RSS Feed MenuThe Obama administration made the decision to try the “Shura Council”, the five terrorists who planned and masterminded the attack on 9/11, headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. FrumForum interviewed some who lost loved ones on 9/11, and former FBI and CIA officials regarding the issue of trying these terrorists in a federal court.
The family members interviewed felt that the attack against America was an act of war. They argued that Department of Justice attorneys told them that the attack constituted both a crime and a war act. They agree with Joe Holland, who lost a son on 9/11, when he explained that the act was conceived in a foreign land by foreign nationals who trained on foreign soil and were captured in a foreign country. Given this presumption, the most reasonable venue would be a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay since terrorism is considered a military act against the state. Gordon Haberman emphatically stated that “it was an act of war. Osama declared war on America in 1996.” Bob and Shirley Hemenway, who lost a son on 9/11, told FrumForum that military personnel were killed in the Pentagon attack, and that is no different than those killed on the USS Cole. Yet, the Cole perpetrator is being tried in a military court while the 9/11 perpetrator is being tried in a federal court.
What needs to be considered is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and the others were already being tried at Guantanamo Bay in a military tribunal. The family members cannot understand why the Obama administration suspended these trials considering they were very near completion. Former Commander Kirk Lippold of the USS Cole stated that over the past seven years, the military commission process has undergone extensive legal and congressional reviews. There is no need to start over considering “the rights given the terrorists under military tribunals are the fairest.” In addition, during these proceedings, the five terrorists stated over and over again how they were very proud of their acts. Holland recounted that “while I was sitting at the trials in Guantanamo as an observer, KSM admitted at least four times that he organized 9/11 and was happy that Americans were killed.”
Most felt that a federal court trial has too many unknowns. The family members and CIA officials agree with former FBI agent Craig Dotlo who astutely explained that a “number of procedures followed during the subject’s custody did not comport with typical rules of evidence or other constitutional rights normally afforded Americans.” Debra Burlingame, who lost a brother on 9/11, summarized the issues: the terrorists’ rights to a speedy trial, the problems over classified evidence, all the evidentiary problems, and all the security problems.
Former agent Dotlo feels that the defense attorneys will constantly raise challenges to have evidence excluded and “will attempt to put the U.S. government on trial.” A former CIA official, Kent Clizbe, sarcastically stated that “of course there will be delays… that are what lawyers are all about… delay, delay, delay.” A former high-ranking CIA official felt that in this venue “defense attorneys will be given a free range to turn this into a trial of the Bush Administration’s approach on the war on terror as opposed to a trial of the ADMITTED perpetrators of 9/11, including the guy (KSM) who proudly admits to sawing Daniel Pearl’s head off.”
Aside from the defense attorneys being able to change the focus of the trial, the question remains if the terrorist defendants will also use it to propagandize their ideology. Debra Burlingame felt that given this open court venue, KSM will be given the opportunity to encourage “his fellow jihadists that they should continue to attack Americans. He is given a forum where he can rally more troops to kill Americans.” When asked about this issue, Dotlo summarized the law enforcement opinion by stating that “it is anticipated that the subjects will be taunting and mocking the 9/11 families on a worldwide stage. The subjects will engage in this activity as they have previously to manifest their contempt for America, but more importantly encourage other Muslims to be engaged.”
Regarding the classified information, some of which was obtained by harsh interrogation techniques, different points of view were provided to FrumForum. The former CIA officials agreed with one who stated that “the defense side will play discovery games demanding access to tons of sensitive documents and interviews with legitimate undercover officers.” Dotlo also pointed out that the government would not want to disclose its sources and methods, including the information provided by those sources from “intelligence agencies of other allied countries. This prospect could create a chilling effect on our relationship with other countries.” A CIA official noted that classified information could “not be presented in open court. It may be presented in the judge’s chambers if all parties have clearances.” Given these issues, a military trial makes more sense since all the jurors chosen can have national security clearance.
