Bringing Mohammed To The Courthouse

So Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 conspirators in New York's federal District Court. It will be interesting to see how this plays politically. And this will have a long New York run. I assume the process will go on for the next few years. That Eric Holder announced it on a Friday news dump (while the President was out of the country) suggests he knows this is trouble.

Mohammed will no doubt get top-notch representation, and it's expected the defense will try to make this trial about America, not Mohammed. (In fact, some think this is why Holder made the decision--as a roundabout way to put the Bush administration on trial.) That's one of the things that makes this so odd. KSM is not a normal criminal, and was not treated as such. He was not arrested and held by the police--his capture and treatment was an intelligence and military matter. Furthermore, his importance wasn't just as a captured criminal, but as a top terrorist leader who possessed valuable information. How can we go back now and act as if he's just another defendant? Furthermore, much of the information about his case may be classified--how can you have normal discovery? The time to try him, if there ever was a time, was right after his catpure.

So now we're going to have a massive political trial which Mohammed and the others can use as a soapbox. (They can if the judge lets them--who knows what will happen. Perhaps Mohammed will refuse to recognize the court's jurisdiction and simply not participate--in which case his lawyers can take over.)

Is this truly what justice is about? People think in certain categories, and may simply assume justice means a full criminal trial with Sixth Amendment protections. But maybe the question isn't about whether or not we support the Sixth Amendment, but what the Sixth Amendment applies to. Look at the Fifth Amendment--more rights for criminal defendants, but note the Founders wrote into it when it comes to mlitary situations, all bets are off.

This isn't some U.S. citizen being tried for murder, rape or burglary. We're trying a foreign enemy in a civilian court, a guy who's waged war on the U.S., is the principle architect of the 9/11 attacks (only the top item on a long rap sheet), and who's already confessed and asked to be executed. I'm not sure if justice, as we understand it, will be served here.

And what if he's acquitted?