NBC News has learned that the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks will be tried in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay and not in federal court in Manhattan, just blocks from the World Trade Center site.
The Justice Department’s announcement in 2009 that it would seek to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other four suspects in civilian court was met with fierce opposition from many elected officials, families of victims and those who live and work in Lower Manhattan, who would have had to contend with several rings of heavy security for the months of the trial.
The decision is a victory for Mayor Bloomberg, who had supported the trial in New York at first, but then reversed himself and came out against it, citing the cost of providing security would be too much for the city to bear. He had put the figure at $200 million a year, but never provided details on what that included.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly had also spoken out against trying the suspects in New York, saying at one point it would increase the threat of another terror attack.
The federal government had promised it would pay back the city for security costs, but would not have compensated business owners or others who would have been inconvenienced by the trial.
After pressure and opposition from Bloomberg and others, Attorney General Eric Holder shelved the plan last year, saying the White House was reviewing the decision.
Raising security concerns, conservative Republicans staunchly oppose trials in civilian courts inside the United States for terrorism suspects, saying they should be tried instead before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration had said that both civilian courts and military commissions should be available for such trials, pointing to the fact that dozens of terrorism-related cases have been handled in civilian courts.
Critics of the administration’s initial approach also argued that trials in civilian courts run a greater risk of acquittals than in military courts because of rules of evidence and rights afforded to suspects.
(Source: NBC New York)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
11 Responses
If they follow the usual rules for military trials, the critics are wrong about the greater risk of acquittals. My father served on court martial boards while he was an officer in the US Air Force and he reported that the courts often returned verdicts that the higher-ups didn’t want.
Last fall I served on a grand jury in the same courthouse where a Gitmo detainee was being tried. There were no security problems, and the detainee, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is now serving a life sentence after having been convicted of conspiracy related to the 1998 US Embassy bombings. The system worked; why fix it?
Gimme a break Charles! You are so left, I am surprised you don’t fall over!
Why does this terrorist deserve a regular trial? This animal is NOT a common crook. He is responsible for putting together the 911 on OUR nation. Sorry you forgot about that but alas that is typical of the daily kook left.
Just like any other enemy captured on the battlefield, he deserves a military tribunal & NOT protection of the US Constitution like a regular citizen. Let us hope he is found guilty so that we could finally dispense with this evil person.
CH,
Because you cite one case means the system works? Who will pay for the added security? Is it fair that we as a city/state have to pick up the additional costs? I am glad to see that the Obama administration finally came around, as all polls showed that the overwhelming majority polled didn’t want it here in NYC.
The question is not if the system works — I certainly would hope the system responsible for trying U.S. citizens works! However these detainees are NOT U.S. citizens. They are not entitled to the same rights and privileges that citizens are granted. Granting them trials in the U.S. would cost money, tie up an already overburdened system, and grant them a public platform to spew their warped ideology. It would inconvenience thousand of innocent U.S. citizens, and as these cases would be much more high profile than Ghailani’s, they would require tremendous security. (All high profile court cases, such as those involving celebrities get extra security — the difference is that U.S. citizens have the right to access our judicial system, while foreigners, particularly those accused of being enemy combatants or terrorists, do not).
I believe there is a moral right (independent of the specific rights in our Constitution) to provide accused individuals or captured prisoners a fair trial, but there is no logical reason that a military trial cannot serve this purpose.
Why try them in Federal court rather than State court, and why not in Virginia (which routinely executes people). There’s nothing wrong with our court system. Even if they get some nut who blocks a guilty verdict, they get 3000 opportunities to try them. The government’s fear of an open trial in a regular court suggests that the powers that be are afraid that when the truth is known, it will be apparent that the defendants are not guilty??? Are American courts so corrupt that a jury drawn from local citizens (and in the case of New York, virtually anyone in the city would be disqualified so the trial would probably have to be upstate) can’t be trusted?
Our legal system is one of the best and most exceptional things about America, and this would have been a great opportunity to show it off.
Non-US citizens have the same rights to due process and equal protection under the law as US citizens. It is in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. While I served on that grand jury we handed down indictments against a number of non-citizens; they will be tried in federal court.
Clinton and Bush tried almost all of the non American terrorists from 1992 through 2008 in American courts and not in military courts. Obama/ Holder would have been no different. It seems that the reason is in part because of what was reported in CNN today
“We weren’t out advocating for this decision,” a senior Defense official told CNN. “But we do have a court system (at Guantanamo Bay) that is both prepared to handle, and is already handling, people accused of crimes relating to terrorism.”
The official said a lack of funding from Congress on more permanent detainment options for terrorist suspects within the continental United States “left the Justice Department short on options.”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/04/guantanamo.tribunals/index.html?hpt=T1
runwitharetz:
You like 1984 and Animal Farm, don’t you… “George Orwell”? Ah, but of course – Eric Blair was an avowed socialist, as are you. And just as 1984 ends describing Winston Smith, “he loved Big Brother”, you seem to adore the one we’ve got, don’t you?
charliehall:
“Last fall I served on a grand jury in the same courthouse where a Gitmo detainee was being tried. There were no security problems, and the detainee, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is now serving a life sentence after having been convicted of conspiracy related to the 1998 US Embassy bombings. The system worked; why fix it?”
It did not work. Ghailani should be dead, not sitting in jail.
runwitharetz:
You like 1984 and Animal Farm, don’t you… “George Orwell”? Ah, but of course – Eric Blair was an avowed socialist, as are you. And just as 1984 ends describing Winston Smith, “he loved Big Brother”, you seem to adore the one we’ve got, don’t you?
charliehall:
“Last fall I served on a grand jury in the same courthouse where a Gitmo detainee was being tried. There were no security problems, and the detainee, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, is now serving a life sentence after having been convicted of conspiracy related to the 1998 US Embassy bombings. The system worked; why fix it?”
It did not work. Ghailani should be dead, not sitting in jail.
Charlie, I must have missed it but please show me where in the 14 amendment does it say “Non-US citizens have the same rights to due process and equal protection under the law as US citizens”?
Oh and btw the Geneva Conventions prohibit civilian trials for prisoners of war, but I am sure you already knew that.
Please explain to me why you don’t approve my posts? there is nothing crude or malicious in there. I am very disappointed with censorship by the mods.