When Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, self-described mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was finally apprehended during a raid in Pakistan in 2003, he requested two things: He wanted to see a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York.
It seems now that he will get his wish.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday that Mohammed and four of his accused co-conspirators would be transported to New York to stand civilian trial in the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan, a decision that has former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and other Republican leaders more than a little upset.
They insist a civilian trial in New York would result in unnecessary security issues for the city and give the accused terrorists a greater opportunity for acquittal. Giuliani also alleged in an interview with CNN the trial would be a symbolic denial that the United States is at war with terrorism.
Instead of trying Mohammed in federal court, Giuliani suggested, they should be tried via military tribunal, a type of military court historically used to prosecute captured enemy forces during wartime.
Along with a different set of jurors, tribunals carry some major differences from civilian courts: Evidence generally has lower standards for admittance, trials are held in secret and defendants don’t have the right to appeal their convictions.
Critics of Holder’s decision fear that a trial in federal court may give the accused terrorists extra opportunities to escape punishment, while a trial through tribunals would almost certainly guarantee they receive the death penalty.
They also say that a public trial in New York will give the terrorists undeserved rights as well as a pubic forum through which to broadcast their ideals.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” he feared Mohammed and his accused co-conspirators would make a circus of the trial and “use it as a platform to push their ideology.”
The last time Mohammed was given such a platform was at a military hearing at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, during which he delivered a rambling discourse on such topics as manifest destiny and the Revolutionary War.
If he’s given the opportunity to spread his message again, he’s bound to take it.
Hoekstra asked in his “Face the Nation” discussion why Mohammed and the other suspects should be allowed “the extraordinary protections that you and I have as American citizens.”
Hoekstra’s question and the criticisms raised by Giuliani and others are appropriate. Why should we give these men free and fair trials in the very jurisdiction they requested? If we are indeed involved in a war against them, why should terrorists be granted the same rights given to American citizens
Because we’re better than them.
Do these accused terrorists deserve a fair trial? No. But we should still give them one. Nothing would better display the belief in the power of our system, in ideals that the ones on trial so zealously attempted to destroy.
A deviation from the way we regularly operate, while likely ensuring a swift and harsh punishment, would only validate the effect Mohammed and his sycophants attempted to have on our country.
The terrorists of Sept. 11 were trying to send a message with their horrific attacks. By standing strong to our principles, we’ll be sending one right back.
Reach Zach at zfowle@asu.edu.
