Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

The Death Penalty Problem
9/11 Trial Puts German-US Relations Under Strain

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662814,00.html

By John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach
11/22/2009

The prosecutors in the forthcoming 9/11 trials in New York will be seeking the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. That could pose a problem for Germany, which is supplying vital evidence for the prosecution.

The US government could have hardly picked a more symbolic venue for the trial of its worst enemies. With its colonnade of Corinthian pillars, the 27-story US Courthouse in Lower Manhattan is a daunting fortress of justice. On Sept. 11, 2001, judges and court clerks gathered on the upper floors of the building were able to observe the impact of the second jet that crashed into the World Trade Center, just a few blocks away.

The men accused of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks will soon be put on trial here, not far from the scene of the crime. Next year federal prosecutors in New York are expected to read indictments against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and three other alleged conspirators. They will be transferred from the detention facility at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to a courtroom less than a mile from Ground Zero, where they will receive a fair trial instead of facing a military tribunal. US Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the suspects in a civilian court has made international headlines and prompted sighs of relief in many parts of the world.

No Capital Punishment in Germany
But it looks like the upcoming trial will cause headaches for Germany. Holder and US President Barack Obama have announced that they intend to seek the death penalty if the five defendants are found guilty. German law prohibits capital punishment, yet evidence provided by German investigators will play a key role in the trial.

This presents the German government with a dilemma. Berlin can either oppose the use of German evidence in a bid to protect the defendants from execution -- and risk alienating a NATO ally in the process -- or it can approve the use of the incriminating documents, which would contravene Germany's position on the death penalty.

According to the current mutual legal assistance agreement between the two countries, should the information furnished by German investigators be used to impose the death penalty, Germany can insist that this evidence be considered inadmissible in court. This would not be the first time that the Germans have demanded such assurances for criminal proceedings.

The trial in New York is threatening to put a strain on German-American relations. Washington already feels that Germany has let it down by refusing to take in former detainees after the Obama administration decided to close Guantanamo. What's more, when it comes to bringing the terrorists behind 9/11 to justice, there is currently very little understanding in the US for any legal concerns that Berlin might have.

Tug-of-War over Moussaoui Documents
It's not the first time the two countries have locked horns over this issue. Shortly after the attacks, a heated debate flared up, followed by months of tug-of-war over German bank transfer documents, which played a key role in the trial of would-be French suicide pilot Zacarias Moussaoui.

At first the German government demanded that the US court could not seek the death penalty for Moussaoui. But Berlin later relinquished and allowed the German documents to be entered as evidence in the trial in exchange for a binding assurance that this information could not be used to justify the death penalty -- a concept built on shaky legal ground.

The problems facing Germany in the upcoming New York trial are considerably more serious. Moussaoui had never lived in Germany and the dispute over evidence in his trial concerned only very few documents. But it is another story altogether with Ramzi Binalshibh, who was allegedly the main logistics man behind the attacks. He lived in Germany for six years and shared an apartment in Hamburg with two of the 9/11 suicide pilots, including Mohammed Atta, who crashed the first plane into the Twin Towers.

Working out of Germany, Binalshibh gathered information about flight training schools in the US and regularly transferred large sums of money to the future 9/11 hijackers. There were, therefore, a large number of references to the results of the German investigation in the old indictment against Binalshibh, which the Bush administration had hoped would be used in a trial heard before a military commission.

Justice Ministry Alarmed
Aside from that, federal prosecutors in New York will find it difficult to use confessions coerced using highly controversial interrogation methods such as waterboarding. "It is hard to imagine how the government could present a case against Ramzi Binalshibh where a significant portion of the government case would not be based on evidence gathered in Germany," says Thomas Durkin, who is a member of the ACLU John Adams Project and a member of Binalshibh's defense team.

This explains why Holder's announcement of the trial has alarmed the German Justice Ministry in Berlin and its subordinate agency in Bonn, the Federal Office of Justice, which is responsible for mutual legal assistance.

Germany's new Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger intends to maintain the course set by her predecessor: "In this case, we will also watch very closely to ensure that the assurances given are adhered to," she said. In order to verify that the US government keeps its word, the German Justice Ministry will team up with the Foreign Ministry to send German observers to monitor the trial in New York.

But the defense flatly rejects the idea of proceeding according to the example set during the Moussaoui trial. At the time, it was decided that German evidence could only be admitted during the main proceedings, but not during the sentencing phase. This is "a distinction without a difference," says Binalshibh's lawyer Durkin, who is a Chicago-based former federal prosecutor.

Ultimately, Moussaoui did not need to rely on help from German legal experts who questioned the admissibility of the evidence. He managed to escape the death penalty without their aid. One of the twelve jurors voted against death by lethal injection and Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison.
 
Cheney Accuses Holder of Wanting 'Show Trial' for 9/11 Plotters

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/23/cheney-accuses-holder-wanting-trial-plotters/

11/23/2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested Monday that Attorney General Eric Holder wants a "show trial" for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 conspirators who are to be tried in a civilian court just blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested Monday that Attorney General Eric Holder wants a "show trial" for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 conspirators who are to be tried in a civilian court just blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood.

In an interview with conservative talk radio host Scott Hennen on Monday, Cheney called it a "big mistake" to try Mohammed in a civilian court rather than before a military tribunal.

Cheney said the Obama administration has reverted back to a pre-Sept. 11 mindset, in which acts of terror are treated as criminal offenses or "law enforcement problems."

"We had 3,000 dead Americans that day. That is not a law enforcement problem. That's an act of war. And you need to treat it as an act of war," Cheney said in the interview.

The former vice president went on to question the administration's motives in making its decision, saying, "I can't for the life of me figure out what Holder's intent [is] here, in terms of having Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tried in a civilian court, other than to, to have some kind of show trial here."
"They'll simply use it as a platform to argue their case," Cheney said of the 9/11 conspirators.

Cheney also took issue with Obama for not yet announcing a decision on whether to send 30,000 to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The former vice president had previously criticized Obama for "dithering" on U.S. military strategy in the eight-year-old war.

"The delay is not cost-free," he said. "Every day that goes by raises doubts in the minds of our friends in the region about what you're going to do. Raises doubts in the minds of the troops -- I worry that the delay and that time that it's taken to come to the decision will be very costly."

On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to suggestions that Americans may perceive the president as indecisive or uncertain on a troop surge in Afghanistan.

"This is a complicated decision," Gibbs said during an afternoon briefing with reporters.

"I'm not going to re-litigate what we litigated when the former vice president offered his advice previously," he added. "There are a series of decisions that have to be made, and the president is working through many of those decisions in order to come to what he believes is the best way forward for our national security."

Obama called his national security team together Monday as he moves toward a decision on whether to send more forces -- the council's ninth meeting on the issue. Obama's announcement is expected as early as next week, according to administration officials.
 
9/11 Widows Hit Cheney for Fighting KSM Trial

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2009/11/911-widows-hit-cheney-for-figh.html

By Michael McAuliff
11/24/2009

Some 9/11 widows who want to see a terror trial in New York today questioned why a group strongly linked to Liz Cheney is leading the charge in opposition to the trial.

Her father, after all, is the man many Democrats and liberals think broke the law in pushing for interrogation techniques now deemed torture by the Obama administration, and which were used on Al Qaeda plotter Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The anti-trial group is led by Debra Burlingame — whose brother piloted one of the doomed planes — and who is a guiding light at 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America.

The 9/11 Families group had as a springboard Keep America Safe, a Liz Cheney vehicle where Burlingame serves on the board.

“Perhaps they’re trying to protect her father’s role in torturing these detainees,” said Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband on 9/11. “And that’s actually what could keep us from seeing justice, is this torture that was done to these people because that evidence is not really evidence. It won’t be admissible anywhere.”

Auken was speaking on a conference call organized by the liberal Human Rights First.

