Lower Manhattan is the Proper Place to Try Khalid Sheikh Mohmammed
My phone started ringing within minutes of Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Lower Manhattan, just blocks away from Ground Zero. I have represented the Lower Manhattan district for over four years as Chairperson of Community Board 1 and sit on several of the government boards that govern downtown Manhattan. People in the community called me upon hearing the news, some saying it is fitting that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be brought to justice in the community that he attacked, while others feared security risks of the impending trial. The announcement led to a torrential outpouring of emotion and viewpoints, which Republican officials were quick to pounce on and politicize.
Personally, and I stress I speak for myself here, I think it is imperative and absolutely appropriate that Mr. Mohammed be tried in the shadow of the World Trade Center site. In my view, it should indeed be a jury of New Yorkers, the community who was most adversely impacted by the horrific events of September 11th, who decide Mr. Mohammed's fate. The people outside of the court room are entitled to have the trial in their community, the place of the attack, just as Mr. Mohammed is entitled to a fair trial in the court room. Federal trials are open to the public and this will then be an opportunity for family members, the community and the public as a whole to try to get closure on a horrifying event. Some defense attorneys have suggested that Lower Manhattan will not afford him a fair trial, as the jury pool is tainted. But what community was not impacted by 9-11? What constitutes fairness will be a well run jury selection process and voire dire.
Another reason the trial should absolutely be held in federal court in Lower Manhattan is for the rule of law to be upheld. Holder's announcement brought an end to a dishonorable chapter in our nation's history when the Bush Administration in 2006 set up special military tribunals with their own standards of evidentiary rules that were significantly looser than those required in a criminal trial in federal court. Most disturbingly, no sooner did Holder make his announcement, then we quickly saw Republican officials jump to condemn the decision and to urge a return to the secret military tribunals.
"Classified information can be inadvertently leaked" intoned Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell and then further ominously warned: "And our communities will be potential targets for attack." McConnell and others capitalized on the politics of fear to scare Americans into believing that we must accept these secret military tribunals as the only venue. Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman quickly took to the Fox news airwaves to deride Holder's decision. Don't McConnell, Cheney and Lieberman remember that it was a New York federal court who convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Since the September 11th attacks, in fact, 195 terrorists have been tried and convicted in the federal justice system. Not one of these convicted individuals has ever escaped from the supermax federal prisons. Under Bush's much vaunted military tribunal system, only 3 cases have commenced with none of them resulting in a conviction.
Most disconcerting, however, is the absolute disregard for the rule of law that these special tribunals had. We would have had justice served years ago for the families of the 9/11 victims, for the community that was attacked, and for our nation as a whole, if the Bush Administration had handled Mr. Mohammed and other detainees in the proper way from the beginning. After years of delaying a proper trial, we now finally have the opportunity to bring closure to the horrific events of September 11th.
A final reason that it is imperative that the venue be in federal court is so we can have a full public airing of the methods of interrogation that were utilized. Mr. Mohammed was the subject of 183 instances of waterboarding, or simulated drowning. Why should that information about waterboarding and other methods of enhanced interrogation be locked away in a secret tribunal rather than see the light of the day that a public trial in federal court will afford. We once and for all need to shed light on the fact that a means of torture was used, and used repeatedly. We have to remember that the United States after World War II, in the Tokyo Trials, tried and convicted, and indeed hung, Japanese soldiers who had waterboarded American POW's. It is also instructive to look at our Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson who decried the use of torture in his Notes on the State of Virginia "What has been the effect of coercion?" he asked. "To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." In words that ring all the more truly today, Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine: "I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
New York City deserves this trial. Our community has lived with the impact of the September 11th attacks. We expect a fair trial, and one that actually happens unlike the secret military tribunals, and one which is open and public and upholds the rule of law, except of course for issues affecting national security where the federal government has proper procedures in place to handle classified information. We finally have the opportunity to have a full airing on the devastating September 11th attacks and I hope to be there in the trial room in my community to hear it too.
Follow Julie Menin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/www.twitter/Jul
Gerald Shargel: Just a Few Blocks Away...
Even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a self-described "jackal," will be presumed innocent. But with all the constitutional embroidery, will Mohammed receive a fair trial in Manhattan?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think they shoud have the trial in Washington DC, preferably close to the location of Congress. Yea, I would like to hear the cowardly GOP complain.
