NEW YORK TIMES
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a decision that ignited a sharp political debate but took a step toward resolving one of the most pressing terrorism detention issues.
The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., could mean one of the highest-profile and highest-security terrorism trials in history would be set just blocks from where hijackers for Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people. Mr. Holder said he would instruct prosecutors to seek death sentences for Mr. Mohammed and four accused Sept. 11 co-conspirators who would be tried alongside him.
The administration’s decision to bring five Sept. 11 detainees onto United States soil for prosecution in the civilian legal system drew immediate fire from members of Congress as well as relatives of victims and neighbors of the federal courthouse. They argued that Qaeda suspects did not deserve the protections afforded by the American criminal justice system, that bringing them into the United States would heighten the risk of another terrorist attack, that civilian trials increase the risk of disclosing classified information, and that if the detainees were acquitted they could be released into the population.
Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, questioned the wisdom of trying terrorism suspects in civilian courts, arguing that military commissions were more appropriate. But many other Democrats praised the move, noting that New York had been the setting for other high-profile terrorism trials — including the prosecution of Omar Abdul-Rahman, the “blind sheik” who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Attorney General Holder said he was confident that the men would be convicted, and other administration officials said they had ample legal authority to keep classified information secret.
The decision to prosecute some detainees in civilian court was a major policy shift from the Bush administration, which contended that suspected Al Qaeda members should not be treated like — nor given the rights of — ordinary criminals. It had charged the Sept. 11 defendants before a military commission at Guantánamo, which has a more flexible standard for evidence.
Civil-liberties and human-rights groups praised the decision to try the detainees in federal court. Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the announcement “an enormous victory for the rule of law.”
he prospect of prosecuting Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Nashiri has been particularly difficult because their defense lawyers are expected to argue that they were illegally tortured by the Central Intelligence Agency during their confinement. Both were subjected to waterboarding, a controlled drowning technique.
I believe that the other terrorists in the world are laughing at us right now for even thinking about letting these horrible people be tried in a civilian court. This is exactly what they want, especially if it is in New York City. The first clue that this was a bad idea should have come from the fact that practically all of the 9/11 victims' families are protesting against this. The defense lawyers of the case are complaining that the criminals were being illegally tortured. Let's not forget that the terriosts illegally slaughtered nearly 3,000 American lives. Anyway, the terriosts should not be allowed to have the same privileges as normal criminals in a civilian court. They should be given a fair case, meaning that they receive the trial that they deserve; in a military court, if not, worse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justin they should not have the luxury of our courts and should be prosecuted in military courts for a few reasons. First, they will be let out freely into the population if they are found not guilty. Secondly, lots of people are protesting against it. Last, if they get a trial in the states it is exactly what they want.
ReplyDeleteGreat, I just found out that if they do try the accused terrorists in the civilian court, the alleged terrorists will have to explain their motives for their actions. I think that we continue to toss these people a bone and give into their personal wants. The audience, if their would even BE any, would become completely hysterical after listening to that. The good news is that the local phychiatrists would be paid more, if you can even cosider that "good news." It's fine to ask the terrorists why they did it, but certainly not in a public court.
ReplyDeleteI don't think what they've done is belong to tort, so there's no excuse for Govt. to bring take them to the civilian court.As we know,they are the mainmind of the massacre during the last 300 years of the U.S. history.if they are brought to civilian court,who knows if it will cause a worse event to advent.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there shouldn't even be a trial for this man. I know it's his "right" but I think he definitely abused his rights enough already. I don't think he deserves a trial let alone a fair trial. If I could prosecute this man I would go straight for the slowest most painful punishment allowed in our nation. Words can't describe what this man did and
ReplyDeleteI only wish we could put him through what so many Americans went through.