Later, she declined to back off her statement. “You start to wonder why Liz Cheney would be organizing the 9/11 families,” she said. “It’s just a funny connection.”

Below is the press conference Burlingame did today with Rep. Pete King and others, posted online by Keep America Safe, in which they call for the trial to be canceled and announce a Dec. 5 rally.
 
9/11 Widows, National Security Experts, Federal Prosecutors Say Fearmongering Must Stop

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/11/24-6

NEW YORK - November 24 - National security experts, a former federal prosecutor, and 9/11 widows are calling for cooler heads to prevail as those opposed to New York-based federal trials for the five Guantanamo detainees accused in the 9/11 conspiracy ramp up their campaign of "fear and fables."

"Those opposed to federal court trials for these men have speculated about a lot of things – our safety, procedural problems, time. I don't want speculation. I want results. Since the 9/11 attacks, the only forum that has given victims' families results in the war on terror is our federal courts," said Lorie Van Auken, a 9/11 widow.

Monica Gabrielle, also a 9/11 widow, added, "Holding these trials in New York City guarantees victims' families and New Yorkers a front row seat to the justice we deserve and have waited for, for eight long years. It will allow us to watch our Constitution fulfill its promise of protecting our society, and it will mark another chapter in this painful journey to justice."

In a recent study of 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants filed since 2001 in the normal federal court system, Human Rights First found that of the 214 defendants whose cases were resolved as of June 2, 2009, 195 were convicted either by verdict or by a guilty plea. By contrast, the military commissions are a failed system that has secured only 3 convictions and their continued use threatens to perpetuate the legacy of failed trial and detention policies at Guantanamo.

Van Auken is not alone is her support for bringing the federal trials to New York City. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Senator Charles Schumer, and New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly have all voiced support for Attorney General Holder's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in federal court.

Retired Brigadier General James P. Cullen, a New Yorker and former member of the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, agrees, stating, "I lost a good friend at the World Trade Center, and I lost a good friend in Baghdad, but I think that the symbolism of bringing these guys to trial in New York is as equally important as assuring the world that when they are tried, they are going to get a full and fair trial. Bringing them to New York, which was the scene of the crime and the terrible incidents of September 11th, is particularly appropriate. When we convened the Nuremberg Trials, we deliberately chose Nuremberg as the site where we were going to convict those people who had formulated, and the symbol of the formulation had occurred in the city where so much of the horrendous work of the Nazis carried out was first imagined. I think we are going to do the same when we bring these people to New York and conduct their trials here."

A chief concern among experts who support federal trials for those accused in the 9/11 conspiracy is ending the misconception that these men deserve "warrior status" – a distinction that has been one of Al Qaeda's most effective recruiting tools.

From the organization's New York City office, Human Rights First President and Chief Executive Officer Elisa Massimino concluded, "The victims of 9/11 and the American public deserve to see justice done, and the best way to achieve that is by prosecuting these men in a credible criminal justice system where the focus will be on their culpability, not on the legitimacy or fairness of the proceedings. Moving these cases out of military commissions and into the federal courts is smart counter-terrorism strategy. It treats the perpetrators as the criminals they are and deprives them of the warrior status they crave. This is an important distinction and will help thwart their ability to recruit others to their cause."
 
Rally Against Terrorist Trial in NYC

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/25606/

11/25/2009

NEW YORK—A rally to protest the upcoming trial of 9/11 conspirators in New York City was announced in Battery Park on Tuesday morning by members of the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition. The decision to hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other co-conspirators in New York City was announced by President Barrack Obama and NY State Attorney General Eric Holder earlier this month.

The coalition will hold the rally at noon on Dec. 5 in Foley Square with members of the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, 9/11 victims, family members, first responders, members of the military, and veterans.

Debra Burlingame, founder of the 911 Families for a Safe and Strong America said, “Our Rally on Dec. 5 will tell Attorney General Eric Holder, President Barack Obama, and their supporters in Congress: We will fight you all the way!” Ms. Burlingame is the sister of Charles F. Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.

The group sent a letter two weeks ago signed by 300 family members of 9/11 victims to President Obama, AG Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking them to reverse their decision to hold the trial in New York. The letter has since been signed by 120,000 Americans and is posted online at www.keepamericasafe.com/?page_id=1822

The group is protesting the plan to hold the trial that will give enemy combatants of the U.S. constitutional protections by holding the trial in U.S federal court.

Speakers at the press conference included Rep. Pete King (R- NY) Peter Regen, an active FDNY firefighter who has served two tours in Iraq and whose father, Donald J. Regen, died at the World Trade Center, and Andrew McCarthy, former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York and prosecutor in the trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Members of the group Human Rights First also appeared at the press conference Tuesday morning. They claim that the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition is “fear mongering” and should allow the trial move forward.

“Those opposed to federal court trials for these men have speculated about a lot of things—our safety, procedural problems, time. I don’t want speculation. I want results. Since the 9/11 attacks, the only forum that has given victims families results in the war on terror is our federal courts,” Stated Lorie Van Auken, a 9/11 widow in a press release.

According to Human Rights First, a recent study states that of 119 terrorism cases with 289 defendants filed since 2001 in the normal federal court system, 214 of the cases have been resolved as of June 2, 2009, with 195 convictions either by verdict or by a guilty plea. By contrast, military commissions have secured three convictions.

Mayor Bloomberg has voiced his support for the decision to hold the trial in federal court. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has asked that an estimated $75 million security costs to hold the trial in Manhattan be covered by the federal government.
 
New York rally planned to protest 9/11 trial

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5AN4XN20091125

11/25/2009

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A group against bringing the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks to trial in a U.S. civilian court will hold a rally in New York demanding Washington reconsider its decision, the group said on Tuesday.

The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition said it will hold a rally on December 5 at a park adjacent to the Manhattan federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried just blocks from Ground Zero.

No date has been announced for the suspects' transfer to New York or their first appearance in court.

Debra Burlingame, a co-founder of the group, said the trial gives Mohammed the opportunity to wage "jihad in the courtroom." The group supports trying the men before a military tribunal.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has defended his decision to move the trials from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba to a federal criminal court in New York, saying the men can be tried fairly and successfully in New York.

The decision has divided the families of victims. Some say the trial is an opportunity to face the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and help bring closure while others say the men should be treated like war criminals.

"We are giving them the biggest stage that they could possibly want," said Tim Brown, a retired New York City firefighter who said he lost dozens of friends in the attack. "We are in a pre-9/11 mentality."

Burlingame declined to estimate how many people she expected to attend the rally.
 
9/11 families split on civilian court trials
'Tea party' affiliate to join rally

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/26/911-families-split-on-civilian-court-trials/

By Ben Conery
11/26/2009

Nearly two weeks after the Obama administration announced its intention to prosecute professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his fellow defendants in civilian court, family members of the terrorist attack's victims remain sharply divided on the issue.

On Dec. 5, a group including Sept. 11 victims and family members plans to hold a rally protesting the administration's decision. The rally is being joined by a "tea party" movement affiliate, a sign that the conservative protest network is expanding its scope of issues.

The rally is scheduled in Foley Square, the Lower Manhattan site of the federal courthouse chosen to hold the trials of the purported Sept. 11 conspirators.

The 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, the group organizing the rally, said an online petition to stop the trials has already garnered 120,000 signers, and a letter signed by 300 Sept. 11 families protesting the decision has been sent to President Obama and other top administration officials.

"This trial will be lawyer-assisted jihad in the courtroom," Debra Burlingame, whose brother was a pilot killed in the attacks, said during a news conference Tuesday. "When we grant a confessed war criminal access to due process so that he can use it to rally his fellow terrorists to kill more of our citizens and to target our military, that's jihad."

A group called Tea Party 365, whose co-founder organized the first tea party protest in New York, said it also plans to participate in the rally. Kellen Giuda also sits on the board of directors of Tea Party Patriots.

