*** Statement of September 11th Advocates re: Moving 9/11 Trials to NYC ***
AMKor...@aol.com
11/19/2009
Statement of September 11th Advocates
Regarding Reaction to AG
Eric Holder’s Announcement on Moving 9/11 Trials to New York City
November
19, 2009
We are
encouraged by Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the trial of
alleged 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and four additional detainees,
Walid Muhammed Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali,
and Mustafa Ahmed Al Hawsawi, would be moved to our Federal Court system in New
York City.
Unfortunately, this has evoked a knee-jerk reaction
that has been brought to an almost feverish pitch by the media pundits and the
politicians. This response seems to be agenda driven rhetoric unsupported by
facts.
Fear mongering is a tactic that is often used by those in
power to hide wrongdoing. Perhaps those responsible for ordering torture have
something to hide. Could those people be creating this frenzy?
With the
apparent desire to try these suspects in the military commission system, one
would think that the success rate of prosecutions would be higher than that of
the Federal Courts’, but that is not the case. To date, the military commissions
system has had a very low success rate and has only brought one 9/11 terrorist
case to completion. On the other hand, the American Justice System has been used
to try terrorists 214 times since September 2001, with a success rate of 91% -
195 people were convicted.
The one 9/11 related case that was
brought to completion in the military commissions system, U.S. v. Hamdan (Bin
Laden's driver), brought Hamdan only a 66 month sentence. He was sent back to
Yemen in January 2009. Where was the outrage then?
In fact, having
accused September 11th alleged terrorists on American soil, in Federal Court, is
not precedent setting. The alleged 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui, was held
in a Virginia detention center and was later sentenced in Federal Court, also
located in Virginia. Where was the outcry at that time?
During the
course of that hearing, we fortunately did not experience a terrorist incident.
Admittedly, an attempted attack could occur whether we try these suspects in
America or Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Does that mean we should not try them at
all?
It should also be noted that the military commissions system allows
for secret proceedings where tainted evidence and hearsay could be used. Thus,
any resulting verdict could lack credibility. For those who fear an attack
because trials are being held on American soil, isn’t it just as likely that a
verdict lacking credibility could provoke an attack?
Additionally, we
believe the decision to try these men in our Federal Courts is less about giving
detainees the same privileges as American citizens and more about America being
a nation that conducts itself according to the rule of law. As a matter of
practicality, in order to protect our citizens and soldiers around the world, it
is best that we not devolve into barbarians seeking revenge. Retaliation then
becomes an even greater risk.
It is time that we actually look at
the facts and stop reacting from a place of fear.
###
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van
Auken