The Obama Administration is reportedly considering moving the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and several other September 11 terrorist attack suspects. After Attorney General Eric Holder proclaimed that the federal court in New York City was the "right place" to try the alleged terrorists, it seems unlikely that that will be the venue.
What is at issue here? Local security requirements or national security interests? The use of civilian courts vs. military tribunals?
Which stakeholders -- and which stakeholder interests -- are the Administration hoping to meet by this move?
Sept. 11 Trial Likely to Get New Venue
By Peter Finn, Carrie Johnson and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 30, 2010
The Obama administration has all but abandoned its plan to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, on trial in Lower Manhattan, according to administration officials.
A senior administration official said no decision has been formalized, but the Justice Department is already considering other venues. Said another official close to the discussions: "New York is out."
The reversal would mark the latest setback for an administration that has been buffeted at every turn as it seeks to close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Its options for closing the prison had already been dwindling, and without the backdrop of Ground Zero for a trial, the administration would lose some of the rich symbolism associated with its attempt to forge a new approach to handling high-profile al-Qaeda detainees.
The decision to reconsider the plan for Mohammed's trial comes after a surge of political opposition to holding it in Manhattan, a venue that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. described in November as the "right place."
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an early supporter of holding the trial in the city, said this week that the security and financial costs would be too onerous. And in a letter to President Obama on Friday, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said a New York trial heightened the risk of a terrorist attack.
"Without getting into classified details, I believe we should view the attempted Christmas Day plot as a continuation, not an end, of plots to strike the United States by al-Qaeda and its affiliates," Feinstein said. "Moreover, New York City has been a high-priority target since at least the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The trial of the most significant terrorist in custody would add to the threat."
Late Friday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) issued a statement saying a decision to relocate the trial from Lower Manhattan "is obvious."
Moving the trial in the wake of political objections would not augur well for the administration's plans to bring other leading Guantanamo Bay detainees to other federal jurisdictions. Administration officials have said they plan to put about 35 Guantanamo detainees on trial, either in federal court or in military commissions.
Republicans and a number of Democrats in Congress have demanded that the detainees be tried in a military commission at Guantanamo Bay, arguing that they are enemy combatants in a war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban, not criminals deserving of the protections of civilian court.
But the decision to bring Mohammed and his cohorts onto U.S. soil for a civilian trial is a linchpin of Holder's tenure, and an administration official said the Justice Department would not back down on the central principle of trying the men in federal court and inside the United States.
That commitment was welcomed by proponents of using criminal courts to try terrorist suspects.
"As long as these trials occur in federal criminal courts with proper due-process protections, the actual venue doesn't matter very much," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "All of our federal courts are equipped and able to handle such cases. That's where they belong, and that's where they should stay."
But the administration would appear to have few good alternative locations. There was intense local opposition in the other mooted venue, the Eastern District of Virginia, and simply moving the case to another federal courthouse is likely to lead to a replay of the controversy that bubbled up in Manhattan.
Some officials have suggested that a federal proceeding could be held within a military base, keeping with the administration's desire to hold a criminal trial while providing the kind of security bubble that would contain the impact on a community.
Within the Southern District of New York, there is an Air National Guard base near the city of Newburgh, but using it would require building a courthouse and pretrial detention center.
The administration also hopes to acquire a state prison in Thomson, Ill., both to hold military commissions and to house detainees who are deemed too dangerous to release but unprosecutable. Conceivably, the Thomson facility, which would be guarded by the military, could also house a federal courthouse and a federal prison wing for detainees such as Mohammed.
Officials said they have not decided where to turn, and the administration still needs funding from Congress to acquire the prison in Illinois. One official said several domestic locations are under review.
A "military base is not cuckoo," said one official, acknowledging the administration's dwindling set of options.
Romero said the ACLU, a harsh critic of military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, would not object to a military cocoon for a temporary federal courthouse in the United States.
Others, including relatives of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the administration should reconsider its decision to close Guantanamo Bay.
"I applaud the president for recognizing that a better decision needs to be made," said Hamilton Peterson of Bethesda, who lost his father and stepmother on United Flight 93, which went down in Shanksville, Pa. "But it seems insane to those of use who have visited the pristine $40 million courthouse in Cuba that he would not use it. I would hope he would also revisit the issue of military tribunals."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
There are a few issues at play here - Certainly security at the trial sites is a concern for local officials and residents. While the larger question of national security looms large in the background for those further (geographically) from the trial site. There is also the question of cost and the economic impact to the areas being considered for KS Mohammed's trial. There seems to also be a larger unresolved concern about how terrorist attack suspects should be tried and treated as well (detainment at Guantanamo Bay, military tribunal vs. civilian courts).
