. I was in NYC on holiday that summer and was staying with a cousin on South End Avenue in Battery Park City. I was set to leave NYC on the evening of 9/10 after having spent two months in NYC. It was a rainy evening and my flight from JFK to Singapore was delayed from 9pm on 9/10 to 3 am on 9/11. We waited and waited and kept cajoling our carrier Singapore Airlines to cancel the flight as we were tired and irritable but they finally put us on and I believe we were the last flight out of JFK that night. While we were on our way to Singapore the TV screens on the flight displayed news flash-'Air attacks on World Trade Center' with no other details. I was traveling with my aunt and I alerted her to the message as my cousin with whom we had spent the summer lived near the WTC where he was working on 'opening' the Ritz Carlton Battery Park Hotel' . We were a bit worried and asked the air hostesses but nobody had any news. When we landed in Singapore nearly 22 hours later we were greeted by a TV crew who wanted our reactions. We really didn't have a clue about what had happened until we were informed that the WTC towers had been destroyed by terrorist attacks. We then saw the horrible pictures in a newspaper supplied by our cab driver and couldn't believe what we had escaped... needless to say we were in a state of shock and anxious to find out the well being of friends and family in NYC. For weeks afterward I walked about in a daze even though I was not personally harmed I couldn't help empathize with the people who had been affected by this terrible tragedy in a city where I had enjoyed such a glorious summer holiday

Yeah, Uraniumfish. It was rather a messy situation. Many people were hurt or killed that day. Every race, nationality, and culture parished that day.

Remember on December 7th, 1941, a day that will live in emphamy. It was the day Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Well, 9/11 was also a day that will live in emphamy for New Yorkers.

Do you agree?

@uraniumfish I wonder what everyone thinks on this forum, I seem to agree with the article that the trial should be held in NYC after all this was the city that suffered the direct consequences of the attack. In someway I think a trial held in NYC would somehow help the families of those NYers who lost their loved ones in the attack get some form of closure don't you think? but then on the other hand the cost to the city in monetary terns would be tremendous as Bloomberg avers.Maybe the right way would be to hold the trial in NYC with the help of federal funds as the article seems to suggest.

@Uraniumfish do you think a trial held in NYC would be biased? I haven't really thought so far though I have strong feelings about what happened during a similair terrorist attack on two luxury hotels in my erstwhile home city of Mumbai in November 2008. Bet you saw it on TV here , but I was in Mumbai then and happen to know many of the victims personally. It was awful but until today the one lone captured terrorist who has been identified by CCTV coverage and eyewitness accounts is yet to be brought to justice. He is in police custody and is being kept alive on taxpayer funds while those families who lost their loved ones have to pick up their lives and move on with no real closure.

@uptowngirl: The argument is that if the terror suspects are held on trial in NYC, this could impose terror attacks, as the terrorist will not like it and will come to rescue one of their comrades. On the other hand, the terror suspect could decide to commit suicide as an directive from Al Queda. But no one really knows for sure.

@ajdadedidealist: The fear being presented can't be ignored. This city has to be protected no matter what. And if having the trial in the city will put us in harms way, or risk security, I say have the trial somewhere else. Isn't it better to be safe.

Here are some comments you may find interesting about the terror trials:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/us/politics/16giuliani.html
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/01/28/white-house-orders-no-terror-trials-in-nyc/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/27/boehner-way-terrorist-trials-held-new-york/

By reading the above comments, you can clearly see that Bloomberg is not happy with having the terror trials in NYC.

Unfortunately, this is a touchy subject and warrants further thought and discussion before any decision should be made. All angles need to be addressed including the pros and cons of having a trial here, and other factors need to be considered.

So Giuliani - though I barely care what the man thinks - seems to believe that the Sept 11 attacks should be treated as "an act of war." Any thoughts on this?

It mostly seems to me that he is just looking to put down the Democrats in the White House more than anything else, saying that Obama is being soft on terrorism and "deciding we’re not at war with terrorists any more."

I agree with this part of the editorial Uraniumfish linked in:

"President Obama was right to move Mr. Mohammed and four other high-profile terrorism suspects out of the jurisdiction of military tribunals. President George W. Bush’s decision to hold prisoners outside the law and then attempt to try them in rigged military courts was legally wrong, and hugely damaging to American values and this country’s global image."

I don't know if I agree with the op-ed piece's declaration that the trial should be in NYC; if Bloomberg thinks it will cost too much, then perhaps the money - if it exists - is better spent elsewhere. Give it to MTA and order them to do some good with it.

