ShareThisThe prospect of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-claimed mastermind of 9/11, in a New York City federal court had a certain appealing justice to it. His fate would be decided a short distance from the site of the demolished twin towers in Lower Manhattan.
But then New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other city leaders began to have second thoughts. It would cost $200 million in extra security, tie up traffic, interfere with commerce, depress real-estate values for the duration of the trial and potentially invite another terrorist attack.
If, in the aftermath of 9/11, it was known that the cost of bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to New York for trial was some traffic jams, inconveniences for Wall Street traders and a hiccup in rents, this wouldn't have even been a question. As for terrorists trying to disrupt the trials of their brethren, one is reminded of George W. Bush's "Bring 'em on."
But the steely rage of those days has dissipated, and President Barack Obama has apparently acceded to city officials' request to hold the trial somewhere else. And other locations are willing, if only because such is the impact of the recession that for many venues a high-profile terrorist trial would represent a real economic shot in the arm.
If the trial has to be moved, so be it, but it has to be a civilian trial in a civilian location.
However, Republicans of short memory are trying to block the use of any federal funds to try foreign terrorist suspects in U.S. civilian courts. It is a backdoor way of trying to turn the suspects over to military commissions and perhaps to keep Guantanamo Bay open as a venue for the trials.
The GOP lawmakers seem to think that the civilian courts are incapable to trying foreign terrorist suspects, even though the Bush administration tried somewhere around 190 suspects, including Zacarias Moussaoui, the reputed 20th hijacker, and shoe bomber Richard Reid.
The problem with military commissions for the high-value targets is that no one would see them as fair. It might have worked had the Bush administration not hopelessly tainted the process by proposing kangaroo military courts where secret evidence was admissible, the accused had no right of jury or appeal or even to a lawyer of his choice. The death penalty was to be majority vote.
American justice, with its centuries-old constitutional safeguards and respect for due process, stands for something good and honorable in this world. Forcing us to give up on our judicial system is a victory for terrorism.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.scrippsnews.com)
The Real Facts about The Military Commissions
I wish Scripps Howard News Service would do a much better job of fact checking editorials by Dale McFeatters before they are sent around the world. Has anyone in your news organization even looked that the Military Commissions Act of 2009 -- approved by Congress and signed into law by President Obama? My guess is probably not, you just reprint the propaganda from naysaying organizations. Here are some facts about the rights and protections afforded to people facing Military Commissions:
• The accused has a presumption of innocence.
• A requirement for proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Representation by an independent military defense counsel free of charge with the option to retain civilian defense counsel. Civilian defense counsel must be U.S. citizens.
• Foreign consultants available for consultation during the proceedings.
• Presence of accused at all proceedings of the military commission, other than those for deliberations and voting. The military judge may only exclude the accused if the accused persists in conduct that is disruptive or threatens the physical safety of individuals.
• An opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses.
• A requirement that the accused be provided evidence to be introduced against him or her at trial.
• Protection from self-incrimination at trial, and most common law evidentiary privileges.
• The option to represent oneself in court.
• The exclusion of statements obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Prohibition against drawing an adverse inference if an Accused chooses not to testify.
• A thorough, comprehensive and independent appellate system, including appeals to U.S. civilian federal courts.
Based on the facts -- everything that Mr. McFeatters wrote in his penultimate paragraph is flat-out wrong. Here's the real bottom line . . . the protections Military Commissions make available to the accused are unprecedented in the history of warfare. They exceed what was available at Nuremberg. They exceed the international criminal tribunals at Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia. They reflect the principles of the American legal system while allowing for the realities of war.
Post new comment