This article is written to show how the Administration is trying to appeal to the masses more than any specific stakeholder. It appears that the Administration is trying to appeal to the American public’s sense of justice and a fair trial, rather than backing out of a promise that was made at the start of Obama’s presidency. The financial complications definitely muddy the waters, with the security costs for civilian court trials being measured up against the costs to build facilities for trials held on military bases (one alternative which was suggested). Certainly the ACLU is one stakeholder who is showing support for the Administration’s continued pressure to move these trials into civilian courts, as their interests lie in defending and preserving individual rights in the United States.
One interesting thing to note is that in the Washington Post article there is mention that other locations volunteering to host the Mohammed trial (and other pending trials for terrorist attack suspects) would come up against the same types of issues and that, “simply moving the case to another federal courthouse is likely to lead to a replay of the controversy that bubbled up in Manhattan.” However, after this article was published Mayor Nicholas Valentine volunteered Newburgh, NY (in the Southern District of NY) as a potential trial site, citing the potential economic stimulus benefits as the reason.
The issue here is not local or national security, though that is important, but the use of civilian courts vs. military tribunals. While no obvious, readily locations are available, the government will have to build/fully prepare at least one location not near a huge metropolitan location if it plans to fulfill its promise of shutting down the Guantanamo Bay facility.
The issues are touchy – Sept 11, 2001 was not only a historic day for the US but altered almost every view thereafter including foreign policy, American values, etc. The stakeholders in the event are the same as 9/11/2001: The suspected terrorists, the safety of American civilians, the families of the victims, the American government, foreign governments including Afghanistan and Iran, the military and its budget, lawyers who could represent the defendants, and others.
By deciding to shut down Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration had hoped to improve foreign opinion of the US government and military and possibly improve relations with Middle Eastern countries. While the safety of Americans is at stake if terrorists are brought into the US, the government must weigh the actual risk/threat level of terrorists being in a secure prison in the US and the improvement of foreign relations vs. keeping Guantanamo open and continuing with our strained relations.
The message strategy must appeal to both American citizens and foreign governments. There may not be a quick fix, but the US government must stay true to its promise in order to build better foreign relations which will in turn help keep Americans safe. The message: we will find the best and most secure facility on technical US grounds to ensure both the short-term and long-term safety of Americans which includes reducing the risk of attacks through better relationships with foreign governments.
This message should go out through a televised news conference. It can be considered successful as long as terrorists attacks on the US decrease and public opinion of the facility isn’t too low, or if Obama is re-elected.
There are definitely a few different publics or stakeholders that the Administration is trying to appeal to. There are the local residents of the towns where the trials will take place, there's the 9-11 victim's families, you've got the homeland security and defense communities, and I think there's also an international stakeholder as well; I think the Administration is trying to appeal to some of the publics abroad.
I think the biggest issue that the Administration is facing with this decision is the back and forth it's doing on the process. How are you supposed to manage an issue when you don't have a consensus as to the best approach for the issue?
I agree with Whitney that the real issue at hand in this situation is the use of civilian courts to try terrorists rather than the use of military tribunals. That is a very politically-charged and emotionally-charged for Americans. Even nearly 10 years later, the events of 9/11 are resounding for many.
The Obama administration is attempting to balance this strong public sentiment with it's desire to send a foreign policy message. This administration has revolved around the concept of transparency, and this trial presents an opportunity for the administration to stand on that value and try an alleged terrorist in the public eye.
The orginial move to New York City was either a balloon that the administration floated to guage public opinion, or it was a poorly calculated move.
Many stakeholders (residents, families of terrorism victims,etc) are against having this trial in New York City, or any other city. Many members of Congress, with whom the administration is desperately trying to negotiate its priorities, were also against the New York administration.
It will be interesting to see the next location of choice. I would be willing to bet it's in a location such as the Illinois facility that functions much like a Guantanamo Bay. That would be an effort of the administration to appease the general public (voters who will weigh in during the 2010 elections) as well as the legislative branch, who rank national security as more than a message of transparency to foreign governments.
I agree that there are two major issues. One is the trial being held in a civilian court in New York vs. in military commissions. If held in lower Manhattan, it would be traumatic to the citizens that reside in New York to have to re-live the horrible events surrounding the Sept. 11, 1993 attacks by hearing the testimony and evidence.
In the Jan. 30, 2010 Washington Post article, staff writers Peter Finn, Carrie Johnson and Anne E. Kornblut point out that Dianne Feinstein, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said in correspondence to President Obama, that "a New York trial heighted the risk of a terrorist attack."
