Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Post # 7 - 9/11 Conspirators Face Federal Civilian Courts: The Right Decision?

The Issue
On Friday, November 13, 2009, United States Attorney General Eric Holder held a press conference during which he stated that five masterminds of the 9/11 terrorists attacks will face prosecution in a New York City federal civilian court. While the decision has already made, a fierce debate has ensued as to if trying these individuals in civilian court is the best course of action.

Analysis of the Media Coverage
While the preponderance of my blog posts have been critical of the media, today, I commend the media (for the most part) for surprisingly good coverage of this debate. From MSNBC (considered a left leaning news organizations) to CNN (a centrist news organization) it seemed as if the coverage of this issue was fair and balanced. These news organizations presented both sides of the debate so that readers and viewers could form their own opinions.

However, the Right, comprised of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, was clearly less objective. Their coverage not only suggested that the terrorists would not receive the justice that they deserved, but also that the case would descend into a circus act.

My Take
I believe we should hold these five individuals accountable in New York federal court. While there are risks associated with the decision, it is the strongest signal that the United States can send to the terrorists and to the international community. It will demonstrate our unwavering confidence in the American judicial system, as well as our dedication to our values and way of life. In the remainder of this post, I will dismiss charges that have been levied by opponents of the Attorney General’s decision.

Charge: Federal Courts Have No Experience
Those who oppose the AG’s (Attorney General) decision approach the issue as if U.S. federal courts have no experience in prosecuting terrorists. This is not the case. In fact, the 1993 WTC bombers were convicted in federal courts; and over 100 terrorists have been tried since 9/11 in civilian courts. So to argue that the federal courts are not equipped to handle this type of situation is simply inaccurate.

Charge: Civilian Courts Impede Justice
There is no basis for this claim. According to a report by the nonprofit human rights organization Human Rights First, they could find no instances in which the Classified Information Procedures Act, the Miranda Requirements, or others precluded either side from receiving a fair legal process. Further, there is no evidence that convicted terrorists receive looser sentences under the civilian judicial system.

Charge: Trial Will Be a Circus
While some have said that terrorists will use the judicial process as a platform to promote their cause, one need only look to the case of convicted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui to recognize that this assumption is not necessarily valid.

Secondly, according to the previously referenced report by Human Rights First, The Federal Bureau of Prisons has housed high value criminals and terrorists without damage to the adjacent communities.

Concluding Thoughts
While I can understand that holding trials to convict terrorists that plotted to carry out an attack that occurred just a few blocks away from the proposed courtroom location will elicit emotion, we must not submit to temptation. It is imperative that this country remains strong by adhering to its core values and beliefs. This is the lifeblood of our country. This is what distinguishes us from the terrorists.

No comments:

Post a Comment