In case you missed this story on Friday (I did): WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, in a Manhattan federal courtroom, a decision that ignited a sharp political debate but took a step toward resolving one of the most pressing terrorism detention issues.
So, as you might imagine, there is a large range of opinions on this matter. Marc Ambinder notes:
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announcing Friday that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others would be tried in federal court in Manhattan.
The decision, announced by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., could mean one of the highest-profile and highest-security terrorism trials in history would be set just blocks from where hijackers for Al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center, killing nearly 3,000 people.
Mr. Holder said he would instruct prosecutors to seek death sentences for Mr. Mohammed and four accused Sept. 11 co-conspirators who would be tried alongside him.
But while the civilian system would handle those cases, he said five other detainees would be prosecuted before a military commission.The chief GOP arguments -- that terrorists don't deserve the same rights as Americans -- even common criminals -- and that the 9/11 terrorists are inherently of a different and more nefarious breed of species than people who break the law -- are generally supported by Americans.
And in that argument I find one extremely fatal flaw; no matter how bad the crime is, everyone deserves the same rights under the law. That means that KSM and His Band of Merry Men deserve the same due process as Joe Sixpack who got pulled over for a DUI or Jane Dough who is accused of having a meth lab in her outhouse. I will agree that the 9/11 dudes are definitely more nefarious than my examples, but if we do not allow the Rule Of Law to permeate all aspects of our legal system, aren't we being a bit hypocritical?
Now, the actual logistics of the case are another story altogether.
While I support the idea of giving all people accused of committing a crime a fair trial (no matter what the charge is), I have one reservation about this particular case; how are they going to find an impartial jury?
September 11th, 2001 is a day that is scorched into the collective consciousness of this nation. It seems that hardly a day goes by that does not include some passing reference to 9/11 and the atrocities that happened that day (though, I suppose that my constant perusal of politics and related subjects may have something to do with that). If I were placed in a courtroom with a jihadist who has admitted to planning those attacks, there is no way that I would be able to set aside my biases, regardless of testimony. And I'm not even a New Yorker -- I can only imagine how tough it would be to sit and listen to the guy if you saw the attacks, had friends who died in the attacks, and are still waiting for a substantial memorial to be erected at Ground Zero.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg must not see things the way that I do: I support the Obama Administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here in New York. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered.
Fitting? Yes. Appropriate? Sure. Possible? Hrrmm...
I just do not understand how prosecutors intend to find an jury with a lack of partiality. That task seems, to me, to be an exercise in futility given the proposed location for the trials.
Any of the legal-aficionados out there who might have thoughts on this are welcome to comment -- as is anyone else.
Want more? RSS FEED | TWITTER FEED | FACEBOOK | STORE | HOME
The Pajama Pundit - Founder/Editor