@hhusted Is someone really arguing that if the trial were held in NYC, one of Mohammad's terrorist buddies would swoop in and try to save him? Or blow something up?

I'm finding the terrorist-retaliation idea pretty implausible myself and don't think that's too relevant to the discussion of whether the trials should be held in NYC.

@BroadwayBK I think insisting on this particular label - "an act of war" - carries with it several connotations which conservative Republicans would like to perpetuate. Among them is the idea of being at war, or needing to go to war, as a result of September 11, which aligns very well with a Republican agenda of making war for the sake of profit - in case it's not immediately obvious, every time America goes to war, a small minority of contrators make enormous profits from military contracts, plus there's oil interest in the Middle East, plus a tactical advantage to having troops positioned in the region, etc.

It's generally understood in intellectual circles that the fundamentalist mentality that inspired the terrorist attacks is a function of widespread poverty across the entire Middle East region. It's not hard to imagine why common people in the Middle East would resent the West, and most especially the US, as the central symbol of Western prosperity and the values that have generated this prosperity. For decades now they have had no real share of the increasing wealthy and opportunity that is available in the West, nor from globalization. They are marginalized and frustrated, and it's no wonder that frustration leads to violence. Obviously I don't condone the actions of terrorists of any persuasion. But thoughtful analysis of "the other side" and what might motivate them is not generally advantageous to the Republican war-mongering agenda. A thoughtful analysis might lead to the idea that the attacks were "an act of frustration." Or at least it might be healthy to allow several ways to interpret the attacks, the above-mentioned two interpretations getting to only a part of a very complex problem. I think Giuliani is playing out a specific, and very Republican agenda, in which it's advantageous to reduce this very complex problem to a too, too simple interpretation in one sentence.

Anyway, Republicans know the only way they can win an election in this particular political climate is to insist that we are in a lot more danger from terrorists than we really are. Even a basic understanding of human psychology could tell you that the reason the Middle East hates us is because we're rich.

Doesn't say anything about "danger" being imposed on the city... mentions security, but that doesn't mean that anyone is afraid of more terrorist attacks.

I don't think these trials should be held in military courts; I don't think terrorist attacks should be treated as an "act of war," because, honestly, terrorists don't pose the same kind of threat that an actual war would.

And I agree with Uraniumfish that these are marginalized, impoverished people, and they aren't the only ones.

Maybe more of us should worry about making the world a better place instead of making just one country a better one at the expense of others.

Then again I am not condoning terrorist attacks, either, and I think that these guys should pay for the crimes they've committed.

Okay, so there's been a poll, but "public perception" is a lousy expert on any real danger that might exist. It seems normal that your average person would have safety worries about living in this city, since it is very obviously a prominent target. It also seems like a perfectly good idea to ignore people's irrational fears and try to evaluate the real danger posed by having a trial here. People are irrational, hey!

And yeah, keep those trials out of military courts! Anyone accused should at least have a chance at due process, and I seriously doubt military courts will provide that. Fair trials, due process, I want to be proud I live in an open society.

@Uraniumfish: Why would terror trials be held in a military court, when the incident happened on civilian ground. In other words, the military was not involved in it when it happened? At least I don't think they were.

Ok.. I know this is an old topic...

But my personal opinion is.....

Hold the trials in Giants Stadium.. easier to protect, can sell tickets(modestly) to public (families of victims are free, of course) and, televise the thing on a pay per view(again, modest) event. This covers the cost of the trial, keeps it close to 'home' allowing families to be there, gives the public the ability to view the proceedings without paying a fortune to do so.

Just my thought....

@Everyone here's the latest 9/11 controversy- apparently the kin of victims who perished in the terrible attacks had tried to get the US supreme court to rule against the decision of the city to move a ton of debris from the site to a landfill in Staten Island. They wanted the debris to be buried in a cemetery as they feel that the debris were not completely sifted for remains and the remains of 1000 victims are still to be found.
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/8069152/9-11-families-fail-in-us-court-appeal/
I do understand the city's point of view to bury the remains would cost the taxpayers a lot but then perhaps I would react differently if I was personally affected by the tragedy. What do you think?

@Uraniumfish Youre argument is a rational one but I am on the fence on this issue. I think if I were one of the family members I too would want a burial. Somehow even after a decade this issue seems so relevant to New Yorkers ..