You are here: Home » News

Terrorists’ trials cause debate over location

By Gaveliers, The Gavel Media Team, on December 7, 2009 1:58 PM

By Lake Coreth, News Editor

Nationwide controversy has surrounded the news that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other men accused of conspiring in the Sept. 11 plots are to be tried in a Manhattan federal court. Both emotional and political tensions run high as the nation weighs in on whether or not terrorists should be tried in a civilian court at the epicenter of the Sept. 11 events.

While Mayor Michael Bloomberg has voiced his support of the Obama administration’s decision to bring the trial to New York, New Yorkers are divided over the issue.

“It makes sense that [Attorney General] Holder wants to bring these men to justice at the site where they cost so many their lives,” Patrick Brescia, A&S ’11, said. “But I can’t help but feel that these men don’t deserve to be tried like everyone else. They aren’t American citizens, so why are they being treated as though they are?”

That said, only a select few of the men accused in the Sept. 11 plots have been granted trials in civilian court. The remainder of the trials will remain under the jurisdiction of a military commission.

“Give them a trial,” Colin Madigan, A&S ’12, said. “These men are guilty and they will be proven guilty.”

He added that New Yorkers, like all Americans, deserve closure.

“We have been through a lot,” Madigan said. “Sept. 11 is a dark memory. Let’s end it by showing that we’re better than they are. That we are above it all.”

Standing by the administration’s decision, the attorney general testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm and our people are ready,” Holder said. “We need not cower in the face of this enemy.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, echoed the attorney general’s sentiments.

“We have a judicial system that’s the envy of the world,” Leahy said. “Face the nation … Let’s use our system.”

Despite the firm resolve of many that a civilian court is the proper place for such a trial, the divide across party lines continues to complicate the debate over how the accused should be tried. While most Democrats have hailed the decision as an opportunity to showcase the aptitude and fairness of the American courts, many Republicans criticize the choice of venue. Entitling the accused to due process and a fair trial, many argue, treats these men like common criminals instead of as belligerent enemies of the United States.

Boston College’s R. Shep Melnick, professor in the Political Science Department, had additional insight on the debate, noting that there is a central irony involved in having these men go through a full criminal trial.

“But what are the advantages?” Melnick asks. “To show that our system is capable of doing this. To show that this is truly fair, that the issue is highly transparent, and that it cannot be claimed that we railroaded them. The biggest difficulty with a military commission is that people have doubts about how impartial it is, about how much the military chain of command will determine the outcome.”

Legal analysts are skeptical of whether or not it is even possible for these men to receive a fair trial in a civilian court, let alone in front of a military commission. The selection of jurors will be an especially foreboding obstacle facing defense lawyers responsible for representing the defendants. Sitting in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers fell will unavoidably play a part in the ultimate decision of the jury.

Then there is the issue of the death penalty. Public opinion in New York is known to be more wary of imposing the death penalty than other state residents. Despite the many terrorism trials that have been heard in the state — many of which involved followers of Osama Bin Laden — only one person has been sentenced to death in New York since the 1950s, the same decade in which the Rosenbergs were sentenced to death.

Complicating the issue, many other jurors may opt for life-in-prison as opposed to capital punishment out of the fear of making martyrs out of the accused. Earlier this year, at Guantánamo Bay, Mohammed — who has eagerly taken blame for the Sept. 11 attacks — testified at a military hearing.

“We don’t care about capital punishment,” Mohammed said. “We are doing jihad for the cause of God.”

There is also the issue of torture. Defense lawyers will inevitably present evidence to demonstrate that the defendants were mistreated and, moreover, argue that coercively obtained confessions are inadmissible in court. However, the government will want to avoid the possibility that the trials will spiral out of hand and become a forum for discussion against Bush Administration interrogation techniques and the American “War on Terror.”

“I would be disappointed if the judge allowed this to become a trial on the policies of the Bush administration,” Melnick said. “If there is to be an investigation of the policies of the Bush administration, the proper place for that to take place is in Congress. That is a political question that should not be tried here.”

Ultimately, the trial judge will assess the relevance of such issues in court, and only time will tell whether or not the culpability of the five terrorists or U.S. policies will take center stage at trial.

Regardless, if and when the trial makes its way in front of jury, it will undoubtedly take its place as a defining moment in U.S. history.