Conor Rogers, Editor
Ideology: Center-Right | Writing from: Washington, DC
The Department of Justice will pursue prosecution in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. Eric Holder, US Attorney General
Growing up only a short drive from Manhattan I’ve always considered New York to be my home city, my backyard, and something that belonged, with particular importance and especially after 9-11, with particular honor to the people in and around it.
As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center have always resonated with our generation, but especially with those of us who grew up in New York’s shadow. We lost our friends, neighbors, coaches, and family members. I can’t claim to have a special or more valid opinion on the Khaled Sheikh Mohammed trial because of my New Jersey residency, nor can I stake claim to having been more impacted than the rest of the country was by the attacks. America and our ideals, not just New York, got attacked.
However, I can speak as someone who has not forgotten what happened, why it happened and who it happened to. There are daily reminders in my hometown, all around the area I grew up in, and the city that I worked in dedicated to what happened eight years ago. Perhaps, living near the site of the attacks allows me to remember more clearly what happened, and unlike other areas of the country, be especially wary of it happening again.
3,000 DEAD IS AN ACT OF WAR, NOT A CRIME.
After the terrorist attacks, there was a general sense that America had ‘woken up.’ Indeed, we had been woken up as a nation by a threat that we had largely ignored; regardless of the fact it had already taken a swipe at the very same towers in 1993 and our embassies in 1995 and 1996. Each time an attack happened, we treated it like a crime, hunted down the perpetrators, and it quickly left our news cycles and our collective consciousness. Our counterterrorism was nonchalant, and our society viewed fundamentalism as something that could be contained by laws, prosecuted and locked up. As New York’s iconic towers came down during my sixth grade history class, that towering myth was torn down with them.
Some do not understand why there is such uproar over putting a man on trial for a deed that he obviously committed. We are sure that Khaled Sheikh Mohammed organized and planned the September 11th attacks, among many other massacres. There is no danger that Mr. Mohammed will get off scot-free, that the charges will be dropped, or that he could be declared completely innocent.
So, why the frenzy? To try Mohammed in a criminal court is to treat his act as criminal, and coming from a young administration that has already ceased using the phrases ‘terrorism’, ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ and ‘war on terror’ this serves as confirmation for many who, like myself, view the struggle against terrorism and against the oppressions of fundamentalism as the most important international (and moral) task facing our nation.
A TRIAL BY JEERS?
Trying Mohammed in a criminal court is not necessary, and one could argue that he does not deserve to be treated as even the least respected criminal by the United States. He is by every definition of the word a war criminal, prisoner of war and enemy of our state. He is a mass-murderer of the worst kind, and is anything but criminal. Our criminals invade our homes, rob our citizens and perpetrate common offenses. They do not organize large-scale acts of war that rob our citizens of their innocence, invade our national security and launch our nation into war.
Even if the trial goes ahead as planned, can Khaled Sheikh Mohammed even get the best of the American justice system as Eric Holder and Barack Obama claim? How can a man who struck fear into the hearts of every citizen in the country get a truly fair trial? How can a foreign national who was once near public enemy number one get a jury of his peers? He cannot possibly be given the premise of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ that he should be afforded under our justice system. In a nightmare scenario, any number of things, from a 2001 blog post by a juror, to a challenge of venue to even evidence uncovered at Guantanamo could cause the unimaginable – a mistrial, and a terrorist gone free. This very trial is in and of itself a miscarriage of our own justice system.
WHY?
The larger question surrounding what’s likely to be one of the highest profile court cases of our time is: why? Why civilian court? Why now? Why mastermind Mohammed and not the hundreds of other prisoners? Why New York?
As the conspirator in an act of war, Mohammed should be a trial by our military, as a prisoner of war. Yes, there is ample precedent for trying non-citizens in American courts, but Mohammed has never stepped foot inside our nation. He did not commit a crime in our nation; he committed a crime against our nation.
To sidestep into politics for a moment: why now? As Obama seeks to close Guantanamo, he has done a politically-odd thing in trying the second-most-hated man to Osama Bin Laden. Was this a move to shore up his rapidly impatient left-wing base, or an earnest move by the Obama administration in the interest of justice?
Bringing this trial to New York was salt in the wound of the very city he attacked. This trial gives Mohammed a larger megaphone than any Al Qaeda spokesman has he ever had, mere blocks away from the site of the attacks he planned. The bombers of New York, Washington, Madrid, London, and Bali have exactly what they want: a relaxed United States of America.