But Ms. Burlingame's opinion is not shared by all Sept. 11 families.

With the terrorist attack claiming nearly 3,000 victims, it would be impossible to reach a consensus among all the families involved, said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband was killed in the attack. Ms. Gabrielle and other family members have been outspoken in their support for the administration's decision.

"I don't understand what the frenzy is. We've done it before, and we've done it successfully," she said of prosecuting terrorism suspects in federal courts.

Despite their differing opinions, Ms. Gabrielle said she supports the rights of Ms. Burlingame and others to protest the administration's decision.

"What I have a problem with is the fear they are basing it on," Ms. Gabrielle told The Washington Times on Wednesday. "You've got to speak from a voice of reason."

Ms. Burlingame and other opponents of the trial say bringing terrorism suspects to New York City is ill-advised and dangerous. They worry the trials will be costly, could make New York City susceptible to an attack and give Mohammed and his four fellow defendants a forum to spout jihadist rhetoric.

It's a concern shared by many Republican members of Congress. And various recent polls, including from Fox News and CNN, show more Americans would prefer Mohammed be tried in a military tribunal than in a civilian court.

But in an appearance on Capitol Hill last week, U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. remained resolute. Mr. Holder, who made the decision to hold prosecutions in federal court, said the move is in line with American legal values, and he is certain Mohammed and the others will be convicted.

"I have every confidence the world will see him for the coward he is," Mr. Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "I'm not scared of what [Mohammed] will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be, either."
 
Mental State Cited in 9/11 Case

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125928395078865773.html

11/27/2009

WASHINGTON -- When five defendants are brought before a New York federal judge to face charges for the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the first question may be whether some of them are competent to stand trial at all.

Military lawyers for Ramzi Binalshibh, an accused organizer of the 9/11 plot, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, the conspiracy's alleged paymaster, say their clients have mental disorders that make them unfit for trial, likely caused or exacerbated by years of harsh confinement in Central Intelligence Agency custody.

The issue already has arisen in military-commission proceedings at the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to an August ruling by a military judge, prosecutors have made an "apparent concession" that Mr. Binalshibh "suffers from a delusional disorder-persecutory type" disorder. Mr. Binalshibh has been prescribed "a variety of psychotropic medications used to treat schizophrenia and/or bipolar disorder, including Haldol, Abilify, risperidone and Ativan," according to commission records.

In October 2008, a military medical board reported Mr. Binalshibh may suffer from "severe mental disease" that could "impair his ability to conduct or cooperate intelligently in his defense."

A military attorney for Mr. Hawsawi, Lt. Cmdr. Gretchen Sosbee, said the military judge ordered a mental evaluation of her client, but its results haven't yet been entered into the record.

It long has been unconstitutional to prosecute people who are unable to understand proceedings against them or assist in their defense, whether in federal court, court-martial or military commission.

However, Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a lawyer for Mr. Binalshibh, said a military judge has refused to allow a full examination into her client's condition, in particular by denying access to any information regarding his treatment in CIA custody between 2002 and 2006. An order by the judge, Col. Stephen Henley, said that information was "not relevant" to Mr. Binalshibh's condition.

In court papers, Cmdr. Lachelier cited Bush administration memorandums endorsing the use of sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and other harsh techniques intended to induce a prisoner's cooperation.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not the only accused terrorist set to go on trial in New York. But WSJ's Jess Bravin says two of KSM's co-accused have mental competency issues that may jeopardize a trial.

Military records cited by the defense say Mr. Binalshibh "was seen 'acting out' in various manners, including breaking cameras placed in his cell" and covering cameras "with toilet paper...and with feces." At a June 2008 hearing, Mr. Binalshibh said "we're still in the black site" -- the term for CIA secret prisons. Mr. Binalshibh said he couldn't sleep because, among other reasons, his bunk is "always shaking automatically."

Much remains unknown about the prisoners' mental state, and prosecutors may have evidence to demonstrate their fitness that isn't currently public.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd declined to comment specifically on the mental-capacity issue but said the government expects "a host of motions" to be filed. "It's the job of prosecutors to anticipate these challenges and plan their cases accordingly, and that is certainly being done in this case," he said.

A strong defense case for mental unfitness may force prosecutors to choose between unappealing options. They could sever Messrs. Binalshibh and Hawsawi from the joint conspiracy trial, allowing the case against the defendants whose capacity isn't at issue to proceed.

That would deprive prosecutors of a favored tool in conspiracy cases, because a joint trial allows the alleged guilt of one defendant to be imputed to the others. In this case, where the notoriety of alleged 9/11 organizer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed far exceeds that of his co-defendants, the separation could be beneficial to Messrs. Binalshibh or Hawsawi should they contest the charges.

If federal prosecutors decide to pursue a joint trial, proceedings will have to wait until each defendant's fitness is established.

In determining competence, "the key issue is the capacity to assist counsel," said Norman Poythress, a University of South Florida specialist in mental-health law.

Last year, the Supreme Court established a two-tier system of mental capacity, allowing judges to find defendants able to stand trial yet unfit to represent themselves. Mr. Mohammed and two co-defendants -- Walid bin Attash and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali -- have been acting as their own attorneys before the military commission. Mr. Binalshibh asked to do so, but was denied until his mental competence has been determined.
 
Spin of Wheel May Determine Judge in 9/11 Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/28/nyregion/28judge.html

By BENJAMIN WEISER
Published: November 27, 2009

At first glance, the wooden wheel looks as if it might have been used to call out bingo numbers in a church fund-raiser. But sometime soon, a federal magistrate judge in Manhattan could be spinning the wheel in open court, unlocking a small door on one of its sides, and pulling out a sealed envelope containing the name of a judge.

The tumbler that may be used to determine which judge is charged with overseeing the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

That judge could well be charged with overseeing the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others accused in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. And that judge will have to consider questions as procedural as trial dates and as controversial and delicate as evidence gained through torture.

The case could last years, and the judge who gets it will most likely be assigned security around the clock — for his or her lifetime.

When Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced this month that the Obama administration would seek to have Mr. Mohammed and the others tried in civilian court in New York, he said that he was confident that “whatever judge is assigned to this case will maintain the dignity of the proceedings” and that the defendants would get a fair trial.

For the moment, it is unclear whether the wheel will even be spun. Prosecutors could seek an indictment that would result in the case going to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who is presiding in the case of another suspected terrorist that is raising issues similar to those that could arise in the Sept. 11 matter.

The question of who will preside over the case has become the subject of speculation in the chambers of judges and in the corridors of federal court on Pearl Street.

“This entire case coming to New York is to demonstrate to the world that the system works — and part of that system is the wheel,” said Donna R. Newman, a lawyer whose clients have included Jose Padilla, the Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who was once designated as an enemy combatant (and was later convicted of conspiracy in federal court).

Ronald L. Kuby, another lawyer whose clients have included terrorism defendants over the years, said: “As corny as it was watching that wooden bingo drum be spun, it did create a sense of impartiality. It would be a good thing in this case.”

There are actually three wheels — labeled A, B, and C — that are used to assign most criminal cases. They sit in a row by the magistrate judge on the fifth floor of the courthouse.

Wheel A is used for short trials; B for trials that are expected to last 6 to 20 days, and C for trials estimated to exceed 20 days.

A judge who receives the Sept. 11 case may recuse him- or herself for a variety of reasons. The case would then be reassigned. In a recent case in Brooklyn federal court, for example, which uses a computer to assign cases randomly, it took four tries to assign a case involving a man charged in a Qaeda plot to set off bombs in the United States.

The court’s chief judge, Raymond J. Dearie, who finally got the case, said that one judge assigned to the case was on senior status and was not supposed to be on the list of judges taking cases. A second judge had an irreconcilable conflict of interest that prevented her from sitting. And a third judge recused herself without explanation.

