Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, could have easily gotten the same treatment that hundreds of other prisoners of the war on terror have so far received. I don’t think many would object to seeing him before the uniformed panel of a military tribunal.
Instead, he and four of his cohorts are going to be tried in a civilian court in New York City, not far from ground zero.
It is difficult to see how anything substantive can come out of these trials. President Barack Obama’s administration isn’t taking risks with these kinds of people. The government wouldn’t bring them to such a public venue if there were even the slightest chance of an acquittal. The only reason for trying them there is to make a statement.
But in making that worthy statement — that American rights and rule of law are supreme in the face of terror — there are going to be risks and side effects. At least the moral question for defense lawyers of how to defend a guilty man is not at issue here, because Mohammed and his co-defendants have so far refused counsel.
That probably means the world is about to be subject to long, jihadist monologues about the evils of America. A trial of this magnitude also means heightened security and tension for the city as long as the trial is in progress, which could be years. I am also skeptical that it’s possible to find an unbiased jury for Mohammed in New York City, as well.
These things likely add up to a joke of a trial that will be difficult for everyone involved. When those being tried see no reason to respect the process that we hold so dear, it dilutes any symbolic point about the process that we were trying to make in the first place.
Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the terrorists in civil courts is more a message about the past than anything else. It is a useful stunt to help differentiate his administration from the previous one. It is a message to the international community that the perceived dark days of American interrogation are behind us, whether or not they really are. There is still a war on terror and there are still going to be military tribunals.
Is this point really worth the political risk and expense of a civil trial? The legal and security fees will be enormous. Protestors of all kinds will be out in force. After the closure of Guantanamo, and numerous other executive orders Obama has made, this decision seems redundant.