The dissenting opinion was given by some former FBI agents. Neil Hermann, the former FBI N.Y. counter-terrorism head, noted that the trial of Ramsey Yousef, who was involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, had some evidence de-classified and sanitized. He further stated that Yousef’s conviction showed “that the system did work.” Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who headed the Pan Flight 103 investigation, concurs and explained that he has the upmost confidence that the career DOJ attorneys would not have opted for this option if the case appeared weak. He stated that “I think they looked at the evidence and felt they can get a prosecution regardless of what evidence will be declared inadmissible.”
The bottom line is that the terrorists must be brought to justice and that the trial should be focused on their actions. Although some FBI agents do not see a problem with a federal court trial, their attitude is that either venue would be appropriate. Marquise feels that “the Constitution does not distinguish between an American and a foreigner. In either venue, the terrorists must be afforded constitutional protections.”
All interviewed have the same feelings, that they do not want this trial turned into a circus. As Neil Hermann stated, “the issue is that they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They should be brought to justice and held accountable in either venue.” The 9/11 families want a trial that does not drag on by constant defense attorney challenges, that does not allow the terrorists a forum for their message, and where their lost loved ones finally get justice.
johnmarzan // Nov 15, 2009 at 11:05 pm
we know he’s guilty. KSM will readily admit to masterminding 9/11. we did not need to waterboard him for THAT.
but the US gov DID use enhanced interrogation techniques to squeeze KSM of information on FUTURE terror attacks and al queda associates.
i’m not worried about acquittal. but i’m worried that this will become a show trial where KSM will have the biggest stage to a) put the bush admin on trial for it’s methods b) EXPLAIN why he did 9/11 to new yorkers and the media. and then PLEAD GUILTY. ultimate martyrdom..
johnmarzan // Nov 15, 2009 at 11:09 pm
can you imagine lincoln or FDR (or JFK and LBJ) giving illegal combatants aka terrorists all the constitutional rights of an American citizen during a time of war?
dacookson // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:22 am
If the United States believes its values should be shared by the world then why not extend their rights to the rest of the world too. Are there really people who think the American way of life can be threatened by a terrorist ranting in a courtroom? A conviction in a proper court will have far more power. Treating terrorism as war rather than criminality has been demonstrated to be a complete folly over the past eight years wouldn’t you say?
teabag // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:34 am
As thought the usual suspect was wheeled out with all the usual anonymous CAI and ex CIA BS. Yadda, yadda,
I have some questions.
Why do you people has so little faith in the American justice system? If it was good enough to try and convict Missouri . And Ru911 Gulliani was fully supportive of that and called the outcome great for all that America stands for.
Why are you so scared of a few broken tribesmen, they are not supermen who need to be contained in kryptonite!
We have made far more terrorists over the past 8 years than we have ever killed. We have managed to spread the terrorists influence far wider that it ever was. Part of that reason is the way we have treated our captives. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, detention without trial, and torture have all contributed to that expansion. By bringing these terrorists ( they are not soldiers and they were not captured on a battlefield) to trial as common criminals we rob them of their power to influence not enhance it.
The real reason the right is wetting it’s collective pants over this is because they are really afraid of what will come out about the Cheny/Bush cabal, thats what this is all about.
teabag // Nov 16, 2009 at 7:42 am
” The 9/11 families want a trial that does not drag on by constant defense attorney challenges, that does not allow the terrorists a forum for their message, and where their lost loved ones finally get justice.”
How did that go under Bush? How many were prosecuted and had justice metered out to them? One, two. It was how many years of delay?
I say try them and execute them. Pure and simple. Trial to not be televised, sensitive evidence to be held in camera. Could have been done years ago but Bush didn’t want to bring these animals to justice.
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 9:51 am
teabag: Why do you people has so little faith in the American justice system?
Because civilian trials give defendants the right of discovery. That means they can demand that top-secret information about them–like foreign informants or CIA agents who found information that those defendants were guilty as charged–can be revealed. And those agents’ covers will be blown–and they will be killed unless they’re rescued.
When we tried in civilian courts the terrorists who blew up our embassies in Nairobi, we had to reveal the list of every single al-Qaeda person we had identified. Within weeks, Osama bin Laden had that list. We found it again in one of their safe houses we had raided.