“Take my word for it,” Judge Dearie said, “every judge in the courthouse would have liked to have had this case, fully realizing it’s going to be a real burden.”

In Manhattan federal court, there are more than 20 active judges, along with a few on senior status (a sort of semiretirement), who appear to be eligible to receive the Sept. 11 case.

Some have raised the question of whether a judge could volunteer for the Sept. 11 case. Under the court’s rules, a judge could offer to take the case only after it was randomly assigned to another judge. Mr. Kuby believes that would be inadvisable, saying, “Any judge who wants it should not have it.”

“The only judge who would want this case is a judge who wants to stamp his or her mark on history,” he said, adding, “And the desire to do that tends not to make for the best judging.”

If the wheel is not used, the Sept. 11 case could end up going before Judge Kaplan.

Lawyers who have been mulling over this possibility presented the following premise: the judge has been handling the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a suspected terrorist charged with conspiring in the 1998 bombings of American Embassies in Africa. Like the Sept. 11 defendants, Mr. Ghailani spent time in the C.I.A.’s secret prisons and at Guantánamo.

But it is less well known that Mr. Ghailani is also one of nearly two dozen defendants, including Osama bin Laden, who were charged in a broad indictment with conspiring to kill Americans “anywhere in the world, including in the United States.”

That indictment is also before Judge Kaplan.

Prosecutors could bring a superseding version of that indictment, in which they charge the Sept. 11 plot as part of Mr. bin Laden’s global conspiracy to kill Americans.

“The government certainly has arguments that a superseding indictment and assignment to Judge Kaplan is appropriate,” said Michael G. McGovern, a former terrorism prosecutor in Manhattan.

He added that prosecutors could validly say: “We indicted bin Laden. He’s the leader of this conspiracy. K. S. M. is the field general who carried it out.”

Prosecutors had no comment.

In yet another possibility, prosecutors would try Mr. Mohammed on a 1990s-era indictment in the so-called Bojinka plot to bomb American jetliners as they crossed the Pacific. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy presided in a 1996 trial in which three others were convicted.

But Mr. Holder’s recent comments make that seem unlikely. The attorney general said the Sept. 11 defendants would be “charged for what we believe they did, and that is to mastermind and carry out the 9/11 attacks.”
 
Bolton: Bringing Sept. 11 Trial to NYC Endangers Innocent Lives Unnecessarily

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577168,00.html

Thursday, November 26, 2009

This is a rush transcript from "On the Record," November 25, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, like it or not, they are coming here. Five 9/11 co-conspirators, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, are coming to New York City for a trial in a federal civilian court. Opposition is loud and fierce.

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton joins us live. Good evening, Ambassador. And Ambassador, you're not wild about this idea, are you, sir.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: No, I think it's a major strategic mistake by the administration. I think it reflects a pre- 9/11 mentality that you can treat terrorism like it's a law enforcement matter, rather than what it is, a war on the country. And I think the signal that it sends to the terrorists overseas is very, very dangerous for the country down the road.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, there are a couple of issues that I see. One is why a civilian court and not a military? And even if -- you know, even if it had -- even if the person makes the decision that it should be in a civilian federal court -- of course, is Eric Holder here, the attorney general is -- why New York City? Why not Montana or Gitmo, much like they did in the Oklahoma City bombing case was tried in Denver? You know, why New York?

BOLTON: Well, I think on the first question, it really -- there's a lot more than just, Do you try them in a civilian court, or do you try them in a military court? In the first place, as a -- as a matter of looking at it through the war paradigm, the first thing you want to do capturing somebody like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed or many of these other people at Guantanamo is not worry about the trial for the terrorist acts they've committed but getting information from them that we can use in the continuing war. And I think the trial is really almost secondary to the larger strategic objectives.

In terms of putting it in New York, you know, it is -- it -- one of the reasons it's attractive to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is it's the center of media attention for him to make his case to the world. He's not a traditional defendant. He's not trying to prove his innocence. He's not trying to get an acquittal from the jury. He's there, as his lawyer has already said, to conduct a show trial. And I think the risk is it will draw other terrorists to New York to make their point, as well.

VAN SUSTEREN: And of course, you made the comment you wouldn't bring your family there during the trial or something. I don't know if I read that wrong, but...

BOLTON: Well, my -- my -- my daughter lives and works in New York, and I don't expect she'll pay any attention to that. But my point was that you are endangering innocent people's lives unnecessarily. I don't think there's any question the risk of terrorist attack goes up. We all hope federal, state and local authorities will be able to defend against it, but why give the terrorists the opportunity to begin with?

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, taking it one step further to the whole issue of the trial, with the recognition that, you know, that's a decision that has been made and it's going to happen, the thing that strikes me is that guilty people are found not guilty every single day of the week. Not guilty people are convicted every day -- every day of the week, so it's an -- it's our best system we can do, but it's imperfect. We've got a guy who was waterboarded 183 times. The attorney general himself has testified that he says that's torture, so it's unlike anything that comes out there could be used against him. So the whole trial procedure is -- is at high risk, from the prosecution standpoint. Even though Attorney General Holder says, you know, that he's got a strong case, there is a risk.

BOLTON: Look, Greta, I was a litigator, like you were, for many years, and you know, you can prepare as hard as you want for a trial. I never went into any trial absolutely convinced what the outcome was going to be. And I think the points you've made show why the law enforcement paradigm simply doesn't work here. A terrorist in this context is not just a bank robber on steroids. And the circumstances under which Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was apprehended, much of the evidence gathered, isn't in the context of a civil, constitutional society where you can have appropriate due process for criminal defendants.

In a war, you don't have police tape marking off crime scenes. You don't have infantry soldiers carrying little glassine bags to put evidence in. People don't get Miranda warnings because it's not a criminal environment.

VAN SUSTEREN: But I -- I don't -- I have never tried a case in a criminal -- I mean, in a military forum, but people who work within the military framework have an enormous amount of respect. I've seen juries where I never thought in a million years someone would be found not guilty because the jury's made up of the military people. So is there something fundamentally wrong in terms of -- of these military panels? Is -- you know, what's wrong -- why -- why not put them there? What's the argument against putting them there?

BOLTON: Well, ultimately, I don't have any trouble when you have somebody who commits an act of terrorism like this, but I don't think it's an issue that you want to rush them into trial in a military tribunal. I want to make sure...

VAN SUSTEREN: But in any tribunal -- I mean, I -- do you just want to hold them indefinitely or do you want to give them some sort of, you know, finality that we should, you know, figure out what to do with these people?

BOLTON: Well, I'd hold them indefinitely in any case. I mean, even if you believe in the Geneva convention's applicability, which -- which is incorrect, but even if you did, you hold prisoners of war for the duration of the conflict, and I think this conflict is going to go on for a long time. The fact is military tribunals do give a considerable amount of justice. They are not show trials. The show trial we're going to see here is going to be put on by the defense.

VAN SUSTEREN: What I don't understand, though, is if -- I mean, if we -- if the government insists on putting them on trial in a federal civilian -- a civil trial -- or a civilian trial, why not just send the judge down to Gitmo and do that there instead of bringing the whole the show and all the expense up to New York and all the risk to New York? Is there anything to stop them from moving the judge to the trial?

BOLTON: Well, I think you've got a jury problem, although, you know, you've got another...

VAN SUSTEREN: They're going to be sequestered anyway. They're going to be sequestered anyway, so sequester them at Gitmo. I mean, if -- if -- we're going to do that anyway to them.

BOLTON: Yes. I mean, you've already got the president of the United States tainting the jury pool by saying that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is guilty and should get the death penalty. I can't wait to see the arguments before the judge on that issue.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it'll be -- it'll be interesting to see what happens. And there a lot of people who are unhappy about this. And of course, we're going to watch it unfold. Ambassador Bolton, thank you, as always. Thank you, sir.

