I also agree with the following comment on the decision:9/11 mastermind to face trial by Guantánamo military commission
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be tried at the US military base in Cuba rather than in a civilian court on American soil
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, will be tried by a military commission in Guantánamo. It is the latest retreat by the Obama administration from its much-vaunted plans to overhaul the legal processing of terror suspects.
Mohammed and four other terror suspects will be put on trial through a military system that President Obama had vowed to abolish when he began in office in January 2009. The White House had declared its intent in 2009 to push them through the civilian justice system with a landmark trial at the federal court in Manhattan, a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.
But the proposal invoked a groundswell of opposition, most powerfully from New York residents and the mayor of the city, Michael Bloomberg.
The US attorney general, Eric Holder, was expected to announce the administration's U-turn at a press conference in Guantánamo.
The about-face is hugely symbolic as Mohammed was al-Qaida's main architect of 9/11, according to the commission of inquiry into the terrorist outrages convened in New York. How he is treated arguably sets the tone for America's legal handling of terror suspects.
Obama had wanted to bring that legal process back into the norms of civilian justice. But he was thwarted by a wall of opposition from Republicans in Congress, backed by some Democrats.
Republicans inserted a provision into the latest defence budget effectively banning the use of Pentagon funds to transfer Guantánamo detainees to the mainland, thus blocking any civilian trials. Obama initially promised to repeal the restriction, but last month he backtracked by allowing the resumption of military commission trials at the US base in Cuba.
Bloomberg also did a volte face. Initially, he approved the idea of a civilian trial for Mohammed in downtown Manhattan, but then turned against it, arguing that it would cost the city more than $400m (£248m) in security alone.
Other opponents claimed that it would again make New York the target of terrorists' wrath.
Never Forget, a group of family members of victims of the attacks, as well as emergency workers and former military personnel, welcomed the announcement. "We are relieved that President Obama has abandoned his plan to try the 9/11 conspirators in a civilian court on US soil. Prosecuting war criminals, whose only connection to this country is the location of their victims, in military commissions is the right thing to do."
Why Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in Guantánamo
US Congress's blocking of a civilian trial for the alleged 9/11 planner means just one thing: politics has trumped justice
This Monday, Eric Holder, much to what seemed to be his own disappointment, announced that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in a military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay. This, of course, comes as no surprise. For those of us who have embraced the use of civilian courts to try Guantánamo detainees, this is yet another defeat at the hands of the Obama administration when it comes to Guantánamo.
First, there was the failure to close Guantánamo within a year, as initially promised – a failure that has now become de facto policy. Then, there was the initial rescinding of the decision to try KSM in Manhattan, followed most recently by the president's executive order sanctioning indefinite detention of Gitmo detainees.
This latest disappointment, even if it may be attributed to Congress's ban on the transfer of detainees to the United States, will have long-term consequences for the American legal system. It restores the fundamental shift in power that took place under President Bush: on 13 November 2001, President Bush delivered a military order that put the matter of detention and trial for suspects in the "war on terror" under the jurisdiction of the Pentagon and the secretary of defence. Since then, the department of justice has tried to wrest back the right to try terrorism suspects as it had done throughout the 1990s. Small successes, like the return of José Padilla and al-Marri to the civilian courts, after they had been declared an enemy combatants, and larger successes, like the US supreme court decision to recognise the detainees' right to the writ of habeas corpus, seemed to be stepping-stones on the way to restoring to the American criminal justice system the right to try those who were accused of harming or conspiring to harm American citizens.
As Holder has said repeatedly, the civilian courts have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism suspects and, when found guilty, convicted them and handed down long sentences. More importantly, the civilian courts have learned to know the nature of these cases. They have developed a body of expertise on the part of the prosecutors and the defence attorneys that would take decades to replicate in military commissions. They have learned how and where federal statutes apply and where they falter in the prosecutions of alleged terrorism suspects. And they have developed a wealth of knowledge about terrorist tactics and networks.
This is not just about the number of convictions. It is about building a responsible professional specialty in matters of terrorism. And this is what the hundreds of cases have permitted. By contrast, the military commissions have convicted just six of nearly 779 individuals; the proposal now is to pilot yet another reformulation of the commissions for the 9/11 detainees – a group most people would agree one wouldn't want to experiment with.
How ironic that the development of a true professional expertise is met with a refusal to let the courts practise what they are charged with under the US Constitution. Could it be that expertise in these matters is just what Congress doesn't want? Could it be that "fair trials" and "just verdicts", not to mention transparent trials and public accountability for the families of 9/11, are not what matter most? Could it, instead, be that thwarting the department of justice and obstructing the clear preferences of Attorney General Holder and the Obama administration are the politicians' top priorities, even in the "war on terror"?
Good going there, Obama. Final nail in the coffin for the rule of law in the war on terror.