Terrorist Trials

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Feb. 4, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                    

              When U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder announced Nov. 13, 2009 that he intended to try Gunatanamo Bay terror suspects in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, the U.S. government gyrated 180 degrees from the Bush administration.  Since winning the Nobel Peace Prize Oct. 9, 2009, President Barack Obama decided he would do things differently from his predecessor, closing terrorist detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and trying terror suspects in civilian court.  Sending a loud message to international community, Barack decided to give terror suspects rights under the U.S. justice system, prompting applause from foreign governments.  Victims of Sept. 11 “deserve the opportunity to see the alleged plotters of those attacks held accountable in court, an opportunity that has been too long delayed,” said Holder, justifying his decision to open up old wounds at the expense of the U.S. treasury.

            Former President George W. Bush went to great pains to deny terror suspects of civilian rights under the U.S. Constitution and military rights under the Geneva Convention.  Bush administration officials, especially former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, while working as White House counsel, were very careful to define terror suspects as “enemy combatants” or “battlefield detainees,” specifically to deny them rights under the U.S. Constitution and Geneva Convention.  Obama’s reversal of Bush terror policies goes to the other extreme of exposing the U.S. justice system at the expense of taxpayers and 9/11 victims.  Calling the decision to try terror suspects in civilian court a “significant step” toward closing Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration sold out American taxpayers at the expense of 2,872 Sept. 11 victims, crying out for a different kind of justice.

            Holder’s right that the American people want justice for the perpetrators of Sept. 11 or other terrorist attacks against the U.S.  He’s dead wrong that the justice should be meted out in U.S. civilian courts.  Removing Guantanamo Bay detainees for trial in lower Manhattan doesn’t hasten closing Camp X-Ray.  Objecting to Holder’s knee-jerk decision, Republicans found his decision distasteful.  “Bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil compromises the safety of Americans,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), raising concerns but missing the point.  Few doubt the security concerns of incarcerating Guantanamo Bay terror suspects in U.S. prisons or detention facilities.  Trials should not go forward in federal court because the crimes took place in the U.S. military venue.  Because detainees were obtained in the “War on Terror,” the U.S. military should mete out the justice.

            U.S. federal prison system is perfectly capable of handling the most violent criminals.  It had no problem handling Oklahoma City bomber domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh.  Foreign terrorists plucked from the battlefield should be handled by the military in terms of incarceration and prosecution.  Clogging up the federal courts with high profile terrorist trials wastes taxpayer money and creates the kind of media circus inviting a potential violent spectacle.  If would-be terrorists are caught by civilian law enforcement then it only makes sense to prosecute them in civilian courts.  “I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome . . . would ultimately successful,” said Holder, offering the most feeble excuse for trying terrorists in civilian courts.  Outcomes should have nothing to do with the venue for prosecution.

             Obama’s pledge to close Guantanamo Bay stemmed from its PR damage to the U.S. government for warehousing terrorists without any civilian or military rights.  Holder’s decision to stage show-trials of Sept. 11 terrorists shows tone deafness to domestic and foreign public relations.  Staging show- trials can only result in more PR damage to the U.S. government.  Atty. Gen. Holder would spend his time more wisely working with the administration to decide whether his predecessor, former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, was correct stripping Guanatanamo Bay detainees of both civilian and military rights.  Before jumping into federal court, Holder must determine whether Guantanamo Bay detainees are civilians or prisoners of war.  If he determines the latter, then they should be prosecuted under the appropriate rules of armed conflict in military tribunals.

            After loud screaming from New York Major Michael Bloomberg, Holder decided to renege on prosecuting Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Mahahattan federal court.  Before Holder jumps to another federal court, he must determine, once-and-for-all, whether Guanatanamo Bay detainees are civilians or prisoners of war.  “I have great respect for our civilian legal system,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), a former military prosecutor.  “However, I believe that the 9/11 co-conspirators should be tried under the law of armed conflict in a military tribunal setting.  We are at war with al-Qaeda, and civilian courts have never been used in the past try war criminals,” making the case that Guantanamo detainees are, in fact, prisoners of war.  White House officials must decide the status of Guantanamo Bay prisoners before starting prosecutions.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.