BOLTON: Thank you.
 
9/11 attacks still haunt potential jurors
Wrenching questions of bias as New Yorkers contemplate trial duty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112902668.html?hpid=moreheadlines

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 30, 2009

NEW YORK -- It was Sept. 12 before Michael Curatola remembered Pablo Ortiz. Watching the people leap from the windows, feeling the earth shudder, Curatola was so immersed in the horror of 9/11 that he failed to register that on the 88th floor of one of the towers was a neighbor -- a friend who, eight years later, would be his reason for wanting a seat on the jury assaying the guilt of the men charged with planning it all.

"Just to get vengeance for my dead friend who's not here anymore," said Curatola, cleaning the lobby of the building next door to the hole where the twin towers once stood, a wound cleaned and tended but still open.

"But that word 'vengeance' sounds too much like a personal vendetta," Curatola added. "I mean justice."

The distinction can be elusive in this city as it tries those accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In announcing this month that five accused plotters, including self-described mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, would be brought from Guantanamo to federal district court in Manhattan, the Obama administration declared that the trials would display not only the crimes, but also the resolute fairness of America's system of justice.

Which was what gnawed at Curatola the longer he thought about it.

"Do you seriously think they can get a fair trial blocks from that hole in the ground?" he asked. "Who are they going to pick for the jury? Everyone was involved, when you really think about it."

Most New Yorkers don't have to think very long.

"Oh, no. No. I have no impartiality," said Laura Stein, 45 and an artist, when asked if she saw herself as a 9/11 juror. "It was the worst day of my life. And I didn't lose anybody. I wasn't even in the area. And still the most fearful day of my life."

"We took it personally," said Sara Martinez, 52, an associate at a Verizon location near Ground Zero. "We don't feel safe anymore, secure anymore. It took away our peace of mind. It took away a lot of things."

In New York, 2,752 people lost their lives. An additional 184 perished at the Pentagon, and 40 more in the Shanksville, Pa., crash of United Airlines Flight 93.

"One of my children is named for someone who was killed in the World Trade Center," said Albert Gregory III, a construction worker from Staten Island. He wore a T-shirt decorated with the names of his six children -- Kristen, now 6, is named after Kristen Montanaro, a friend since childhood who worked in one of the towers. As he spoke, Gregory held a copy of the New York Post rolled in his fist. The day after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the accused plotters would be tried in New York, the front page featured a mock postcard.

"Welcome to New York," it said. "Now Die!"

"It's a real liberal town, New York," said Gregory, 40. "A lot of people might not want them executed." He called over his mother-in-law, "a real liberal, see what she says."

"I say hang 'em," said Georgianna Neller, a state Health Department investigator, smiling grimly and gesturing toward the hole in the ground. "Hang 'em right over there. Put the girder up.

"It's just a heartbreaking thing," she said. "And I don't see who could be on the jury and not be emotional."

Legal experts say it can be done.

"Anybody who was in New York on 9/11, or D.C., was touched personally by it," said Anthony S. Barkow, a former federal prosecutor who runs the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University. "But there are different levels of that, and there are different levels of how people have subsequently dealt with that."

He added: "I was in D.C. on September 11 and I remember fighter jets flying overhead. And we evacuated the U.S. attorney's office. But that's different from somebody who saw it out their window, for instance."

Previous terrorism trials have established a culling process, and potential jurors have been called in by the hundreds. Those with obvious links to the events were excused. The others were rigorously interviewed for bias, under oath.

Philippe Rousseau, who spent three days and four nights clearing the wreckage, would be out in the first round.

"I almost died myself that day," said Rousseau, now retired as a New York firefighter. "I'd say hang 'em. Burn 'em. Electrocute 'em. Kill 'em. I am not open-minded on the subject."

Others, however, insist they could be.

Nelson Melendez, now 20, was in sixth grade the day the towers fell.

"I feel like I could make a just decision," said Melendez, now a college student. "Mostly for the reason that I didn't personally have anyone in the tower. I could have the distance from it."

"Absolutely, I could be on the jury," said Robert Hill, 35, who once worked in the towers but was on the subway that morning. He found proximity compelling. "It happened here, and we were the ones most affected by it. I could be fair."

Dan Jordan, 58, folded a morning paper in the drizzle opposite Ground Zero.

"I don't know the answer," he said. As a lawyer, he knows about impartiality: "It's the whole basis of our judicial system." But as a native New Yorker, he lost 10 high school classmates that day, plus a cousin.

"I think I could do it. It'd be troubling," he said. "I try to be a fair person."

Some New Yorkers said they would be reluctant to give up months of their lives for a trial so likely to end in conviction.

"We have to process them through the system right, that's how America works," said Elvin Singh, a cellphone salesman. "But I wouldn't want to be on that jury. It's a waste of time."

Others admit to apprehension, both for the city and for themselves, whatever precautions are taken to shield jurors' identities.

"Fear is fear," said Hubert Findlay, 59, drawing a finger across his neck. "Plain-spoken, it's a possibility. That's always in the back of your mind. If it's not, you'd be a fool."

In his tiny shop off Queens Avenue, however, Jasbir Kukreja could not see the problem.

"Why should we be fearful?" he said. "We should be strong enough to do what we have to do."

The Indian immigrant demurred on the question of jury duty, moot anyway because Queens stands outside the Southern District of New York. "I'm too small bird for this all," he said. "These are complicated questions."

But in the quarter-century since arriving, Kukreja has grown to admire the character of the place.

"Because America is a land of immigrants, people are very open-minded," he said, alone at rush hour, sipping milky tea amid the shelves of batteries and gloves. "Unfortunately, I did not make any money in New York. But the people are very gentle, very respectful toward each other. This is not a lesson I would learn in India. New York City has given me that lesson."
 
Death penalty in 9/11 trials may be difficult
Legal experts say Obama was overly confident when he said that critics of the New York trial would be silenced 'when the death penalty is applied to' suspect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-terror-trials30-2009nov30,0,6855010.story

By David G. Savage
November 30, 2009

Reporting from Washington - After Zacarias Moussaoui -- the accused "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks -- was sentenced to life in prison in 2006 because one juror in Virginia refused to agree to the death penalty, Moussaoui clapped his hands and called out, "America, you lost and I won." Now the Obama administration plans to seek a death sentence for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind.

Some legal experts say President Obama was overly confident when he predicted that critics of trying Mohammed in a federal courtroom in Manhattan would be silenced "when the death penalty is applied to him." The only modern-day terrorist sentenced to death in federal court was Oklahoma City bomber Timothy J. McVeigh.

"It will be an uphill battle to get a death penalty in these cases," said Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in New York. He helped win convictions for four acolytes of Osama bin Laden who plotted the 1998 simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people. Jurors in 2001 found the men guilty, but they were divided on the punishment. As a result, all four were sentenced to life in prison.

Some jurors said afterward that they opposed a death sentence because the defendants had said they wished to die as martyrs.

"Obviously, the 9/11 crimes are as serious as you can get," Butler said. "But it is difficult to get 12 people in Manhattan to agree on a death penalty."

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s decision this month to try Mohammed and other alleged Sept. 11 plotters in federal court rather than under the military commission system set up at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, set off a fierce legal and political fight that shows no sign of subsiding.

Critics say a Manhattan trial poses a grave security threat to New York. They also worry that the defendants will be acquitted or escape the death penalty, or that the suspects will use the trial to spew terrorist propaganda.

But defenders of the decision say the nation's courts have shown themselves fully capable of trying and convicting the worst of criminals. And, they say, trying the suspects as ordinary murderers is more fitting than treating them as warriors.

"The best thing Obama is doing here is saying these people are not terrorists with superhuman qualities. They need to be brought to justice and tried as criminals," said Karen J. Greenberg, a law professor at New York University. "We should have brought them to trial a long time ago."