New York City has taken its share of hits from this terrorist stuff and has diligently and effectively provided security for all New Yorkers. I can only imagine how many terrorist scares the NYC police have responded to since 9/11. The Feds should have taken a pole to see how New Yorkers felt about having the trial here in NY.
Security in NY City is difficult and expensive because of the concentrated population. Isn't it possible that when this circus trial gets going it could inspire some lunatic muslim extremist to blow himself up or even shoot up a crowd like that extremist muslim army colonel recently did. Couldn't the trial be held at some suburban or rural location. NY City doesn't need the drama or cost. Makes sense, doesn't it. So what are these people thinking. Again, our government thinks of it's own agenda and not the wishes of the people.
Aren't criminals usually tried in or near the place they committed their crime?
Yes, this is an extreme crime, but why should he not be tried here?
Yes. . . you are sure to find a clear and impartial jury of KSM's peers in New York City. Or is this what you want?
First of all, KSM will not be tried in NY. Any defense attorney will argue, and rightfully so, that he absolutely cannot get a fair trial in NY.
Second, any city where he is tried will become a magnet for any jihadi wanting to make a name for himself. Good luck with that!
Third, evidence obtained by torture is not admissable in a US court of law. If the defense argues successfully that waterboarding is torture, a lot of the evidence may be thrown out. And if he manages to walk, what then?
OMG!! It just dawned on me!! Most of the people blogging here don't know the main reason we do not want to try them in the Military system. I assumed everyong was familiar with the biggest arguement against giving the Terrorists a Military trial.
Just to get everyone up to speed;
If you give these people the ststus of being prisoners of War instead of Murderers, you give them rights that make them soldiers during a time of War. In other words, if they are viewed as prisoners of War, then it is not against the conventions of War to bomb the enemy's buildings. When you are a soldier and you bomb the enemy's buildings...there is nothing wrong with that. We do it all the time in Wars. If, on the other hand, you try them in a civilian court, you take away the arguement that they were at war with us and do not allow them the status of being an enemy Soldier.
When we lable them as Terrorists, and take away the Military trial, we can try them as the Murderers that they are.
I hope I explained this good enough to convey the sticky situation.
They were not enemy soldiers, they were enemy combatants and in that regard they were not under the protections of any country and thus do not qualify under Geneva conventions. They could easily be tried in a Tribunal and that is the only way to properly convict them. They do not deserve the rights of American Citizens.
Whenever I see one of those Republican Cowards, shaking in their Boots, talking about how there will be Terrorists in the United States, I can't help but think about the way they get deferments rather than serve in the Military. I also can't help but think how they carry that cowardess into this "bringing Terrorists to this country" thing. Rudy Juliani is the biggest Coward of them all. They are trying to sell the Country on this false idea that it is risky to try a Terrorist in our tried-and-true, time-tested, legal system and how it is safer to try them in a Military Tribunal system that was established with the new Laws since 2006. Just the opposite is true. It is far riskier to try them in the new Military Tribunal system. To see how true this is, just read some of the statments from Military JAG's that have tried to bring cases before the Tribunal. This crap that it is risky to bring them to the U.S. is nothing more than fear-mongering by the Republicans. The Republicans are afraid of a bunch of Beaten, Tortured, Shakled, losers that got caught by our Military and imprisoned. These men are about as dangerous as a powder-puff. But, the Republicans are scared to death of them. Frightened even. If one of these big, bad, Republicans were to come face-to-face with a bag Lady in an alley, they would probably soil themselves.
What these Republicans and, I would guess, most Americans are troubled with is the fact that it's very likely these men will get off on legal technicalities or jury nullification by a jury picked from one of the most liberal areas of the country. Some jurors probably will be more interested in putting the Bush administration and interrogation methods on trial during the prodeedings which will result in the nullification. If they get off, it won't go well for the Democrats in the next election.
That the jury is potentially biased is all but impossible to avoid. For every potential juror that just wants to stick it to the Bush administration, there is one dying to spill the blood of those that were behind (or even supported) the tragedy on 9/11. But at least it's a jury - which for lack of a better word is 'us'. Not a rigged system, occuring behind closed doors. I see very little justice in the tribunals. Vengeance =/= justice.
