Home
News Grid
Local News
- Briefs
- Obituaries
Green Hawk
Business
Politics
School Zone
- Kids Speaking Up
Nonprofits
Missing Pets
Multimedia
- Photo of the Day
- Pictures in the News
Arts
Movies
- Times
- Reviews
Outdoors
Sports
News Releases
Columnists
- Leslie Dinaberg & Zak Klobucher
- Capt. David Bacon
- Paul Burri
- Bill Cirone
- Russell Collins
- Hal Conklin & Denny Wayman
- Karen Dwyer
- Jeff Harding
- Joan Mayer
- Hospice of Santa Barbara
- Karen Telleen-Lawton
- Ken Williams
- Carrie Wilson
Blogs
- Hawks Nest
- Craig Smith
- calbuzz
- The Daily Capitalist
- Miller-McCune News
- City 2.0
- Cliff Redding
Opinions
- Lou Cannon
- Michael Barone
- Debbie Brasket
- Susan Estrich
- Jim Hightower
- Tam Hunt
- Larry Kudlow
- Michelle Malkin
- Robert Scheer
- Harris Sherline
- Mark Shields
Classifieds
Advertise
Donate
Partners
- Presidio Sports
- Santa Barbara Surfer
- SBParent.com
- Partners in Education
- United Way of Santa Barbara County

Harris Sherline: The Right to a Fair Trial

Trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is as much about politics as justice

By Harris R. Sherline | Published on 11.21.2009

Is it a good idea to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other terrorists in New York City for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center? Attorney General Eric Holder’s Nov. 13 announcement to do just that immediately stirred up strong feelings, pro and con, about the wisdom of the Obama administration’s decision.

Harris Sherline

Wikipedia notes, “The right to a fair trial is explicitly proclaimed in Article Ten of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article Six of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world.”

A fair trial requires a competent, neutral and detached judge and jury, witnesses who are free of influence and adequate legal counsel.

That said, what a “fair trial” in New York City for Mohammed and the other terrorists is likely to mean has very different connotations for many Americans.

One side tends to see it as an opportunity to showcase America’s justice system to the rest of the world in general and Muslims in particular, in the belief that it will demonstrate the fairness and equity that is accorded even this nation’s worst enemies. They believe New York City is well-equipped to handle the risks of such a trial in a U.S. federal court, both judicial and security concerns, and that the case is a slam-dunk for conviction that will finally lead to the execution of those responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the heart of Manhattan on 9/11.

“It treats these perpetrators as the criminals they are, depriving them of the warrior status which they crave and the military commissions facilitated,” said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First.

Another important reason for conducting this trial in New York is to rectify the taint the current administration believes was caused by the way in which Mohammed was captured and subsequently waterboarded during his interrogation by the Bush administration.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s legal analyst, observed that the trial will perhaps be the biggest “challenge in the history of federal law enforcement to produce a fair trial.” Tobin further noted that the defense will argue that the extensive waterboarding of Mohammed (183 times) is “misconduct that means the whole case should be thrown out.” However, Holder points out that there is sufficient evidence to convict that has not yet been released and that the government will seek the death penalty.

The decision to move the trial to New York City was immediately met with an outcry of opposition.

In a Nov. 13 Politico article (“New York Terrorist Trial Raises Stakes”), Josh Gerstein reported, “‘Families are furious about this,’ said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Chic Burlingame, was the American Airlines pilot of one of the planes hijacked on Sept. 11. She said more than 300 family members have implored the administration not to move the trial to New York.”

Gerstein also points out that there is a risk a judge could dismiss all charges because of “outrageous government conduct.”

Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., has attempted to pass legislation that would force the administration to keep the 9/11 planners before military courts, expressing concern that trying Mohammed in civilian court would be a “huge mistake” that also would make it more difficult to try lower-level al-Qaeda members in military tribunals.

There are also a host of security concerns associated with conducting this trial in lower Manhattan, such as protecting the judge and members of the jury from threats to themselves and their families, risk of harm to New Yorkers in the event of an attack on the streets when prisoners are moved. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is confident the city is equal to the task, noting that the New York City Police Department is accustomed to dealing with similar problems on a regular basis.

However, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani sees it quite differently and has expressed both outrage and concern about the safety and security problems involved, in addition to many of the legal issues that are raised as a result of transferring this case to civilian courts from military ones.

The core issue in all of this is the Obama administration’s position that terrorism should be treated as a criminal matter and dealt with by the criminal justice system as opposed to fighting a war (on terror), notwithstanding the fact that Osama bin Laden (and al-Qaeda) openly declared war against the United States and the West in a news conference on May 26, 1998.

My conclusion is that the decision of the Obama administration to try Mohammed and the other terrorists in New York is as much about politics as justice. I believe they also see it as another opportunity to fault the Bush administration for a situation that was not handled properly.

— Harris R. Sherline is a retired CPA and former chairman and CEO of Santa Ynez Valley Hospital who has lived in Santa Barbara County for more than 30 years. He stays active writing opinion columns and his blog, Opinionfest.com.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» local on 11.22.09 @ 06:53 AM

Harris, this is about as close as I have ever heard you get to maybe agreeing with Obama? The fact is that Al Queda is not a country and their declaring war on us is not relevant to this decision or any domestic or international laws.
I for one am very glad they are moving forward with a trial in NY. Justice will be served and the U.S. will demonstrate to the world that we are a nation of laws and abide by them. The murder crime committed was on U.S. soil and should be handled according to rules we have used in every other case in U.S. history. New York was the scene of the terriorist act and they have a long history of convictions with severe sentences. Let us proceed!!