9/11 suspects to stand trial in New York
As the deadline for the Obama administration to decide how to deal with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay approaches, it is being reported that five of them will be moved to the United States and will stand trial in civilian federal court in New York. The men in question are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali. Mohammed is alleged to be the mastermind behind the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Some may not agree that these men should be moved to the United States. While it may be risky doing so, I would ask this question. If these men are guilty, and they most likely are, and if our interest is to administer justice to them for their crimes, where else would we expect them to be tried? The crimes they are accused of happened on American soil and mostly against civilian targets, with the exception of the Pentagon. If anyone has a better suggestion of where they should stand trial, please speak up. For your reading pleasure, the crimes they are being accused of are listed below, from The Associated Press.
Mohammed admitted to interrogators that he was the mastermind of the attacks – he allegedly proposed the concept to Osama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtained funding for the attacks from bin Laden, oversaw the operation and trained the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The charges against the others are:
- Bin Attash, a Yemeni, allegedly ran an al-Qaida training camp in Logar, Afghanistan, where two of the 19 hijackers were trained. Bin Attash is believed to have been bin Laden’s bodyguard. Authorities say bin Laden selected him as a hijacker, but he was prevented from participating when he was briefly detained in Yemen in early 2001.
- Binalshibh, a Yemeni, allegedly helped find flight schools for the hijackers, helped them enter the United States and assisted with financing the operation. He allegedly was selected to be a hijacker and made a “martyr video” in preparation for the operation, but was unable to get a U.S. visa. He also is believed to be a lead operative for a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London’s Heathrow Airport.
- Ali allegedly helped nine of the hijackers travel to the United States and sent them $120,000 for expenses and flight training. He is believed to have served as a key lieutenant to Mohammed in Pakistan. He was born in Pakistan and raised in Kuwait.
- Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, allegedly helped the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler’s checks and credit cards. Al-Hawsawi testified in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, saying he had seen Moussaoui at an al-Qaida guesthouse in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in early 2001, but was never introduced to him or conducted operations with him.
That is a laundry list of crimes and to me, the ultimate of justice for these men would be for them to face the very citizens they terrorized. I can not think of a better place than New York for that to happen and Attorney General Eric Holder seems to have came to the same conclusion. The only thing I am waiting to hear is how they will be unable to receive a fair trial from the citizens of New York, but that could possibly be argued, no matter where the trials take place. So that raises another question. Will they be able to receive a fair trial?
From what I know about the court system in our country, a good defense lawyer would be able to argue that there is no way a fair trial could be achieved anywhere in this country. Even though I do not agree, he may have a pretty good leg to stand on with that argument, especially given the scope of the attacks and the media coverage following. Certainly, no one can claim to be unaware of the case and if you tried to tell me you could sit in a jury and your judgment not be affected by the memories of that day, I would question your honesty.
So, there are two sides of this issue. Part of me wants to see these men receive justice for their crimes and part of me has to wonder if a fair trial is achievable in our country. The part that wants justice tends to overrule the part that wonders about the fair trial, but is that justifiable? What are your thoughts on the subject?
UPDATE: I have written another post that revisits this issue. In it, I try to explain why I have since changed my mind about these trials being a good idea.
Terrorist trials in New York – Revisited
Great post Larry and interesting questions you pose at the end. Certainly it will be impossible to get a fair trial here — anybody who is not familiar with the case is a complete idiot and can’t possibly be competent to sit on a jury. But if they cannot get a fair trial in the United States then what do we do? We’re not going to allow them to be tried in the International Criminal Court because that would put them outside of our jurisdiction for crimes committed in this country — no way we’re going to let that happen. I don’t know if the Supreme Court can claim jurisdiction but that may be the best place for this case to be decided.
It’s an interesting dilemma and one I would rather our country not be in. However we proceed, we need to make sure it is done fairly. No matter how heinous these crimes were, we do not want some international court or tribunal coming back on us and saying they did not receive a fair trial.
Very interesting points, Larry. I share your contention that we need to have this decided under US jurisdiction. And, given the outpouring of outrage and support the US recieved from leaders and peoples the world over I don’t think a “fair” trial is anymore possible in the international court than in the US. The victims of 9-11 are still entitled, under our Consitution, the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. I can’t imagine that we would find many “peers” of Todd Beamer etc in an international court.
Laurie,
Yeah, I somehow doubt there would be many peers of Todd Beamer in an international court. From all of the accounts that I have read, he and others on Flight 93 knew full well they were about to die and chose to do it on their terms, thus saving countless other lives in the process. Good point in bringing that up.
It isn’t so much the fact that they are going to be brought to American soil to be tried that bothers me but rather the fact that they will be tried in civilian court with full constitutional rights instead of a military tribunal. There is always the possibility that these people could walk on a technicality that wouldn’t occure in a military tribunal. Not to mention the fact that they already pled guilty to the crimes.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Obama may put global warming bill on the back burner
Mr. Pink Eyes,
I see your point and believe me, if one of these guys walks on a technicality, it is going to be a travesty of justice. I wonder why they chose civilian federal court instead of a military tribunal? Could that not have been done on U.S soil as well?