She and others noted that a long list of terrorists have been tried and convicted in federal courts in Manhattan, including World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef.

Despite the disagreements, it's not certain that the different legal systems would produce different outcomes.

Lawyers on both sides have said that they fully expect Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators to be found guilty. And though 12 military officers at Guantanamo might be more likely to impose the ultimate sanction than 12 civilians in New York, the limited experience with such commissions does not make that a foregone conclusion.

So far, the military commissions have surprised civil libertarians and the Pentagon by dismissing charges against some terrorism suspects and giving relatively lenient sentences to others.

The Pentagon's lawyers had sought a 30-year prison term for Salim Hamdan, Bin Laden's former driver, but last year a military judge sentenced him to serve just six more months in prison. Hamdan subsequently was released and sent home to Yemen.

It also is hard to assess the commissions' fairness or effectiveness.

Earlier this year, Congress adopted revised rules for the military trials that largely parallel those of the federal courts. The obvious difference is that the judge, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the jurors are military officers.

The rules of evidence differ in a few areas as well. For example, the military judge may permit hearsay -- out-of-court statements -- if the judge considers the testimony reliable. This would allow prosecutors to use statements from witnesses who are overseas.

By contrast, the Supreme Court has barred the use of nearly all such statements in civilian courts if the witness cannot or will not appear at the trial to be cross-examined.

Critics of trying the alleged Sept. 11 plotters at Guantanamo have said that uncertainty over the commission rules could have led to delays or lengthy appeals.

"These prosecutions could have been delayed for years while the courts resolved questions about hearsay or secret evidence," said Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"A federal court trial should go more smoothly," he said, because the rules are well established.

Meanwhile, critics of Holder's decision have focused on the difficulties of trying international terrorism suspects in a civilian court in the heart of Manhattan.

"I suspect KSM is absolutely delighted by this decision," said Brad Berenson, a former White House lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, referring to Mohammed by his initials. "This means a return to the scene of his greatest triumph. And it gives him a megaphone 100 times greater than he would otherwise have."

Earlier this year, Mohammed said at a Guantanamo hearing that he wished to plead guilty. But Duke University law professor Scott Silliman said the government should not count on him and his four alleged co-conspirators to plead guilty now.

"I think it's likely KSM will want to use the trial as a forum for himself and to put the government on trial. I will be very surprised if he pleads guilty," said Silliman, a former military lawyer. "We should expect a long, convoluted trial full of difficulties for the government."

Before trial, the five defendants' attorneys are likely to ask for a change of venue and to ask for the charges to be dismissed because the long-held defendants were denied a "speedy trial."

"There also will be a mountain of discovery motions," said Charles "Cully" Stimson, a former Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. Defense lawyers will demand to see files and cables that contain evidence involving the alleged 9/11 plotters.

Supporters of Holder's decision say convictions in an open federal court will be a triumph for American justice.

"This trial is going to be fair," said Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University. "It will show that we Americans play by a set of rules. And that the truth comes out in court for all to see."
 
Protesters rally against 9/11 trial set for New York

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR2009120502318.html

Reuters
Saturday, December 5, 2009; 5:25 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Demonstrators angered by the Obama administration's move to prosecute the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks in civilian court on U.S. soil called on Saturday for the trial to be moved to a military tribunal.

More than 1,000 people braved cold and rain to rally outside the Manhattan federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried.

Speakers blasted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for his decision to hold the trials in a court just blocks from the World Trade Center site, where thousands of people were killed in the 2001 attacks with hijacked planes.

Demonstrators -- among them family members of victims and rescuers-- held U.S. flags and signs reading "no constitutional rights for enemy combatants," and booed and jeered as speakers invoked Holder's name and that of President Barack Obama.
ad_icon

"They were murdered ... by the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Edie Lutnick, executive director of The Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund, said of the victims.

Lutnick's brother Howard Lutnick is chief executive of the Cantor Fitzgerald brokerage firm that lost two-thirds of its staff -- more than 600 people. A brother of theirs died in the attack.

"We will be victims no more," Lutnick said drawing cheers from the rally organized by the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition. She called on the U.S. Congress to block the trial.

Other speakers, including people who were badly injured on September 11, blasted the trial as "a multimillion-dollar charade" and an "exercise in global Jihadist recruitment" which would only give terrorists a platform.

Sixteen years ago "they attacked and we indicted," said former assistant U.S. attorney Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case, tried at the same federal courthouse in lower Manhattan.

"We know it's a war ... You don't bring your enemies to a courthouse," said McCarthy, a contributor to the conservative periodical National Review who criticized Obama during the 2008 election campaign for his "collaboration with radical, America-hating leftists."

Holder has defended his decision to move the trials from the prison camp at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to a federal criminal court in Manhattan, saying the men can be tried fairly and successfully in New York.

But the decision has divided the families of victims. Some say the trial is an opportunity to face the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and help bring closure, but others say the men should be treated like war criminals.

No date has been announced for the suspects' transfer to New York or their first appearance in court.
 
Protesters Slam Holding 9/11 Trial in N.Y.
Organizers Say Trial Would Make City Terror Target, But Some 9/11 Family Members Want Case Heard Near Ground Zero

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/05/national/main5903851.shtml

Several hundred people rallied in the rain near Manhattan's federal courthouse complex to protest the plan to put major terrorism suspects on trial in New York.

The demonstrators, including 9/11 families and their supporters, gathered in Foley Square, just blocks from the site of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. They say a New York trial could again make the city a terrorism target.

Last month Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. would put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison on trial in a federal civilian court in New York City.

Anger at the Obama administration ran hot in the crowd. One person held up a sign calling Holder "disgraceful and despicable." Another sign said "Obama/Holder ... Jihad from within."

Supporters of the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition say the five defendants should face a military tribunal instead.

A "statement of support" for the rally, posted on the coalition's Web site and signed by actors Robert Duvall, Brian Dennehy, Jon Voight, Danny Aiello, Robert Davi, Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Ben Stein, states that Holder's decision to try key figures in the September 11 attacks in a civilian court in New York City is "a travesty of our justice system" that puts the national security of the United States of America at risk.

The signers said the trial would give the defendants a platform "to spew their propaganda and hatred to the world from a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero.

"We stand with 9/11 families, New York City's first responders and the U.S. military who will be forced to cope with the consequences of this dangerous decision if it is not reversed," the statement said.

Addressing the crowd, Dennehy said he didn't believe the men deserved "normal constitutional protections."

Lee Ielpi, a retired firefighter whose son, also a firefighter, died on 9/11, said he believed the U.S. has been in a state of war since the attacks, and that a military tribunal was therefore the appropriate venue for justice.

"They deserve a fair trial in a military tribunal, not on our soil," he said. "Guantanamo is where it should be."

But other victims of the 9/11 attacks disagreed.

Lorie Van Auken lost her husband at the World Trade Center. She said in an interview before the rally it was fitting that the accused answer charges a short walk from where the twin towers once stood.

John Feal lost half his foot at Ground Zero. He told the N.Y. Daily News, "If you’re afraid of terrorists, then they’ve already won." He said trying the defendants in New York was "poetic justice."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., says military commissions have a poor track record when it comes to trying terrorism suspects. He expressed confidence that U.S. prosecutors can win a conviction in a regular, civilian court.
 
Hundreds protest New York 9/11 trial

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5if-ZzlhBYrn9E3EAnAKmDSeCJR9g

By Sebastian Smith (AFP) – 4 hours ago

NEW YORK — Hundreds rallied Saturday in New York against plans to give the alleged 9/11 mastermind a civilian trial in the city, saying the court will be turned into an Al-Qaeda propaganda platform.

"They are war criminals," one of the speakers, firefighter and US Marine Peter Regan, said to cheers. "The terrorists should be tried in a military court."

