Decision to try 9/11 detainees in New York provokes heated debate

The decision by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (pictured) to prosecute self-proclaimed 9/11-mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York set off a major debate Friday over whether the move makes legal and practical sense.

Mohammed will face a jury trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York, only blocks away from the scene of the 2001 attack, where nearly 3,000 people lost their lives. "There were extraordinary crimes, and so we will seek maximum penalties," Holder said Friday in Washington, D.C. "I fully expect to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty against each of the 9/11 co-conspirators."

Four other individuals suspected of involvement in the terror attacks will also be tried in New York: Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali. The physical transfer of the detainees from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York is not expected take place for several weeks because formal charges have not been filed. According to the AP, upon their arrival, the detainees will most likely be held in the bleak prison tower at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, which has housed some of the city's most high-profile criminals, including killers, terrorists, and, most recently Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi swindler.

A Risky Move in Pursuit of Justice

Holder's action is a step toward President Barack Obama's broader goal of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, which will test the president's argument that the suspects can be successfully held and tried on American soil. Some legal experts suggest that because Mohammed has been subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding -- simulated drowning -- any information gathered from him through such techniques might not be admissible in court.

Speaking in Tokyo after a summit meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Obama expressed support for Holder's decision. "I am absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subjected to the most exacting demands of justice," Obama said.

The president has said he wants to change the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who insisted that the Guantanamo detainees be held as enemy combatants in an extra-national facility with extra-legal status. But Obama's move to legitimize the pursuit of justice for the attacks by bringing Mohammed into the American legal system carries enormous risks. Unfortunately for the prosecution in this case, nothing short of conviction will be acceptable to much of the public; while Mohammed has nothing to lose.

The first thing that a smart defense lawyer would do is seek a change of venue, arguing that the defendants could not receive a fair trial in lower Manhattan.

'They Don't Deserve the Same Rights as Americans'

Ray Kelly, New York City's Chief of Police said it was "entirely appropriate" that the suspects be tried in the city.

"They are responsible for the deaths of 3,000 people right here in Manhattan, and I think they should be tried in the venue where they committed the crime," Kelly told reporters Friday. "That has always been the standard in our criminal justice system. I see it fitting and appropriate."

But Frank Siller, a firefighter whose brother was killed, said it is a horrible decision to bring the detainees to New York. "They're in Gitmo and they should stay there and be tried in military court," Siller told NY1. "They're not Americans and they don't deserve the same rights as Americans. They killed 3,000 people that day and they are still trying to kill us today."

Read the rest of this post at DailyFinance

 

Follow Sam Gustin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/samgustin

Comments

[RichKrollJr]

I have read a number of ariticles and blogs on this decision. They miss the point. The decision ignores the lessons of history.

One of the defenses of this decision is that using the military system of justice will give these individuals an elevated status as warriors. They are nothing more than thugs and should be treated as such. Hence they should be tried as common criminals.

Mafia and criminal organizations attack people (and their weaknesses) and businesses for profit. This is not the case with Islamic radical organizations. They have declared war on our country. They are not doing this for profit. They are attacking our country and our political system. They have done this successfully in the United States and against US citizens around the world. Hitler and his henchmen were nothing but thugs. Sadam H. and his henchmen were thugs. However, they attacked countries. This is exactly what KSM has done.

This decision reflects President Obama's administration underestimating the threat to this country. These men represent an organized military group that has declared war on the United States and carried out one of the most horrid terrorist attacks in modern history. How can they justify treating them as "common criminals'? They have admitted their crimes and should be punished as military combatants. I fully agree with Obama's attempts to rebuild our image internationally. However this trial should not be used for that purpose. The treatment of these individuals should demonstrate our resolution to firm against terrorists.

[lisakaz2]

This whole alleged debate is ridiculous. These people defend lawlessness and torture and thinking America is above the law. If any nation treated this country like it's acted toward other countries (even say Italy in seizing people off the street or Canada in the rendition of one of its citizens) these same pundits would be beating a drum for war. The best thing can be said about justice and order is that those arrested after the 1993 WTC bombing are rotting quietly in jail. No backlash. No loss of American lives overseas or reputation throughout the world. They were treated like criminals and thus lost any romantic image of defiance. If we as a people cannot maintain our morals and legal structures when they are tested, what good are they. If you ask me, the fearmongers act out because they are weak.

[OgreDaddy]

After hearing Former AG Mukasey's presentation to the Federalist Society today, I'm totally convinced
Mukasey was placed at the DOJ as a guard dog to protect the Bush Administration's subversion of the law.

He even remarked that he was glad to be among people who supported his pathetic
dereliction of duty to the law and the U.S. Constitution.