Henninger, Dan. “KSM Hits Manhattan-Again.” The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal, 14 November 2009. Web. 15 November 2009 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533622533459520.htmlgt;.
"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533622533459520.html>Read this newspaper
The editor of “The Wall Street Journal” objects to the decision of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and four other terrorist to New York to face trial in a civilian court complete with all the rights given to American citizens. KSM is the self- proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The editor explains that if “the rule of law” is the main consideration as Holder stated, then military tribunals would be the appropriate venue. The Military Commission Act of 2006 that was passed by the Congress in a bipartisan vote authorized a system of military tribunals which has been effective in trying prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Holder acknowledges the worth of military tribunals by saying that other terrorist should be tried in the tribunals. President Obama and Mr. Holder say that, because the 9/11 terrorists attacked civilians on American soil instead of military targets over-seas, they should be tried in civilian court. The author believes that the target should not make a difference; the terrorists are military combatants who should be tried in military tribunals. He points out several problems with trying them in civilian court. One problem is that the rules for admissible evidence are very different in a civilian court than they are in a military tribunal. In a tribunal, the fact that some evidence is and should remain classified is taken into account. The fact is also taken into consideration that, in war, evidence must be gathered many times without the restrictions that apply to evidence admissible in a civilian court. Because all defendants in civilian court are awarded curtain rights, crucial evidence might be inadmissible. The confession of KSM, for example, saying, “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A-Z,” might be thrown out because lawyers could argue it was made without “informed consent.” KSM could even be acquitted if it is argued that his Miranda Rights were not read to him when he was captured. The editor also points out that bringing the trial to New York creates a security risk. He believes it will tempt Jihads all over the world to strike Manhattan. Another argument the editor points out is that the trial might provide valuable information to terrorists about America’s method of gathering intelligence. Because so much evidence is inadmissible in civilian court, prosecutors might have to reveal genuine secretes.
This article contains valuable information for those trying to answer the question, ”Should the U.S. Senate have voted, as it did, on October 20, 2009?” The author points out some of the problems that arise when suspected terrorists are tried in civilian court. If the suspects are allowed to be defendants in a civilian courtroom, they are automatically awarded the rights that protect American citizens in that situation. This article highlights the potentially devastating results of that decision.
