How is justice served for 9/11?
When you’re standing before the massive gap in the Financial District, looking up into the vacant sky where the twin towers once loomed, the White House’s efforts to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda operatives in federal criminal court just a few blocks from the site where thousands of Americans were murdered by their actions may seem like an important demonstration of American justice.
That’s how New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg felt up through November.
He steadfastly supported the type and location of the trial, declaring it, “fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered.”
Some survivors and family members of the nearly 2,900 people who died that morning (in New York, at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania) also welcomed the decision. Several indicated that they wanted to witness the trials in person.
But over the past few weeks, many opinions have begun to shift.
It started with businesses and community leaders questioning the financial burdens that a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city:
- Real estate brokers argued that security restrictions would dampen the market for apartments in Chinatown and TriBeCa.
- Small-business owners feared a severe drop-off in customers.
- Residents worried that they would be unable to use local streets.
Bloomberg was listening and on Jan. 27 he publicly echoed the growing concerns – he wanted the trial moved. Besides local New Yorkers’ apprehension, he estimated that security for a trial in lower Manhattan could cost as much as $1 billion.
It raised more inquiries as to whether the Obama administration is fully aware of the financial costs of such a trial. The president is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs. The money will be included in a budget plan for 2011 of roughly $3.7 trillion.
Including and besides the financial expense of having this trial in New York City, many, including me, are curious whether Obama is considering the emotional costs of returning to the scene of the worst terrorist attack in American history … especially a scene that will take place inside a civilian court.
Mohammed and the other operatives committed an act of war. And as perpetrators of an act of war it seems obvious that they should be tried before a military commission. If held in civilian court, the trial would afford them all of the same constitutional privileges than an American citizen on trial for a crime would enjoy.
Clearly, there is a difference.
These terrorists should be tried in military tribunals where other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be judged.
Other concerns:
- A civilian trial could turn into a propaganda forum for the accused. Because the trials would be out in the open, it would give defendants an opportunity to churn out propaganda, which could end up putting the U.S. government on trial.
- What if key evidence in the trial is thrown out on a technicality? Related to that, many are concerned that for some reason, one or more of the defendants could be set free and secrets about how the government protects the country will be disclosed.
- Many fear that New York City will again become a target.
President Obama repeatedly declares that he supports “change” for the American people; that he listens to American voices; that he wants transparency and open government decisions.
It is apparent what the majority deems appropriate: the layout for the 9/11 trials needs to change.
Posted in A scribbling woman's Limbo