New York is the city that bounced back, and more importantly, a resilient and proud place that survived worst terrorist attack in world history in a way that only New Yorkers could. To treat the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and their perpetrators, as criminals, rather than an act of war committed by fundamentalist terrorists demeans the importance of what happened, and perhaps more dangerously, reflects the very attitudes that our country ‘woke up’ form on that September morning.
There is a temptation, always, to return to a peaceful mentality, to wish war away and to ‘scale-back.’ The mentality of the September 10th world was calmer, and more pleasurable – but it was this exact relaxed mentality that allowed the attacks to occur. No matter our economic problems, healthcare debates and political media cycle; a simple fact does not change: there is a network of people around the world and inside our own country that want to bring us down. Treating these people like criminals will not make them criminals – but treating them like terrorists can – and has – stopped them for the past eight years.
War is terrible, and being at peace is infinitely better than war, but being at peace with war itself is one of the most dangerous moves this country could make. Our President is on the road back to that very mindset, back to September 10th.
When we swore to never forget, we didn’t just mean the victims, we meant why it happened. When we said never again, we meant it, and we still do.


By reading the title, I thought it was going be some Dick Cheney fear-mongering, but this is actually the best argument against the trial I’ve read yet.
Originally, I supported the idea of closing Guantanamo and putting them on trial in the US, but at least with KSM,you’ve convinced me, keep them out! Especially out of New York.
Terrorists don’t want a “relaxed” America, they want us to be afraid. That’s why they’re called terrorists. If we give in to that fear, they’ve won.
By treating Khaled Sheikh Mohammed like a criminal, we demean HIM and other terrorists, not the importance of what happened.
Treating him as a prisoner of war would make him a martyr. The war on terror hasn’t made us that much safer for the past 8 years. It’s been a recruitment tool for terrorist groups everywhere.
Giving him a fair trial in a civilian court shows the world that we are the just ones – and that is a message we desperately need to send right now.
Ian,
Terrorists don’t want us afraid, they want us weak.
There are two types of fear: 1. cowardice 2. afraid, but on guard.
We have reason to be afraid of terrorism, it seeks to kill us. That does not mean we should not be afraid of it, rather it means we should use that fear to be on-guard, not weak (see Spain’s reaction to the their terror attacks)
Eric Holder seeks the death penalty, *that* makes him a martyr, a military trial to keep him at Guantanamo (or another military prison) does not.
We tried fighting terrorism with criminal trials, that ended on 9-11 for a reason.
I agree with Ian’s comment and won’t belabor anything he wrote but I would also caution against conflating acts of terrorism with acts of war.
KSM, Zacarias Moussaoui, and the 19 hijackers that are currently burning in hell do not represent an organized entity that could have effectively replaced America as we know it. Yes, terror constitutes subversive activity that undermines our existence as a nation but unlike inter-state and tribal warfare, it does not guarantee a specific replacement with the onslaught of terrorism. If Nazi Germany had emerged victorious from World War II, a German government would have indisputably replaced the European states that it occupied during wartime. Not only is such a notion of ‘winning’ and ‘loosing’ immeasurable in the so-called “War on Terrorism,” there is no indisputable replacement entity that would establish itself once the onslaught of terrorism finally subverted our government.
9/11 was one of the darkest days in American history but to portray it as an act of war is to give the terrorists the type of legitimacy that we reserve for actors in actual warfare.
Perhaps you’re right about the difference between New Jersey and other areas. I was living in New York on 9-11, and since moved to California. I seem to be the only one who has concern about these trials around here.
Tyler Bilbo, when smoke fills the skies over your hometown and kills your friends and relatives, then tell us it wasn’t an act of war. They don’t have a flag but that doesn’t mean we can’t be at war with them.
Perhaps the most telling thing about all of this is that the people who advocated for a civilian trial for Razmi Yousef (1993 WTC bomber and KSM’s nephew) are now against the civilian trial of KSM.
Tyler, I understand your perspective, but killing 3,000 people is an act of war. It doesn’t matter if it takes 5 years or 5 hours. His trial belongs in a military court. The most disturbing facet of all of this to me is that the CIA and FBI will have to reveal to KSM how they obtained their evidence. If that isn’t a threat to national security, I don’t know what is.
I don’t live near New York, but I was down there three weeks after 9/11…and honestly, that is as close to a war zone as I ever hope to see. Try KSM in Gitmo (note: give him a legitimate military trial), give him a life sentence so he can’t be a martyr, and let him rot in prison for the rest of his life. No one attacks the United States and gets away with it.
9/11 was certainly an act of war. I don’t think there is disagreement on this point. I’m just not sure why that validates the subversion of due process.