I will admit I'm also worried he may go free because of a technicality. But it's the technicalities that make our justice system great. If the best we can to do convict him is based on evidence unfairly (no, illegally) obtained, then our case against him is weak indeed.
I think AG Holder made the right decision to try it in NY.
(I'm against the death penalty in all cases, but that's not the point of this post.)
Giving enemy combatants civil rights is ridicules! Having this circus trial will put New York in a higher threat level. It will also cost the New York tax payers millions. There is no reason to do this. It makes no sense at all. Click here to read about the "Tea Baggers" haha www.thedailyzing.com
A trial in federal court, rather than before a military commission is absolutely required if we are to follow our own constitution.
However, a trial in the Southern District of New York virtually is guaranteed to be unfair precisely because that district is comprised of those "most adversely impacted by the horrific events of September 11th." Just as the federal courts recognized that Timothy McVeigh could not get a fair trial in Oklahoma City (or anywhere else in the State of Oklahoma), thus resulting in transfer of his trial to Denver, any federal judge should realize that KSM and anyone else tied to 9/11 cannot get a fair trial in SDNY (or anywhere else in the State of New York).
My son's little family live in the Battery Park and it's just fine with them.
As a Manhattanite, I applaud the move to have KSM et al. tried in the Southern District. And yes, they can get a fair trial here -- there are millions of people in the jury pool, namely, all the citizens of Manhattan and the Bronx. I doubt there will be a motion for a change of venue, and if there is one, that it will be granted.
I am sure they can get aquittals from the Citizens of New York. The liberals think they are all innocent anyway.
Hmmmm. . . After watching and listening to President Obama and Attorney General Holder justify the decision, the reasonable person is left with a very simple question: “Why?”
There is only one question that needs to be answered to determine whether or not these individuals should be tried in civilian or military courts. That question is whether the bombing of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 was an act of war or a crime. If the bombings were an act of war, then these individuals should be tried in military courts, period.
Unfortunately, President Obama and Attorney General Holder do not consider the bombing of Americans on U.S. soil an act of war, but a crime instead. This seems out of step with Middle America, which rejects the mental gymnastics required to arrive at the conclusion that the bombings were a crime and not an act of war.
A. Muser
http://americanmuser.wordpress.com/
was an act of war or a crime- a ridiculous question. if it was a "act of war" the defendents could just claim they were doing their job as soldiers. what country declared war on us for 911?
tim mcveigh declared "war" on the us govt. was that an act of war?
there are no " mental gymnastics" except logic.
i think this military court question is ABSURD. you have military tribunals like the Nuremberg trials when there is no functioning govt.
We have functioning legal systems in this nation. good enough to try people who set bombs or slam them into buildings. either in this guy or the world criminal court.
military courts are for soldiers like the guy in fort hood or as i said, places with no functioning govt.
"War" like "terrorist" and "hero" are losing any real sense of meaing. We use them whenever it seems to fit our agenda. (I don't mean to imply you have a particular agenda...)
How can a group of a few hundred declare war against an entire nation? If that's the case, could we try the Somali pirates as war criminals? Since they seem to attack ships without regard for home country, could every country try them as war criminals?
In my mind, this was a criminal act and deserves to be tried as such.
I beleive we shot three pirates dead on sight. And they are terrorists and should not be given Constituional rights.
As a New Yorker, I have to agree that lower Manhattan is the best place for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried. However, I wish we had so much more to show about New Yorkers' resilience than just a pit hole where the towers once stood. It is shameful that politics have gotten in the way of rebuilding ground zero.
A public trial in civilian court for these criminals, yes. But if ever a trial screamed "change of venue," this is it. Can they get a fair trial in New York? Some people around the world will wonder if they can get one anywhere in America. I think they can, but I'd have more confidence if it were outside of New York City. There has to be at least a chance of an acquittal, if that's where the evidence leads. Timothy McVeigh's trial was moved from Oklahoma City to Denver. Police who are charged with killing civilains are often tried elsewhere.
And none of this crap about "state secrets" or hiding information in the name of "national security," either. I've had it with politicians covering their derriers with a shield of "national security."
You cannot have a fair trial when the president has already stated he is guilty and will get the death penalty before the trial begins.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