When the infamous “blind Sheikh” was tried in civilian court, the left-wing traitor Lynne Stewart, who was defending him, passed messages from him to a terrorist cell in Egypt. I can only assume that more left-wingers of the same stripe are going to be bidding to defend these 9-11 terrorists.
This is not “CSI.” This is a secret war fought with CIA agents, Afghan informants, and other folks who would be killed immediately if their identities were discovered.
You lefties don’t care about that. In the 1970s, you lefties cheered Philip Agee, whose outing of CIA agents got some killed.
But I do care about that. I don’t want these trials to compromise any of our sources. I don’t want any of these defendants to walk out of a courtroom because the judge ruled that the CIA had to reveal all their information about them.
To me, winning the war on terror is far more important than soothing your legalistic sensibilities.
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 9:53 am
teabag: I say try them and execute them. Pure and simple.
What would you do if they got light sentences owing to being waterboarded?
Just shrug and say “Oh, well, that’s the rule of law for you!”???
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 9:59 am
Duncan Cookson: If the United States believes its values should be shared by the world then why not extend their rights to the rest of the world too.
Because when you’re at war, the “Golden Rule” doesn’t apply.
In World War II, the fact that Japan and Germany never bombed American cities in the 48 states did NOT mean we had to avoid bombing their cities, did it?
This is the disconnect between liberals and conservatives. We conservatives considered 9-11 to be an act of war–a modern Pearl Harbor–the first sneak attack on our homeland by the worldwide movement of radical Islam.
You liberals considered 9-11 to be just a criminal act–differing in degree but not in kind from robbing a convenience store. And to be treated the same way: Send in the FBI to conduct a forensic investigation, issue indictments, try to find the “criminals” and put them on trial, and that’s that–till the next terrorist attack, to be dealt with the same way, on and on.
The FBI director under Clinton, Louis Freeh, had testified before Congress that treating Islamist terrorism as a series of individual criminal acts had failed to stop terrorism, and may in fact have encouraged more terrorism by convincing our enemies that we wouldn’t fight no matter what the provocation.
balconesfault // Nov 16, 2009 at 11:22 am
The FBI director under Clinton, Louis Freeh, had testified before Congress that treating Islamist terrorism as a series of individual criminal acts had failed to stop terrorism, and may in fact have encouraged more terrorism by convincing our enemies that we wouldn’t fight no matter what the provocation.
And Mr. Freeh is welcome to his opinion. There are many in the intelligence community who have offered the opinion that America’s occupation of Iraq will over time produce far more terrorists who are determined to harm American interests.
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 11:30 am
balconesfault: There are many in the intelligence community who have offered the opinion that America’s occupation of Iraq will over time produce far more terrorists who are determined to harm American interests.
I wasn’t referring to Iraq.
I was referring to al-Qaeda–are we at WAR with them or not?
The record is clear.
In the 1990s, we had trials for dozens of terrorists. We had indictments for dozens more. The result wasn’t deterrence of further attacks. The result was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Clinton sent the FBI to investigate, treating it as a criminal problem. 11 months later, we got the destruction of 9-11.
That policy didn’t stop terrorism.
It left us wide open for the biggest terrorist attack ever.
LFC // Nov 16, 2009 at 12:16 pm
sinz54 said… Because civilian trials give defendants the right of discovery.
I thought that classified evidence could be withheld from the defense after being reviewed by the judge.
When we tried in civilian courts the terrorists who blew up our embassies in Nairobi, we had to reveal the list of every single al-Qaeda person we had identified.
That doesn’t make sense. If the evidence is not used in the trial, how can the prosecution be forced to hand it over? Just because somebody is tried for mob ties doesn’t mean the FBI has to turn over all its files on all of its mob investigations, or even all its files on the family the defendant belongs to.
I’d like to hear an explanation of how all this works from somebody who knows the details of the legal issues at play in such cases. Is what you’ve said based on any legal analysis that you can share a link to?
balconesfault // Nov 16, 2009 at 1:02 pm
It left us wide open for the biggest terrorist attack ever.
