Let's not kid ourselves.
Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to return five 9/11 terror suspects to New York City to stand trial in civilian court, rather than in military commissions, was undoubtedly made with the blessing of President Barack Obama. By way of deduction, this decision has little to do with furthering the interests of justice. If that were the case, neither Holder nor Obama would have put the cases in such dire jeopardy.
Holder points to the success the Department of Justice has had in prosecuting previous terror cases in civilian courts. He points to the convictions of the so-called shoe bomber, Richard Reid, who attempted to light a bomb on board an airplane in 2001; the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who conspired to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to execute the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. While all three men are serving life sentences, their cases are dramatically different from the ones currently discussed in terms of both scope, magnitude and evidence collection.
For example, each of those cases were investigated by civilian authorities such as police officers and FBI agents. Additionally, most of the critical evidence was gathered on American soil. In each of those three cases, federal prosecutors had more than just the suspect's confession upon which to base their case.
Take a look at the case against Mohammed, the most infamous of the "Gitmo Five." Virtually the entire case rests on his own confessions, which prosecutors will attempt to submit as evidence of his guilt.
Trouble is, a swirl of controversy surrounds his statements. Defense experts will most certainly argue that Mohammed's statements were made under duress and after extensive torture and that he was never informed of his legal rights.
Another defense technique could be the question of jurisdiction. While the interrogations may have taken place on military bases, which are technically under American jurisdiction, any physical evidence or corroborating statements collected by the military may be called into question due to concerns regarding the chain of custody and location of interviews. Where that evidence was gathered and under what circumstances could pose significant challenges to the federal government's legal team.
Finally, significant internal problems could arise since those prosecuting the case were uninvolved in its investigation. Being unfamiliar with how evidence was collected, how confessions were elicited and where certain events transpired (beyond the crime itself) could all create unexpected -- and potentially crippling -- surprises for the prosecutorial team.
Trying the cases in a military court, however, is much less risky, since the rules of evidence are dramatically different, the investigating officers more likely are familiar with the prosecuting officers, and the investigative process was conducted with a military commission in mind. Military courtrooms far removed from the crime scene also reduce the possibility of a tainted or impartial jury.
So the question becomes, "Why did Obama and Holder decide to bring the suspects to New York to stand trial?" Setting aside the statements Holder made in his appearance today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which were filled with platitudes and non-answers, the most obvious answer is shocking.
Despite Holder's assertions that the trials will, among other things, expose Mohammed for "the coward that he is," the trials will also, most assuredly give Mohammed a platform upon which he can profess his radical beliefs. Worse, the trials will almost certainly raise the torture debate once again, as defense attorneys attempt to put the American military on trial, along with intelligence investigators who helped obtain Mohammed's confessions.
Unlike military commissions, civil courtrooms frequently allow cameras to record the proceedings. This means Mohammed, who was charged with numerous criminal counts related to the 9/11 attacks in military tribunals, will have the chance to appear live before a world audience and perhaps indoctrinate many more radical Islamic terrorists.
Whether bringing the suspects to New York City to stand trial is a conscious effort on the part of the Obama administration to further denigrate the previous administration so the president can campaign against George W. Bush for a second time when he runs for re-election in 2012, or if this is just a misguided attempt to wrest prosecutorial glory from the American military and US intelligence service remains to be seen.
Neither scenario is out of the bounds of possibility. Holder has already cast a shot across the Bush Administration's bow, saying, "For eight years justice has been delayed for the 9/11 attacks. No more delay. It is time; it is past time to finally act."
Holder remains convinced his decision to try the suspects in civil courts will withstand the scrutiny of history. His gamble for glory, however, could have massive repercussions if he's wrong.
Join Me on Facebook | Get My Twitter Updates 
Photo © Alex Wong/Getty Images
Comments
Justin —
“So the question becomes, “Why did Obama and Holder decide to bring the suspects to New York to stand trial?” ”
Ninety Gitmo detainees have been designated for release/repatriation. Other Gitmo detainees are going to get processed through American civilian courts. Still others are going to get processed through military tribunals. Finally, there is a group that has been declared too dangerous to release or to process. The simple fact that KSM has been designated to a civilian court indicates to me that the case against him must be strong enough to proceed, without the reliance on evidence tainted by torture.
To date, military tribunals have adjudicated the cases of exactly 3 detainees. FTR, I have no idea of the strength of the case against KSM. However, I don’t think that there is much chance of him getting off.
Is this a shot across the bow of the Bush Administration? It could be, if it shows exactly how much we got from this guy before we tortured him. However, it also shows the very best of the American justice system. We are not afraid of this guy. We do this in public. The world will hear the evidence against him. And the world can judge. Would that that same justice could be extended to every detainee.
There is no way KSM will get a fair trial in NY. Bringing him back to the ’scene of the crime’ will only hurt his chances for a fair trial. If I were his defense attorney I would argue for a change of venue. NY is probably the worst place for this man to be prosecuted. For that matter, they will seek the death penalty. Supposedly even putting aside the evidence obtained through waterboarding they still have a mountain of evidence against him. The fact is we have already brought other 911 terrorists to justice. If the only evidence we have was obtained under duress, then we really have no evidence in the first place.
We are a people of law and order. Let’s use our law and order to bring him to justice and turn him into cornmeal. That’s the American way. Fair, just, but not always forgiving.
Our criminal justice system is touted as the best. If he is in fact guilty, which he probably is, he will be convicted. I just don;t see why everyone is up in arms about us trying criminals in our own criminal system.
Holder is an idiot and should be removed from his position.the trial should never have been here on U.S. soil.Gitmo is set up to take care of what should have been a military tribunal,it should have never been an open trial in the city that was devastated by the acts of these people
I believe Holder and Obama want to try these killers in a civilian court because they want them acquitted. In fact, I would not be surprised if the judge who presides over the case is hand picked by the Obama regime to ensure that they are acquitted. Obama and his people hate this country and anything bad or destructive that happens to us is fantastic with them. He’s a Moslem extremist. He is encouraging another attack on this country. In fact, it would not even surprise me if Obama already knows when and where that attack is going to take place. And, I consider the Fort Hood killings to have been a terrorist attack and Hassan not only just a traitor and murderer but a terrorist. They will probably also do everything they can to get him off as well.
It’s time for another American Revolution!!
Thanks for writing Mr. Olsen.
While I appreciate your passion and your patriotism, I do not believe President Obama hates America or is a Muslim extremist. I think he is a very naive man who was not seasoned enough to appropriately handle the job of president. That said, I do agree that Obama is behind the decision to try the cases in New York, but for very different reasons. By the time this case goes to trial, I expect it will be about election time 2012. I think Obama is counting on the publicity from the case to cast a shadow on the Bush administration once again. Obama is a master at deflecting criticism about his record onto other people. In this case, his first term won’t be much of a success and he’ll want to show his liberal base that in ensuring the safety of our citizens, the Bush Administration handled terror suspects roughly. These trials will be just the political theater he is hoping for.
There is no other way to explain why, for the first time in American history, the Attorney General would choose to try enemy combatants in civilian courts. This is the only scenario which makes any sense to me.