The potential financial impact is the second major issue. The cost of a trial in a civilian court may pose a financial burden to the New York taxpayer. "The security and financial costs would be too onerous," said New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg in the Washington Post. These financial implications may pose a burden on a city that has already experienced its fair share of difficult and challenging times.
Despite the constroversies surrounding this trial, the people of New York, as well as all Americans want to see justice against these terrorist.
By moving the trail to a different location (maybe the prison in IL) the Administration is hoping to appease the interests of the locals in NYC. They don't want the trial for fear of security and how much it will cost. Also I think it will help reduce the fears of the general public since the new place will be more secure because the military will be guarding it and less civilians will be around. However, this decision will not make the people who want the terrorists tried in military tribunals happy (relatives of victims and those that want to keep gitmo open).
The focal point of the issue is about national security interests. Two different environments for the 9/11 venue are proposed here. Using a civilian court would enable detainees to go through a system of due process versus military tribunals which have more flexible standards in rules of evidence. Many view the military tribunal as a safer environment for stakeholders. The stakeholders in this case are the American people, other foreign countries, military, and law enforcement. From a national security perspective, the Obama administration’s decision to use commissions to handle detainees is also because there are certain detainees who cannot be tried in civilian courts for reasons of evidence, security or applicable charges. I believe the administration is firstly assessing the issue from both a U.S. foreign policy stance and national security angle. The Obama administration is weighing how national security will be affected prior to local security requirements because it is truly the bigger picture at stake here. The risk of a terrorist attack where the suspects will be tried is truly a national security problem, especially since we are susceptible to a new threat in any venue.
The U.S. Justice Department does not want to back down on the central principle of trying terrorism suspects inside the United States for its own political reasons. This has produced political heat on the Obama administration because many stakeholders believe that the enemy combatants do not deserve the protections of civilian court. However, even though civilian trials increase the risk of disclosing classified information, the legal system in the U.S. still has ample authority in keeping certain classified information secret. Therefore, the enemy may not be as protected in federal court as one would surmise.
Political and legal pressures make it tough to move terrorism suspects into prisons into the United States. Under a recently enacted law, the administration must give Congress 45 days notice before bringing any Guantánamo Bay detainee into the United States. Since Mr. Mohammed and the other detainees would not be moved right away; the civilian court would comply with that requirement and begin seeking indictments from a federal grand jury. The issue is a poignant one which will stir up political opinions and emotions on a widespread scale no matter which venue is ultimately chosen.
I agree with Laura on how the US government is trying to decide how to act, fully knowing that the other "big" countries are watching, interested in seeing how the decision is made and the reprocutions of what transpires. It is definitely a mix of security, fear, and laws at stake in this situation. When dealing with Gitmo, the Obama Administration definitely took on a major issue in closing and then finding a new prison that would be able to hold current terrorists and future ones. I also think the administration was hoping to lawfully have New Yorkers seek the highest penalty of the law. You know to cover themselves... I am unsure which law is higher in the US, civil or military, though. I would say that the US governtment, acting in the best interest for the citizens of the US, there is no possible way to have 100% happiness in 100% of the population.
I believe that the major issue at play in this situation depends on whose point of view is considered. It seems to me that the President and Attorney General are keenly interested in fulfilling the rule of law and proving to foreign critics that the American justice system is the fairest in the world. Transparency and improving our image abroad are a top priority. The American public, members of Congress, and military officials are chiefly concerned with homeland security and preventing additional terrorist attacks from those who have no respect for the rule of law.
I do not envy the President in wrangling with this issue, as I am not sure if a happy medium exists. While I understand the argument that Mohammed should be literally brought face to face with those affected by his murderous brutality, I also understand the backlash from victims' families who feel that the terrorist's presence at Ground Zero is emotionally too much to handle. And I do think the fear of a protest attack is legitimately founded.
While a low-profile site such as the one in Illinois or in Newburgh, NY seems like a viable alternative, I wonder how long these locations would remain low-profile after a high-profile trial or two takes place and the media glare descends. Furthermore, given how vociferously many US communities protest having run-of-the-mill prisons, landfills, and even power plants in their midst, I can't imagine it will be easy to convince any community anywhere on US soil to accept a new terrorist prison, regardless of whether the accompanying court facility is civilian or military.
In the end the President, guided by the best intelligence from the CIA, FBI, and his military advisors, and with some level of consensus from Congress, will have to propose a new location and convince the public that it is in the best interests of American security and justice. I wish him luck.
Post a Comment