by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov.18, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

          Returning Sept. 11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Ground Zero, Atty. Gen. Eric Holder announced he would press ahead with a civilian criminal trial in New York City.  Expecting Mohammed to be exposed as a “murderous coward,”  Holder seeks the terrorist’s conviction and eventual execution, turning the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan into a media circus.  “Failure is not an option,” said Holder, insisting he’d succeed at getting justice for the American people.  Now living at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Mohammed has no right to counsel, other than a military public defender.  Holder’s decision to afford Mohammed the same rights as other criminal defendants irked White House critics, believing a show trial offers little justice in the wake of Sept. 11.  President Barack Obama supports the idea of civilian trials for Guantanamo Bay terrorists.

            Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay, something that’s supposed to happene sometime after New Years.  Barack believes the public won’t find it “offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” a slap at former Bush administration justice that viewed offshore military tribunals as the appropriate venue in which to prosecute battlefield detainees.  Bush’s legal team went through great gyrations defining terrorists as “enemy combatants,” not entitled to either legal protections under the U.S. Constitution or Geneva Convention, where detailed rules spell out for managing prisoners of war.  Obama and Holder’s decision to try Mohammed in federal court creates a kind of Nuremberg Trial, where Nazi war criminals were prosecuted after WW II.  Trying Mohammed in New York City opens an old festering wound.

            Holder’s decision directly relates to torture allegations against former Bush officials, including former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, who authorized “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a practice equated with torture by the Obama administration.    Barack was certain that “we’ll convict the person with the evidence they’ve got, going through our system,” disregarding criticism about exposing New York City to more trauma and new security challenges.  Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Holder’s logic, especially about the certainty of winning conviction.  “How can you be more likely to get a conviction in a [civilian] court than that?” asked Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.), questioning prosecutors’ speculation about convicting Mohammed.  Mohammed had already confessed to military interrogators his involvement in Sept. 11.

            Holder’s decision hinged on making a forceful statement that the Obama administration won’t skirt the U.S. constitution or Geneva Convention to prosecute terrorists responsible for Sept. 11.  Holder insisted his decision wasn’t’ based “on the whims of or the desires of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed . . . He will not select the prosecution venue.  I will.  And I have,” making a deliberately forceful personal statement.  Mohammed already confessed to military prosecutors, under enhanced interrogation techniques, including the controversial “waterboarding” practice, that he was the mastermind of Sept. 11.  Republicans expressed concerns that Mohammed would turn the trial into an international circus, highlighting the military’s attempts at  brainwashing and torture.  Holder expressed faith in the U.S. legal system to handle Mohammed’s show trial.

            Placing Mohammed on trial in Manhattan flies in the face of military’s responsibility to conduct the war on terror.  Moving the venue to federal court indicates that White House has lost faith I the military’s ability try, convict and sentence terrorists threatening U.S. national security.  Holder’s move highlights conflict within the Obama administration to redefine terrorists as civilians engaged in criminal behavior.  Bush officials bent over backwards to define terrorists as neither civilians nor part of any organized military to skirt both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention.  If Holder wishes to redefine terrorists, he needs to pick either category.  Bush’s neither “fish nor foul” approach twisted legal definitions to the breaking point.   Defining terrorists now as criminals and affording them rights under the Constitution defies logic and common sense.

            White House logic of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for mass murder in U.S. District Court robs the military of its responsibility of prosecuting the war on terror.  “I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is,” Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee.  “I’m not scared of what the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at the trial—and no one else needs to be, either,” revealing Holder’s contorted logic for his new show trial.  Holder doesn’t need to publicly try Sept. 11 terrorists to prove their cowardice or showcase the U.S. justice system.  “We are making history, and we’re making bad history,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), calling Holder’s decision “a perversion of justice.”  White House officials should reconsider Holder’s decision and once-and-for-all define terrorists as prisoners of war, prosecuting them accordingly.

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.