Trial of 9/11 Conspirators in Civil Court, in New York City?

The Republicans are up in arms over the decision to try the terrorists in civil court. They want all the 9/11 perpetrators tried in military court. Many Republicans like Dick Cheney seem to prefer no trial at all- just let them rot in prison. The perpetrators include a high-ranking Al Qaeda member, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Republicans (and Joe Liberman) insist the terrorists should be given a military tribunal, not a namby-pamby civil court trial. Republicans claim they committed acts of war by launching an unprecedented multipoint attack on our homeland. But is this really an act of war or just a well-coordinated criminal action?

We apprehended them on the battlefield in Afghanistan, on a battlefield we created. So why not treat them as warriors and give them over to the military tribunal? Is fairness an issue? Do we get extra pleasure if their trial is a Military Tribunal? Will they be given a fair trial in either forum? If we tried them in military court they would be recognized as warriors, not the miserable criminals they are, and given extra credibility for their actions in the eyes of the world that may be sympathetic to their motivations. They claim retribution for eighty years of colonial rule and loss of sovereignty. They have a lot of supporters around the world.

The Republicans also keep reminding us a civil trial is a risky proposition. After all, the defendant has to be presumed innocent until found guilty, and guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet we know they’re guilty. We have evidence that traces them to the inner circles of Al Qaeda and some of them may have even admitted to their actions. If we know they’re guilty why do we bother to take them to trial? Does the process serve as a measure of closure to the families of the victims? Would the families of the victims prefer a Military Tribunal? A few have been very vocal in their demands for a Military Tribunal. I wonder if anyone has asked them. If they prefer a Military Tribunal would the Administration honor their request?

Some opponents of the President’s decision say the terrorists will make a mockery of our judicial system; the antics of each defendant will dishonor the court and turn a sacred institution into a circus. And there’s an outside chance that defense attorneys could win a dismissal for all sorts of technicalities that have strong precedents, like not reading the criminals their Miranda Rights. Or better yet for being tortured for information, denied access to prosecutors classified evidence, and not given a speedy trial; having been denied Habeas-Corpus that was reinforced by a Supreme Court ruling on this very subject in June 2008. Seven years of imprisonment without a trial can hardly be considered compliance with due process.

Other dilemmas to consider are the venue itself and the jury. People charged with heinous crimes usually get a opportunity for a change of venue, to a location where the public may be more objective, and a jury may be comprised of people from that community who are sworn to uphold a pledge objectivity. So why have the trial in New York, just a few blocks from the scene of the crime? Why not move the venue to another state? Obviously, there is no place to go. The world knows this crime and objectivity will be no better in Fargo North Dakota than NYC. Aside from that, a jury of their peers may be hard, if not impossible to find. Would that mean they should be Muslims? Arabs? Men? An interesting dilemma indeed…

If that’s not enough, the Republicans also seem to feel that classified intelligence methods and information will be at risk of disclosure to our enemies at large, leaving us at increased risk and vulnerable to other terrorist actions. There’s also the risk that some wackos or comrades-in-arms will martyr themselves and endanger the lives of more people in New York City during the trial.

Given all of these questions, why is the administration willing to run the gamut of all these obstacles to seek justice for people who distain our country and everything it stands for? There’s only one answer- because this is America and this is how we function. To admit that our system of justice is not robust enough to handle these criminals, as the Republicans seem to imply, would be an admission that our judicial system has failed us. We have a system of justice and we’re compelled to use it no matter how repugnant the criminals may be. History may well view this event as one of the greatest tests of our judicial system.