No – failure of our intelligence services to stop the 9/11 terrorists left us wide open for the biggest terrorist attack ever.
And quite possibly, America acting in the way Bin Laden presumed we would – squandering resources in the Middle East, widely expanding the number of Muslims with grievances against America – removed the impetus from Al Qaeda to expend the considerable resources it would take for any other intensive terrorist attack.
Oldskool // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:03 pm
I have the feeling one reason they wanted it done this way is to deny al-qaeda military status, to make them be seen as ordinary criminals without military honor, a shoe to the face.
LFC // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm
No – failure of our intelligence services to stop the 9/11 terrorists left us wide open for the biggest terrorist attack ever.
I thought they actually told the Bush administration, along with Richard Clarke, about that the method of attack, and they simply ignored the intelligence that was gathered. Of course, there may have been additional failures.
teabag // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“I have the feeling one reason they wanted it done this way is to deny al-qaeda military status, to make them be seen as ordinary criminals without military honor, a shoe to the face.”
It makes sense. Al-Qaeda is not an army, does not wear uniforms, is not a country, indeed is not resident now in any one country.
The war on terror was always a dumb thing anyway. How can you have a war on a induced emotion!
Did we actually declare a war is in place if so how will we know we have won or lost? When do we say it’s at an end if ever?
To treat these criminals as honorable combatants is to elevate them to a level they do not deserve.
MI-GOPer // Nov 16, 2009 at 4:38 pm
sinz54 @10 writes: “The record is clear. In the 1990s, we had trials for dozens of terrorists. We had indictments for dozens more. The result wasn’t deterrence of further attacks. The result was the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Clinton sent the FBI to investigate, treating it as a criminal problem. 11 months later, we got the destruction of 9-11.
That policy didn’t stop terrorism.
It left us wide open for the biggest terrorist attack ever.”
Absolutely, 100% correct on the connections between the Democrat method of treating terrorist combatants as “law enforcement problems” and a fundamental failure of the US govt under Clinton to protect US citizens. It isn’t law enforcement: it’s war.
Clinton and Clarke should be tried as accomplices to alQaeda. Their fundamental failure to take the necessary steps to militarize our response to al Qaeda led to the deaths of thousands of Americans… all while Clinton chased some tail in the Oval Office.
sdspringy // Nov 16, 2009 at 5:56 pm
It is a show trial, but the secret is what will the show be?
The AG states there is evidence available to assure a conviction. Great. There is also evidence available to convict KSM in Gitmo. Great. So why bring KSM here for Civilian Criminal Court?
Because KSM isn’t the show, he is the ticket to get the show rolling. The show will be using KSM and his lawyers to bring out all the big bad Cheney torture evidence. Obama and Holder could care less about KSM, they want Cheney, and Bush if possible. Can’t go after them directly, too messy, too noisy, too political. But bring KSM to do the dirty work, then the morally upright and dignified AG will have to act when all the big bad Cheney torture stuff is drug out.
The looney Left has been hot for this chance, pressuring the AG and Obama. KSM will have the best legal team Media Matters can buy and Soros can buy alot. That legal team will let KSM on the stand to rant and rave, draw your attention, then present all the big bad Cheney torture stuff. Look how terrible we are, or more specifically how bad Cheney/Bush is. Thats when the fun starts.
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:18 pm
lfc:
No.
All our intelligence showed was that Osama bin Laden was “determined to strike inside the U.S.”
Given that he had already bombed the WTC but failed to destroy it–in 1993–we didn’t need the CIA to remind us that he would try again.
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:29 pm
sdspringy: Obama and Holder could care less about KSM, they want Cheney, ateabag: To treat these criminals as honorable combatants is to elevate them to a level they do not deserve.
You should learn about the First and Second Barbary Wars, early in the history of the U.S.
Back then, the problem was piracy. Freebooters terrorized European and American shipping, capturing cargoes and enslaving passengers. A lot of these pirates were state supported by the Pasha of Tripoli–for a reason I will get to in a moment.
