A Change of Venue for the Trials of 9/11 Terrorists?
Nov 17th, 2009 | 15 responses
There has been a lot of angst, criticism and just plain political hysteria surrounding the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, and other terrorists, in a federal civilian court, just blocks from Ground Zero.
I will be the last one to pass judgment on the emotions and feelings—pro or con this decision—of relatives and friends of New York’s 9/11 victims and of New Yorkers. Nor will I pass judgment at this time on the administration’s decision to move some of the terrorists’ trials out of military courts to federal civilian courts on the U.S. mainland.
Assuming the administration’s decision to try these terrorists in federal civilian courts stands, I respectfully suggest a change of venue.
Perhaps we should consider moving the trial(s) to our nation’s capital, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Such a change of venue would recognize that it was not only New York that was attacked on 9/11, but our entire nation—all Americans.
It could also allay some—not all—concerns and criticisms.
The 9/11 terrorists also attacked the very symbol of our military power: the Pentagon. I know that many of the military who saw so many of their buddies injured and 55 of them killed, would welcome seeing the perpetrators face justice just across the Potomac from the place that was attacked and where their buddies died.
For those who worry about reprisals and security, these same military, along with reinforcements (there are numerous military installations in the Washington D.C. area), would be more than happy and capable to provide the necessary protection and deal with those who would dare to “interfere.”
The President and the Attorney General who proposed the civilian court trials are here also. And so is Congress. They would all be equally exposed to any potential danger, from which they should not shrink, and which should promote even greater security and protection.
As in New York, federal rules will allow prosecutors in Washington D.C. to seek the death penalty for these terrorists.
Finally, with our Supreme Court here, a symbol of American commitment to justice for the world to see, what an opportunity to quickly and decisively consider and once-and-for-all settle any appeals that may arise and to have justice served—swiftly and to the fullest extent.
Just a thought…
15 Responses to “A Change of Venue for the Trials of 9/11 Terrorists?”
How about a change of venue back to the Military court? However, since the Pentagon was attacked and people on the plane that crashed in PA were murdered there, any place would work. A fair trial, not so easy, unless the Supremes ran it. (But ,wait, they have been accused of throwing a case, haven't they?)
Any competent defense lawyers will run rings around the prosecution and the well intentioned “we will show the World” concept that we are the good guys and reduce it to we are the stupid guys. And this will go on for years. (From indictment to trial about two years, by some estimates.)
I would love to know from those who so vociferously critical of the decision to change locations, just how this change in location or the procedures used would somehow place us at risk, when we were perfectly capable of charging, prosecuting, and convicting Shaykh Omar Abdur Rahman & Co. of the first WTC bombing using just such a procedure and location over a decade ago, and all in about half the time it's taken us to deal with anyone at Gitmo.
“and all in about half the time it's taken us to deal with anyone at Gitmo.”
NY, DC, any federal court would probably meet this criterion.
Most of us don't have access to the courtroom itself, so why does it matter where the trial is actually held? It could be held in Cyberspace, and likely will be, where ever the real trial happens. The reporters, commentators, mass media, will all be participating so if what you want is for “radio silence” than that is unlikely to occur.
For me it still boils down to believing, trusting in our constititution and legal system to deliver as best as it can, imperfect justice. (the only justice there is, really) And I would ask those who would want to gag the defendants– what there is to fear/what will we hear that we don't already know?
A.G. Holder:
“We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”
The world is going to see the trial as a mock trial anyway. I think we get no benefit at all from having a federal court system trial rather than military tribunals.
Would have beeen better had the military come out and said, “oh we already executed them ten months ago”.
Short media storm then….end of story.
I agree, assuming it was a fair trial.
[...] Move Khalid Sheik Mohammed terror trial to D.C.? Blogger makes the case. [...]
Of course a change of venue should be sought. This was one of the defects that was screamed at all but the below-IQ crowd (who can't hear or be counted on to respond normally) the instant the trial decision was announced.
“How about a change of venue back to the Military court?”
I suspect it's too late, and the federal government is committed. (Presumably in addition to all the emotional sappliness and demented lefty politics influencing this decision, the feds are confident they have enough evidence to get beyond the torture and exclusion hurdles.) It would be interesting where else the trial should be held, and what might happen. Consider the West Coast and the involvement of the Ninth Circus Court in the appeals process. [chuckle]
Well of course it would be fair.
Some people, not me, feel the military trials are not as “fair” because there is no tenured judge and that many of the defense maneuvers allowed in a civil trial may not be available. A perception, I hope that is inaccurate.
Nidal Malik Hasan's (civilian) attorney is probably paying close attention to the “9-11″ situation.
I think it's sort of like a committee without a jury.
The attorney general said using civilian courts to try 9/11 detainees didn't mean the administration is abandoning the view the U.S. is “at war” with terrorist groups.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125855746073553…