The recent decision by the Obama administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other accused masterminds of the 9-11 attacks in New York City is a mistake and should be reevaluated by the Justice Department.
Mohammed, or “KSM”, as the press refers to him, is by his own admission, one of the masterminds of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the hijackings that occurred on 9-11.
Mohammed freely admits that he played a major role in planning and coordinating the 9-11 attacks. There is no question of guilt to be determined at this trial.
So why have a trial? Because there are two views of the people who committed the 9-11 attacks. The Bush administration believed that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were an act of war and that people involved in the attacks were enemy combatants, and therefore should be treated as such. The Obama administration has vowed to treat the perpetrators and their actions as criminal in nature and therefore the accused should be given all of the rights and privileges to someone accused of a crime specified in our system of law.
Having a trial in New York will not accomplish anything except tear wounds that we have tried to heal since 9-11. Families and communities that have tried to move on since the loss of their loved ones- husbands, wives, sons and daughters, will be reminded of that tragic day.
The unrepentant perpetrators of the attacks will be given the opportunity to shout anti-American slogans day after day in court (several have requested to serve as their own lawyer) and be placed on a world stage to spout their extremist views-encouraging more violence and terrorists acts in the United States.
Criminal trials can sometimes take years. Enterprising defense lawyers seeking to delay punishment will tie up the court with motions, filings, subpoenas, and all types of stalling tactics.
Think of the message a criminal trial sends: commit a terrorist act and get a show trial in New York City, the media center of the world, where you can shout from the roof tops your hatred of the United States and spread your propaganda.
Here in Danbury, and in the New York metropolitan area, we are particularly sensitive to the impact of 9-11. Some of our neighbors perished that day, and many of us know some one who has been touched by the tragedy of the attacks.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his colleagues deserve one fate-to stand in front of a military tribunal, and since they freely admit to their role in the attacks, accept the punishment that is due them.
No show trial, no motions and appeals, no tv cameras and no court circus.
Swift and speedy military justice.
After all, that is what this country owes the 3000 plus victims of 9-11.
Well said, Landslide!
Comment by Ted — November 17th, 2009 @ 10:31 am
Mark,
Here’s the message a criminal trial sends: the United States operates under the rule of law. I, for one, am proud of that, and I would hope most Americans are. Compromising that would be doing just what the terrorists would have us do: change our way of life because of their acts.
And your logic is especially terrifying considering your role as a chief executive.
-Ethan
Comment by Ethan Fry — November 17th, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Sorry Ethan. I don’t see the attacks of 9-11 as a crime. For me and many others it was a coordinated sneak attack aimed at the very heart of our country- an act of war.
The people who participated in these horrible attacks that killed thousands should be treated as enemy combatants, not as bank robbers or career criminals. We are at war, that’s why we are in Afghanistan to begin with.
A military tribunal and the military justice system, has many of the same individual protections as our traditional criminal justice system.
The difference is that we don’t have to have a circus in New York.
Appreciate the comment (not the personal attack, boy you reporters are getting surly-that’s terrifying!) I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Mark Boughton — November 17th, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
Well you’ll be glad to know I’m not a reporter anymore. Less glad, probably, to learn I’m in law school. I decided I had enough of journalism, but wanted to find a profession hated even more than reporter, so in that respect I hope I’ve succeeded.
But to the issue at hand, maybe we’re just differing in our basic assumptions. To me it would be the treatment of the terrorists as enemy combatants that would aggrandize them and give them just what they want, as I said. But conversely, bringing them to trial in a court of law demonstrates that we will not change our way of life because of their acts, and also results in their treatment as what they are: sniveling, nihilistic, cowardly criminals, and NOT holy warriors engaged in some sort of grand jihad, which is how I think they’d want to be viewed. To me, their case for martyrdom becomes a lot better (not me thinking they’re martyrs, but me thinking it’ll be easier for them to persuade other nihilistic cowards that they are) when you go the military tribunal route, because you allow them and their proxies to vilify how the Great Satan tried and convicted them without the benefits of its much-lauded judiciary and due process.
I can see the attraction of the whole “act of war” argument. Indeed, 9-11 was a “coordinated sneak attack aimed at the very heart of our country.” But I guess I just am not comfortable with its application in a conflict as nebulous as the one in which we are currently engaged. After all, these acts were perpetrated against civilian victims, who the state is entitled to seek redress for in a court of law. By your logic, shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh have been tried in a military tribunal? The Una-Bomber as well? Does the “New York City, media capital of the world” aspect alone tilt the argument toward military tribunals?
I know this blog is pro bono gig for you, and you have to run a city as a day job, so if you don’t want to be engaged in some back-and-forth just say so. I don’t have the same concern, however, so until I have to study for finals I’d love to debate this a little. And please forgive my somewhat ad hominem attack. But when a mayor proposes a diversion from the rule of law, it gets my attention. And you’re more accessible than Rudy Giuliani.
Comment by Ethan Fry — November 17th, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Ethan in Law School? Grab the kids… just kidding. Well thought out response. Needless to say, we did not start a war in Afghanistan because of Tim McVeigh or the Unabomber.
If you accept the proposition that the people who committed 9-11 were just a few kooks-like McViegh and the Unabomber, then your arguement to me would make more sense.
But we know that these attacks were coordinated and breathtakitng in their size and scope. Designed to be the opening salvo in a war against the U.S.