Initially, the U.S. decided to pay tribute to these pirates to allow our ships safe passage. But when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to Tripoli to negotiate a deal, the Tripoli Ambassador told them this, according to Thomas Jefferson:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
Jefferson now knew he was dealing not with ordinary criminals, but with religious fanatics. And that there was no point in trying to appease such people.
So the United States went to war. The fact that these pirates weren’t a state didn’t bother America one bit. And the U.S. didn’t just stop the pirates, but invaded Tripoli and stopped the state sponsorship as well (that’s where the phrase “shores of Tripoli” comes from in the Marine Corps hymn).
Nothing’s changed in over 200 years. Today, we call them terrorists. But the issue is the same: They’re not common criminals, because they are agents of radical Islam, just like their ancestors of two centuries ago.
And it’s that ideology with which we are at war.
sinz54 // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:29 pm
teabag: To treat these criminals as honorable combatants is to elevate them to a level they do not deserve.
You should learn about the First and Second Barbary Wars, early in the history of the U.S.
Back then, the problem was piracy. Freebooters terrorized European and American shipping, capturing cargoes and enslaving passengers. A lot of these pirates were state supported by the Pasha of Tripoli–for a reason I will get to in a moment.
Initially, the U.S. decided to pay tribute to these pirates to allow our ships safe passage. But when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to Tripoli to negotiate a deal, the Tripoli Ambassador told them this, according to Thomas Jefferson:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
Jefferson now knew he was dealing not with ordinary criminals, but with religious fanatics. And that there was no point in trying to appease such people.
So the United States went to war. The fact that these pirates weren’t a state didn’t bother America one bit. And the U.S. didn’t just stop the pirates, but invaded Tripoli and stopped the state sponsorship as well (that’s where the phrase “shores of Tripoli” comes from in the Marine Corps hymn).
Nothing’s changed in over 200 years. Today, we call them terrorists. But the issue is the same: They’re not common criminals, because they are agents of radical Islam, just like their ancestors of two centuries ago.
And it’s that ideology with which we are at war.
Reality Chick // Nov 16, 2009 at 6:49 pm
“the act was conceived in a foreign land by foreign nationals who trained on foreign soil and were captured in a foreign country”
…AND SO WHY ARE WE GIVING THE TERRORISTS AND THEIR DEFEENSE LAWYERS ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A MEDIA CIRCUS IN THE HEART OF THE US?
DOES THIS SEEM LIKE A REASONABLE BURDEN FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE AREA WHERE (ANY NON MILITARTY) A TRIAL TAKES PLACE?
“the Constitution does not distinguish between an American and a foreigner. In either venue, the terrorists must be afforded constitutional protections.”
AS MUCH AS I ADMIRE MR. MARQUISE AS A PERSON AS WELL AS HIS EXPERIENCE, HIS WRITING AND HIS KNOWLEDGE, I CANNOT AGREE THAT WAR MONGERING, NON US CITIZENS SHOULD BE AFFORDED THE PRIVILIDGE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS. EITHER FOR MORAL REASONS OR AT TAXPAYER COST.
johnmarzan // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm
you know what’s missing from all of this? david frum. he’s awfully quiet re this. maybe he supports trying KSM in a civilian court? i don’t know…
johnmarzan // Nov 16, 2009 at 10:01 pm
he’s more worked up over the rubio crist thing than this.
jreb // Nov 17, 2009 at 7:11 pm
The question that we need to ask ourselves is what is the purpose of trying these individuals. Is this a trial to seek justice for the cold blooded premeditated murder of 3,000 innocent men, women and children and a like number of our military brethren?
If the answer is yes, then why should a military tribunal in process be interrupted to be superseded by a criminal trial seeking the same purpose? In either a military or criminal trial, the accused are granted basically the same civil rights. The disadvantages of a criminal trial are that we are allowing the defendants to turn the trial into a media circus, establish a platform to espouse their sick hatred and ideology, potentially expose our intelligence sources and methods, allow an opportunity for political opponents to express their philosophies and allow any juror to express their ideological views.