From an ideological perspective, we subscribe to the notion that our principles of “justice” set us apart as not only exemplary, but indeed “exceptional.” The fallacy in this thinking notwithstanding, I find it odd that those most likely to extol the virtues of the “American way” are also those most willing to sacrifice it to suit what Chief Justice William O. Douglas once called “the passion and clamor of the time.”
More importantly, from a geopolitical perspective, the trial will mark a visual departure from the waterboard era and help bolster the credibility of our security postures. This is not a moot point to be lost on even the most pessimistic reader, as I am one myself. The fact is that the credibility of a unipole’s guarantees–both to its allies and its enemies–is the crucial factor in preventing unnecessary conflict. Abandoning deeply held internal legal principles for the sake of expedience is: (1) a way to make allies less comfortable with our not-so-deeply held security guarantees; and (2) a signal to disenchanted states that U.S. hegemony is unbridled. This raises the costs of not proliferating and makes obtaining a nuclear weapon more desirable.
Finally, the recent argument that the trial will somehow facilitate the kidnapping of elementary school children is ludicrous. Whatever the risk for this is, it is no different whether or not Mohammed is in town. Moreover, I live in Manhattan and can attest to the fact that any mass-fear of this sort is not grounded in any kind of reality.
Simply put, with the trial we will have cathartic justice without undermining the national myth or our security posture. With another war tribunal, we will undermine both.
(In truth, the best argument is probably for trying Mohammed through the International Criminal Court in The Hague, but even President Obama realizes that public opinion is not ready to legitimate international law so visibly just yet. This is unfortunate because it would have allowed the US to shape an emerging international norm it will one day fall under.)
I see no reason why a war criminal can’t be tried in our court system.
And Adam, I agree.
If our legal system purports to be just … why doesn’t he deserve a fair trial?
Adam, Ian, Tyler and Dylan,
All of you suggest that the only way to try KSM in our “justice system” is in criminal court. The military tribunals set up by Congress for this exact purpose in Gitmo are also part of our “justice system”. We didn’t have them available for previous trials of terrorists. There is precedent on both sides of this argument. There is no precedent for 9/11. That was an act of war. If that is not clear to you all then this discussion is pointless. The US is now sending a signal that terroism is a criminal activity. This will make it harder to protect ourselves. If we tell the world that an act of terrorism against the US is considered an act of war, that is a different signal.
Was KSM given his Miranda rights at his apprehension? Wouldn’t this cause an immediate mistrial in criminal court?
Adam, you argue that the exceptionalism of American justice is a fallacy. Then you argue that trying KSM in New York would demonstrate that exceptionalism. Choose one or the other. Also, you have no idea what these maniacs will try to do in New York or other places so don’t disparage those concerned about the safety of their children or homes. It will definitely be different when “Mohammed is in town”. If what you say is true then we will need no extra security during the trial, now THAT is ludicrous!
Dear Conor: Good piece. Captures the horror, the brittleness of the politics of this matter as a public issue.
I haven’t yet heard a lawyerly treatment of a large issue we laymen know as jurisdiction.
If KSM was captured “on the battlefield” in Afghanistan, and his acts of war were committed “on the battlefield” over there somewhere, what makes anybody, federal lawyer or no, with whatever court in the US you might name, think they have jurisdiction in this matter? I think it’s easy to see there is none.
However, Holder(a lawyer, but he’s a special kind of lawyer, you see he was an assistant AG under Clinton)doesn’t sweat about little barriers like jurisdiction, nor does his Lawyer-in-Chief and former chief of Harvard Law Review Obama. The two of them see political opportunity in creating chaos, turning ACLU loose on the Bush White House, CIA, FBI, for years, with no certainty of conviction for a man who’s already plead GUILTY. And whom they’ve already insured the people will be found guilty. All the ACLU has to do is submit in evidence Holder’s assurances of yesterday, together with Barak’s overconfident condemnations, and KSM will be acquitted in a red hot minute.
That will leave law abiding Americans wondering where the justice system went, anyway. We handed it over to people who hate America.
Dylan & Adam: Did you guys say the Pledge of Allegiance when you were in school?
Dylan Says:
” If our legal system purports to be just … why doesn’t he deserve a fair trial? ”
Go back to the article and read the “trial by jeers” section. This man can’t even get a fair trial.
Personally I would really love to take him out of that resort we call Gitmo and stick him in a real American prison.
“Yoda,”
My point about exceptionalism was that those who trumpet it the most are those least interested in meeting their own standards for it. It was an observation of hypocrisy. The crux of my argument is the latter point, and the subsequent posting.