That is why I see it as an act of war versus a criminal act.
Again, we will just have to agree to disagree. Good luck in Law School. I am sure you will make a fine lawyer.
Comment by Mark Boughton — November 17th, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
I’m not so sure about that, Mayor Mark.
Comment by Keith Whamond — November 18th, 2009 @ 7:15 am
Don’t mean to get off subject…. but I was curious if the plan to put boots on the cars of people who owe back taxes was in the works before the election and if so, was info brought to the publics attention?
thanks
Comment by Pedro Powers — November 18th, 2009 @ 10:33 am
Hey guys, want to take the gloves off and debate this on an Issues page?
Comment by Jacky Smith — November 18th, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Jacky- Love to debate this on the issues page. Let me know.
Pedro- Our contract was signed with Vio-Alert for all collections on back taxes in the spring of 09′ There really was no “plan”, the city looked at a variety of options that Vio-Alert offers for collection and we opted for the booting program- we had hoped to start in July, but ran into issues about payments and logistics. No consideration was given towards elections.
Sorry if you got booted, but with almost 2 million dollars owed to the City that we probably would never collected, this program as already proven a success.
Comment by Mark Boughton — November 18th, 2009 @ 11:20 am
Bring it on.
Comment by Ethan Fry — November 18th, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
I like that the mayor of Danbury has a blog. Good going! That being said, I’m disturbed that you’re on the knee-jerk reactionary side on this topic. I think Ethan summed it up nicely above. These acts of terrorism are best suited for federal court (as has been shown in 195 other post 9/11 terrorism cases which have been successfully tried in federal courts)The argument for military tribunals suggests that our criminal justice system is so broken that we won’t get the proper sentence for these guys and that a tribunal will. I just don’t believe that to be the case. And, I too, feel really strongly that it sends JUST the appropriate message about the United States’ belief in the rule of law and sets us up as the proper leader in the free world for this sort of thing. This administration is doing the right thing in prosecuting this case in this manner and people like Rudy Giuliani and others are just plain wrong.
Comment by dan gillotte — November 18th, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
I agree 100% with Mayor Mark. These were not criminals but terrorists. They do not deserve the same consideration criminals are treated with… A criminal has the right to a jury of his peers… Where will you find peers for these people? But then, I can make a cheap shot here and say, at least they’ll find a lawyer with the likes of Ethan Fry. Sorry, Ethan, didn’t like you as a journalist and will like you even less as a lawyer. But that’s what makes america great. I can say that in a forum.
Comment by Rita Spinner — November 18th, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
i agree.
Comment by Francsco Machuca — November 19th, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
We love Mayor Mark and his fine leadership – Landslide!
Comment by Ted — November 19th, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
“Rita,”
You’re absolutely right about America being made great by the ability for a person to sling mud anonymously on the Web site of a small daily newspaper. Congratulations on exercising that right.
Further, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says that defendants in all criminal prosecutions are entitled to a speedy and public trial “by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…” The phrase “jury of his peers” appears nowhere there, nor anywhere else in the Constitution, according to a quick search I just did.
The Constitution is a big reason why, as you pointed out, America is great. Perhaps you should read it before making cynical, moronic arguments about criminal procedure.
Comment by Ethan Fry — November 20th, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
I am a huge fan of Mayor Mark, however I have to differ with him on this subject. We have a rule of law and as an American, I have complete faith in our system of justice. Our system is multi-faceted and is architected to not just punish the guilty but to also flesh out facts and create a history and understanding of the crime. There are so many assumptions around 9/11. Frankly the trial doesn’t need to be a circus; however it does need to happen.
By the way, we are kind of playing loose in this country with the definition of “war crimes”. Because “war” is an often debated state and because Al Qaeda is a movement and an organization, not a country, we can get into some nebulous territory.
I would submit Mr. Mayor that New Yorkers are pretty tough people, people that like facts and knowledge.
I would also submit that by calling us into a state of war with an entity like Al Qaeda, you are giving legitimacy to their role in the world of international politics, which is something we should absolutely not do. I would also submit that a trial will help our police and justice system further extract facts and truth from the bowels of this heinous crime. Something we need to further prevent the perpetrators colleagues from proceeding with further plans. Police work is not an end to itself, it is part of the justice process.
Regardless of whether the crimes were created as an act of war or as an act created to throw our country into chaos, I want to know all of the facts and our justice system is a strong fulcrum to extract truth from those that would see it fail and falter.
On a side note, I spent a great deal of time in Israel when I was much younger. One of the key things Israelis are very good at is getting and extracting information out of terrorists. We actually have a pretty strong practice in the FBI for doing something very similar (Scott Piro in the FBI was Saddam’s interrogator, the guy is amazing). Again, law enforcement and our system of justice really does work. Military trials and torture is the stuff of banana republics. Especially in Danbury, we have more class than that.
Comment by Marc — November 21st, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
In all this talk about “Islamo-Fascist-Terrorists”, have people forgotten about Timothy McVeigh ?
Based on his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, isn’t it more than fair to refer to McVeigh as a “Christian Terrorist” for killing 500 people – mostly children – in Oklahoma City ?
I know Mark Boughton is even-handed. No doubt he and I are in agreement on this.
Comment by David A. Stevenson GRI — November 23rd, 2009 @ 6:53 am