Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other alleged conspirators behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. will be tried in federal court in New York City.
Holder said prosecutors will seek the death penalty for all the defendants.
Good decisions, both, and it’s high time they were made.
Five other terror-war detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, will be tried by military commissions.
Although New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and New York Gov. David Paterson had no problem with trying Mohammed and the others in Manhattan, saying local law enforcement is fully capable of handling security, Republicans erupted with criticism and outrage.
They argued that Qaeda suspects did not deserve the protections afforded by the American criminal justice system, that bringing them into the United States would heighten the risk of another terrorist attack, that civilian trials increase the risk of disclosing classified information, and that if the detainees were acquitted they could be released into the population.
Amazing, how these crackpot crusaders who spent eight years making a complete mess of everything they got their hands on continue to weigh in as if they have a terrific track record and all the right answers. As usual, their arguments flunk the common-sense test.
For openers, if jihadist crazies are going to attempt an attack because their brothers behind bars are finally being tried, they’re not going to be any less likely to strike because the trial is being held in Cuba. We put the likelihood of any of the accused being acquitted as infinitesimal. But if that were to happen, the chance of any of them being turned loose on the streets in this country is absolute zero.
Furthermore, the court has procedures for preventing classified information from being made public during a trial. Duh.
We suspect what’s really behind all the carping and complaining from the right is fear that Bush administration wrongdoing — such as waterboarding Mohammed dozens of times — will get lots of publicity. Worse, in their likely view, there’s a chance higher ups from the Bush White House might be obliged to testify about things that could make them vulnerable to further investigation and possible legal consequences.
For example, there’s plenty of reason to believe the main reason Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was repeatedly tortured is that the Bush administration was trying to extract statements about Saddam Hussein being complicit in the 9-11 attacks and/or Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
Such revelations would’ve removed some of the tarnish from Bush & Co.’s self-destroyed reputation, after having invaded Iraq unnecessarily on made-up grounds. As it turned out, even though he was tortured, Mohammed evidently made no such statements.
We expect the Sunday-morning talk shows will feature the usual Republican suspects — Sens. Lindsey Graham, John McCain, maybe John Kyl and Jeff Sessions, too — raking Holder and President Obama over the coals. They will rail about using the U.S. criminal justice system to try the detainees openly, on U.S. soil, rather than behind high walls and barbed-wire fences in kangaroo-court proceedings at Guantánamo.
Holder’s plan is sensible. Affording the detainees the protection of defendants’ rights specified by our justice system upholds our standards. It should also help restore America’s tarnished image abroad.
My question I guess – why some in NY in Federal Court and some in military tribunals?
Of course they should be tried here instead of in a military tribunal. Kangaroos never sit still for a second, papers ‘a flyin’, bailiffs ‘a runnin’, bad news.
Why the repeated torture of Mohammed by the Bushes? Because the Bushes are bullies and it made them feel like men to stick it to the terrists.
Macrum, Holder said it depended on what the detainees were alleged to have done, the place and circumstances where they were captured, and such. Presumably, the five to be tried at Guantanamo were captured abroad and in circumstances that made them more like soldiers. Mohammed and the others implicated in the 9-11 attack would seem to be more like criminal conspirators.
Randal, come on, this is serious. You know kangaroos aren’t housebroken.
Jeff, the motive you mentioned undoubtedly figures in, but I stand by the one I mentioned as being Bush and Cheney’s main concern.
Anderson – I see. So, the “kangaroo courts” are okay for some because they were more like soldiers? Seems to me soldiers ought to be treated better than the consiprators. That is of course if they are really soldiers in the conventional sense. I’m sorry but I think the whole thing stinks.
Questions of due process could be handled in either setting by making them open to public scrutiny through various media and oversight by uninvolved legal experts. Having them moved to NYC is fine, but move all of them to Federal court. Or keep them all in the military tribunal. This selective treatment has already left the impression with some(you for instance) that a fair trial will not be had in one of the venues. Or have I read your post wrong?
The fact that these detainees have been held so long without trial negates any idea they will get a fair trial now. This farce is for show. Another Bush legacy left to be cleaned up by Obama that has no happy ending. Regardless, I do not think this will help our tarnished image. But if we move ahead deliberately and as quickly as the wheels of “justice” can roll, we might just be able to put it behind us.
I think it makes perfect sense to try them in New York City. There may be some risks, but I was in favor of Obama moving these trials out of Gitmo and into the U.S., so here we are.
I saw an article on one of the leftwing news sites about Giuliani ranting about this decision. It was a rehash of his “a noun, a verb and 9/11″ formula. That alone told me that Holder, Paterson and Bloomberg had made the right decision.