The small crowd huddled under umbrellas in chilly rain outside Manhattan's federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects are to be tried after transferring from the controversial US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The courthouse is a few blocks from Ground Zero, site of the former World Trade Center, which was destroyed on September 11, 2001, when hijacked airplanes slammed into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon outside Washington, killing nearly 3,000 people.

President Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have made bringing Mohammed to a fair trial a centerpiece of a broader plan to end what they see as serious abuses of law under the previous administration of George W. Bush.

But the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, which organized the rally, argues that those behind the attacks do not deserve the same legal rights provided to US citizens.

Many protestors waved the US flag, chanting: "USA, USA!" while others displayed slogans supporting Bush and the secretive Guantanamo facility, or voicing criticism of Obama.

"This is treason!" one man shouted repeatedly.

One of the most common complaints was fear that a public trial would enable Mohammed and his co-accused to make incendiary speeches.

"America has given these people an even louder megaphone in the best theater in the world," actor Brian Dennehy told the crowd. "I am worried that millions of angry young people watching Al Jazeera will come to the conclusion that America has caved in."

Protestor Sue Vaccaro, an elegantly dressed, elderly woman trying to shelter with a friend under a flimsy umbrella, echoed that warning.

"Holder is giving a megaphone to the terrorists to spout their hatred of this country," she said.

The same message is being aired in Washington, where Obama's decision last month to move the 9/11 suspects into the civilian justice system -- after years of secret detention and abusive interrogation -- caused an uproar.

"A civilian trial gives these conspirators a national platform from which to spew their propaganda and access to sensitive information regarding American intelligence," said Republican congressman Trent Franks.

Holder responds that America will take the moral high ground by giving its enemies a proper trial.

"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder said. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else needs to be afraid either."

While many speakers at the New York rally Saturday lost relatives on 9/11, or themselves narrowly survived, not all 9/11 victims' organizations oppose Obama's policy.

Experts say many factors will determine the extent to which the five accused could mount a public spectacle.

If they plead guilty, the judge would move straight to sentencing, offering the men only limited opportunity to speak.

If they plead not guilty and dismiss their attorneys, as they did in military tribunals at Guantanamo, then they would mount their own defense and be able to address the jury at length.

However, judges have wide powers to cut short testimony deemed irrelevant or time-wasting.

"It's all going to depend on the judge in the end. They'll be dealing with a court of people experienced with these things," said Edward MacMahon, who represented convicted Al-Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui.

Moussaoui insulted both the judge overseeing his case and his lawyers in legal documents. As a result, he lost the right to represent himself.

"If they are their own lawyers, they have to conduct themselves as lawyers. If they don't, they'll just have to sit there," MacMahon said of the 9/11 suspects.

But a determined defendant can always make headlines simply by blurting out statements, MacMahon said.

"What would often happen was that... all the reporters would pull out their notebooks and he (Moussaoui) would say 'God bless Osama Bin Laden!' and they'd all write that down."
 
9/11 families, supporters, rally against NY trial

http://www.lohud.com/article/200912...-families--supporters--rally-against-NY-trial

By Verena Dobnik • The Associated Press • December 5, 2009

NEW YORK (AP) — Several hundred people rallied in the rain near Manhattan's federal courthouse complex Saturday to protest the plan to put major terrorism suspects on trial in New York City.

Demonstrators at the Saturday event included the actor Brian Dennehy and a number of people who lost friends and relatives in the 9/11 attacks.

Anger at the Obama administration ran hot in the crowd. One person held up a sign calling Attorney General Eric Holder "disgraceful and despicable." Another sign said "Obama/Holder ... Jihad from within."

Opponents of the plan say that a New York trial could again make the city a terrorism target, and that the five suspects should instead face a military tribunal.

Addressing the crowd, Dennehy passed along a message from the father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who is opposed to a public trial for reputed terror mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The actor said he also believed the trial would be "an uncalled-for ordeal that could be used for political purposes."

"This will provide the radicals with a huge forum," said Dennehy, a Marine Corps veteran. "Why should they have the normal constitutional protections?"

Lee Ielpi, a retired firefighter whose son, also a firefighter, died on 9/11, said he believed the U.S. has been in a state of war since the attacks, and that a military tribunal was therefore the appropriate venue for justice.

"They deserve a fair trial in a military tribunal, not on our soil," he said. "Guantanamo is where it should be."

Other victims of the attacks disagreed.

Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband at the World Trade Center, said in an interview before the rally that it was fitting the accused answer charges a short walk from ground zero.

"Opponents of the trial don't represent all families," she said in a telephone interview on Friday.

Another supporter of the trial plan, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, said military commissions have a poor track record when it comes to convicting terrorism suspects. The New York Democrat expressed confidence that U.S. prosecutors can win a conviction in a regular, civilian court.

On Saturday, the protesters included 9/11 families, ground zero rescue workers and former World Trade Center executives.

Greg Manning was a senior vice president at Euro Brokers, whose life was spared because he was on business outside the trade center. He said the decision to stage the trial in New York shows the government's "casual attitude towards security."

He said Mohammed, who is accused of being the mastermind of the attacks, "is not the same as any defendant." Manning said that if Mohammed decides to defend himself, "he will exploit every right in the Constitution and use the trial as a platform."
 
The short list of lawyers to defend 9/11 suspects

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/nyt/20091208_The_short_list_of_lawyers_to_defend_911_suspects.html

By Benjamin Weiser / New York Times
12/8/2009

NEW YORK » One lawyer calls it the "death list" -- a cadre of about 20 veteran defense lawyers in New York who have broad experience in death penalty and other complex criminal cases. They have represented defendants in terrorist bombings in East Africa, drug-related killings in Manhattan and the Bronx, police killings in Brooklyn and on Staten Island.
Click Here For More Info!

They are not all household names, and the list is closely held. But every day in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer from the list is on call, ready to be appointed in a capital case.

And it is from this short list that lawyers are expected to be initially chosen to defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others accused in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when they arrive at the courthouse early next year.

Of course, there is uncertainty about whether Mohammed and his co-defendants will even want lawyers or a trial. But if the court follows its own practice, the list, or "capital panel," as it is called, will be the source of lawyers as the defendants begin their journey through the civilian system.

"I would imagine this is the hour of truth for the panel," said Isabelle A. Kirshner, a former panel member.

The list includes lawyers like Frederick H. Cohn, 70, a 6-foot-2 graduate of Antioch and Brooklyn Law School, who is known for his Fu Manchu-style mustache and acid wit in the courtroom. Cohn, one of the lawyers consulted, said the public should want a system that ensures the best lawyers are opposing the death penalty -- "even where there seems to be unanimity of opinion that it ought to be imposed."

There, too, is Avraham C. Moskowitz, a 52-year-old Columbia Law graduate and former federal prosecutor who describes himself as a committed Zionist, who has family in Israel, and whose brother was in the World Trade Center when it was attacked in 1993. Joshua L. Dratel, 52, is also on the list -- a Harvard Law graduate who lived a block from ground zero and had to relocate for three months after his apartment building was damaged.

Today, the list has evolved into a kind of ad hoc terrorism bar as well, with a majority of those on it experienced in such cases. For any lawyer on the list who gets a Sept. 11 case, said Kirshner, "there's going to be an enormous personal, professional and emotional commitment that's going to have to be made." And that, she added, is "going to translate into their friends and relatives saying, 'How can you represent these guys?"'

Some lawyers on the list are undertaking their own searching review of whether they should participate.

"I could not take that case," Moskowitz said. He said that although he felt confident that he could vigorously defend an accused Sept. 11 terrorist, "my background, my politics, my very essence would create the appearance of a conflict."

But some lawyers said they would have no problem taking a case of one of the men held for years at Guantanamo. "I'm not campaigning for one," said Edward D. Wilford, a lawyer on the list whose last high-profile case involved his representation of a man convicted last year in the murder of a New York police officer, Russel Timoshenko, during a traffic stop in Brooklyn.

