A just resolution
Toolbox
Published: November 20, 2009
The grievous harm caused by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, guaranteed that prosecution of those involved in the attacks would be suffused with politics. The American people want justice to be done, and rightly so. The federal government, at long last, has begun to chart a path toward a just resolution.
Attorney General Eric Holder came before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday to defend his decision to bring five of those accused of perpetrating the Sept. 11 attacks to trial in a federal criminal court in New York City.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the committee, had it completely right when he said the United States now has an opportunity to demonstrate for the world the rule of law in action. Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, had it completely wrong when he said the criminal prosecutions would make the United States less safe.
The politicization of the trials is evident in the comments we are hearing from all quarters. President Obama weighed in on Wednesday saying that holding the trials in criminal court, rather than before a military commission, will not be offensive to people once Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is convicted and executed. Holder assured the senators that acquittal of the 9/11 defendants was not an option.
These are Alice-in-Wonderland-style statements — verdict first, trial second — obviously designed to placate the public. Obama later modified his statement, saying he did not mean to prejudge the case. That was the job of judge and jury.
We have before us the fundamental choice faced by any democracy: Do we administer justice by lynch mob or by rule of law? Which is the example we want to show the world?
In some cases there is little doubt about guilt. Major Nidal Hasan, the accused killer in the Fort Hood massacre, was shot down in the act of murder. The emotions in the case are high, but just because he was nabbed in the act, we don't run him out and string him up from the nearest tree. Hasan will be tried in a court of law.
The same goes for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators. They are accused of mass murder on a huge scale, and they need to be brought to trial. Hasan will be tried in a military court because he was a military officer who attacked fellow soldiers. The 9/11 criminals attacked the American people, and the people's courts will subject them to U.S. law.
There is a natural aversion to hearing Mohammed or others spew hatred from the witness stand, but this concern need not stand in the way of a trial, for two reasons. First, federal judges and security officials are capable of handling unruly defendants. And second, people possessed by hatred are their own worst enemies. Anything Mohammed says in court will show the world what he is. The world is not likely to be favorably impressed.
The world will be impressed if he is subject to a fair trial. Iran holds kangaroo courts for people whom authorities find objectionable. In the United States, we force the government to present evidence showing why a defendant ought to be convicted. If the government has evidence, then we need not fear the defendants will be acquitted.
Of course, there is a possibility of acquittal based on what are called "technicalities." If the government's evidence consisted entirely of statements made as a result of torture, prosecutors would have something to worry about because coerced testimony is not admitted in court. Holder showed an abundance of confidence Wednesday that the government has a strong case to make against Mohammed and his fellow defendants.
"We will not be afraid," Leahy said this week. If we were afraid, we might feel compelled to abandon the rule of law and resort to lynch mob justice. But democracy is not for cowards. It is for people brave enough to stand up for democratic values even as we are being attacked by those who seek to undermine them.
37