Attorney General Eric Holder recently decided to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, in a federal court in New York City as opposed to a secret military tribunal. He made the right decision.
The Sheikh has asked to be tried in a secret military tribunal where he intends to admit his guilt and accept a death sentence. If this happens the Sheikh will have dictated to us how he is to be brought to justice. He will be able to claim martyrdom and his followers can rail at the injustice of the secret tribunal. He doesn't deserve to call the shots.
There are several objections to a public trial. First, many survivors and families of victims may be traumatized by a public airing of the events. This concern is understandable. As victims of crimes know this pain is quite painful with a public airing, but there are people and processes to help victims cope with this stress. Further, my experience as a prosecutor also suggests that there are benefits to a public airing of the atrocities both for closure for survivors and victims and for the public to be enlightened on the crimes and the planning processes.
The most troubling objections seem to be coming from conservatives who profess the sanctity of our Constitution and their undying allegiance to it. But it seems they are not so confident of its application. The real concern they seem to have is that if the Sheikh is tried in an American court he might get off because we require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, they don't really trust our system.
Beyond not being able to have it both ways these folks are plain wrong. Certainly there have been aberrations of justice in our society (O.J. for instance) but there have been a whole lot more valid convictions. For all its flaws the safeguards of our system prevent the very lawlessness the terrorists embrace.
I well remember as prosecutor being brought a charge to file on a dangerous and known criminal. The problem was the charge was unprovable. I told the police officer that we could not file an unprovable charge and his response was that maybe this person had not committed this crime but he had done other bad things. Chilling. My response to that was that we didn't need a legal system for that kind of thinking - just a gun and a wall.
For all its flaws and occasional abuses our system offers the best chance to maintain a just and civilized society. When we treat suspected terrorists to the level of justice and standards of proof we offer to all we prove to the world that there is real meaning to our commitment to individual liberties and rights. The Sheikh deserves a fair and open trial before the world after which he will be, as he wishes, sent to the next life, a convicted murderer.