"But if I'm privileged enough to be asked," he said, "I'll step to the front and gladly represent one of these human beings with the same zest and zeal I would any other human being who is facing the death penalty."

The list of lawyers to be turned to for capital cases was developed after use of the federal death penalty was expanded in the 1990s, and judges and lawyers realized that New York City needed a seasoned bar.

Leonard F. Joy, the city's federal public defender, consulting with other lawyers, recommended an initial group of names from the larger pool of lawyers appointed to represent defendants. (His office may end up taking one of the 9/11 cases.)

Mohammed and four other men detained at Guantanamo have not been publicly charged, and it is not known precisely when they might arrive in New York.

Lawyers on the capital panel are eligible to be paid up to $175 an hour. Some said they would not be intimidated by the strong criticism, some of it directed at lawyers, that followed the decision to send the cases to New York.

"I believe that you approach this case the same way you would approach any other case," said Anthony L. Ricco, a veteran of high-profile trials. "You cannot allow the public sentiment to dictate what you do," he added.

The judges in the federal court in Manhattan were sent a memo this summer detailing the practice. "The lead attorney should be chosen from the capital panel," it said.

The lawyers on the list over the years have developed wide expertise in terrorism cases. A majority have represented terrorism defendants in New York, including in the trial stemming from al-Qaida's 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa. At least two of those lawyers -- Dratel and Ricco -- have gone on to represent terrorism defendants in other major cases.

The terrorism-case backgrounds of many lawyers on the list, though, could produce conflicts that would prevent them from participating in the Sept. 11 cases, making that shortlist even shorter.

In Brooklyn, the federal court is reviewing its own list of experienced lawyers in an effort to identify those with the willingness and ability to take on terrorism cases, and so far has confirmed interest from about two dozen lawyers, said Chief Judge Raymond J. Dearie.

Because Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said he intends to seek the death penalty, each Sept. 11 defendant will be entitled to the appointment of a second lawyer who is considered a "learned" specialist in death penalty law. This selection can come from appropriate lawyers on the list or from a group of such lawyers around the country.

There has also been talk of trying to bolster each of the five legal teams by adding lawyers who helped defend the men while they were at Guantanamo. These lawyers received security clearances, may already have investigated their client's cases, and developed relationships with them.

"There'd be a great advantage in the court here making an exception and allowing such people even if they are not normally on the panel," said Don D. Buchwald, another lawyer on the list.
 
Cheney: Trying 9/11 suspects in NYC 'huge mistake'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmVI9luu8fou0ScQkkFQggOx8rvwD9CFGVR00

(AP) – 10 hours ago

NEW YORK — Former Vice President Dick Cheney says trying suspected Sept. 11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (HAH'-leed shayk moh-HAH'-med) in New York City will make him "as important or more important than Osama bin Laden."

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, Cheney said holding the trial in a lower Manhattan courtroom near ground zero will make Mohammed "a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world."

Cheney said the trial will put Mohammed "on the map."

The Republican called Attorney General Eric Holder's decision in November to try Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects in a civilian federal court near ground zero "a huge mistake."

The interview, for which Fox News provided a partial transcript, aired Tuesday.
 
Dick Cheney hits out at Obama again by calling 9/11 trial in New York 'a huge mistake'

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/12/08/2009-12-08_dick_cheney_hits_out_at_obama_again_.html

By Thomas M. Defrank
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Tuesday, December 8th 2009, 8:32 PM

WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney has ratcheted up his criticism of President Obama again, calling the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York a "huge mistake."

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, the former vice president said the trial, which isn't expected to begin for at least a year in Manhattan's federal district court, will allow KSM an ill-advised showcase to spew his anti-American venom.

"He'll be able to go in whenever he's up on the stand and proselytize, if you will, millions of people out there around the world including some of his radical Muslim friends and generate a whole new generation of terrorists," Cheney said.

"I think it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world. It will put him on the map. He'll be as important or more important than Osama Bin Laden, and we will have made it possible."

The Obama administration has previously rejected Cheney's argument, saying Mohammed won't be allowed to grandstand by the trial judge and that his conviction and possible execution will show the world the U.S. isn't afraid of putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts.

Cheney also zapped Obama for telegraphing a 2011 exit date for some of the 30,000 surge troops the President has just ordered into Afghanistan.

"When (Al Qaeda) see him announce in advance that there's going to be a withdrawal 18 months down the road, they come to the point where they feel like their strategy, their world view has been validated and in the meantime, your task of trying to control the situation, trying to put down the Taliban and so forth, has simply gotten harder because you're weak and indecisive when you made the decision to do it."

Cheney ducked when served up the chance to label Obama a Socialist, seeming to settle for card-carrying liberal instead.

"I don't want to use that kind of a label," he said. "I think on his part he does not have the kind of commitment to the private sector that most of us have and have lived with in the past."

He also was more judicious than friends say he really feels about his successor, Vice President Biden.

"Joe and I have a different approach to the job and to politics in general," he said.
 
New York City is the right venue for the 9/11 murder trials

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/12/09/2009-12-09_911_murderers_must_face_justice_in_new_york_city.html

By Jim Riches
Wednesday, December 9th 2009, 4:00 AM

Last week, a group of family members who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks protested against putting the terror suspects on trial in New York.

They do not speak for all the 9/11 families.

My son, Firefighter Jimmy Riches, was killed in the north tower. He was responding to the call with Engine 4 from lower Manhattan. Jimmy was a firefighter for just 18 months, joining the FDNY after spending seven years as a narcotics police officer with the NYPD. After his murder, I spent months leading search-and-recovery efforts at Ground Zero. I witnessed the aftermath of the devastation.

Jimmy was found on March 25, 2002. I, along with my three other sons, carried his body, smashed and broken, from the bottom of the north tower. He was buried April 12, 2002.

No one wants to see the 9/11 terrorists face justice more than I do.

The men who orchestrated the murders of nearly 3,000 people must be put on trial in New York. New York is where they perpetrated their crimes; New York is where they must face justice.

Those who want a military trial must remember that more than 300 terrorists are now behind bars after federal courts convicted them of offenses that include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Military commissions, by contrast, convicted only three.

I attended the military trials in Guantanamo and saw the terrorists declare their guilt and say that they were proud they had killed innocent Americans. They were happy they killed my son.

The terrorists made a mockery of the military courtroom with frequent outbursts. They asked to have their foot shackles removed, requested softer seat cushions and wanted chairs and computers in their cells. They got everything they asked for. Yet, eight years later, there is still no accountability for their heinous crimes. Osama Bin Laden's driver, caught with a rocket launcher in his car, was tried in military court in Guantanamo and given time served. He was released to Yemen.

My son deserves better than that. And I deserve to be able to attend the trial, near the place where my child was murdered.

The federal courts have a superior record in prosecuting high-profile terrorist cases without compromising national security. In Guantanamo, the military prosecutors assured me that there is much evidence that does not rely on any information obtained through torture or by confessions. I take them at their word.

At the weekend rally protesting a New York trial, a man held up a sign calling Attorney General Eric Holder disgraceful and despicable.

That vitriol is better directed at the terrorists who murdered thousands of innocent people.

I have met President Obama and Holder. They are not despicable. They have assured swift and certain justice. They have answered all the questions being asked. Obama told me he would be accountable for the outcome of the trials. He promised to keep America safe and said he would be judged in four years by America and by the 9/11 families. These trials are about justice for the 3,000 murdered Americans who went to work on a sunny September morning. This is not about politics.

In four years, America can hold Obama accountable. But right now is the time for all Americans to unite, like we did after 9/11, and support the President in his effort to hold the terrorists accountable for their heinous crimes. Anything less would be a great injustice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top