Holder is doing what should have been done years ago, how are they going to get a jury that’s impartial, defense lawyers will be lining up for this one, first of all lets define what’s the difference between a prisoner of war and a battlefield combatant, prisoners of war don’t stand trial.
MrMacrum, I think they’re all common criminals, not soldiers, and should be tried as such. Justice delayed is justice denied, so as you note they’ve all been detained way too long without trial. I don’t think fair trials can’t, or inevitably won’t, be held at Guantanamo. Open proceedings and expert oversight are called for, though.
Tom, Giuliani is a political hanger-on with a strong sleazy streak. His expert opinion and a buck will get you a cup of coffee at McDonald’s (if the price hasn’t gone up again).
Holte, you’re forgetting the Nuremburg trials, plus some more-recent ones in the former Yugoslavia. Communist Bloc countries also had a bad habit of declaring POW’s spies, and trying them accordingly. I think many prosecutors and defense attorneys will want to participate in the KSM+4 trials.
The Nuremberg trials were held in 1945-46, the smoke was still rising from rubble that was Germany, they were swift and Nazi leadership was the main target. Justice should be like that, not years and years later. Stalin wanted all German officers executed, between 50,000 and 100,000, Churchill and FDR/Truman didn’t want soldiers executed for fighting for their country. Slobodan Milosevic was accused of genocide and was a politician. I didn’t forget these things, didn’t think them a worthy comparison to the bungling excuse for justice that has been going on for nearly 10 years.
Ok, so the republicans are going apeshit because of “security”. Please, drug dealers and gangbangers get tried every freaking day in New York, and in most of the rest of the country, but we don’t hear about their cronies breaking them out of the courthouse, so I really don’t see security as a concern.
I agree with SW in that the real motivation is a fear that some of the truth will get out, and that won’t be good for Bushites in general.
I am even wondering now why we are even bothering to try them. More than a few “experts” on both sides contend the terrorists tried in NYC will never get out of prison, no matter what the verdict. The legal leg this is propped up on is “they still represent a threat to the USA”.
Again just my opinion, but it is time for the Left to realize that these people will not get what we consider a fair trial. Any notion of the nobility of American Justice will be waived when the security concerns of this country are thought to be at stake. Ideology always loses out in these situations.
I do however like the in your face method here of having this joke of a trial done in NYC. It’s a gamble politically for Obama. I would be more comfortable though with all of them being tried in the same venue, no matter which one it was. This selectivity bothers me.
BTW – Just call me Crum. MR are my first two initials -;)
Holte, more than just Nazi political leaders were tried in Germany and, I think, at Nuremburg. Generals down to camp guards were tried, and many executed. There were also trials in France, Italy, the Low Countries, Scandanavia and probably elsewhere. Likewise in the former Yugoslavia. The big names got most of the coverage but others were called to account — officers, troops, POW guards and collaborators. None were soldiers penalized only for fighting for their country. They were tried for atrocities, for crimes against humanity. Regarding delay, there absolutely has been a lapse of justice in handling terror war detainees, as I’ve acknowledged.
Bee, I think the worry is a terrorist attack on New York, not jihadists showing up to rescue their fellow dirtbags or shoot up the court. Or, there could be some other kind of reprisal. Security is a big concern, as it should be.
Macrum, the whole thing is a mess. That would’ve been true even if Bush & Co. had handled it competently. Our laws and procedures are set up for dealing with uniformed soldiers, usually captured in a war zone, not civilian criminals. Our perceptions from 9-11 on were that we were carrying out a military response to a military threat. In fact, we sent the military out to deal with a criminal conspiracy.
Obama’sHolder’s decision brings this muddled situation back to reality, trying criminals in criminal court. Justice might be blind, but I don’t agree this will be a joke of a trial. Trials are about getting at the truth. To the extent that happens, the trial can mean closure and, I hope, some sense of justice being done for the kin and friends of 9-11 casualties and for the country. That’s important for us to do and for the world to see us doing, imperfectly as it no doubt will be done.Well said. As you know, I totally agree. It is the first step toward trying to rectify all the wrong moves that the Bush/Cheney administration made.
S.W. Anderson – We seem to be on the same page here with the exception of how we think the trial will play out. And yes, at least Obama is moving forward and as I said earlier, maybe we can put this behind us. I have heard conjecture that the accused will plead guilty so that they can become executed martyrs. I hope we instead sentence them to Life.
Thanks, Mauigirl, and welcome back.
Macrum, I’m conflicted about executing these murderers. Generally, I’m opposed to executions because there have been so many cases where people executed or on death row have been found innocent through DNA testing or after someone else confessed to the crime they were convicted of. The 9-11 terrorists are a different matter. But denying the terrorists martyrdom is a strong reason for sentencing them to life, so I’m OK with that. It just irks me that our taxes would have to pay their room, board, medical care, etc., for decades.