Litigation

Who?s Winning the Terror Trial Debate?

By Peter Hardin

Is there momentum building in Congress behind a bid to bar a trial in civilian courts for the accused 9/11 conspirators?

It’s too soon to tell. But in two fervent commentaries, authors bemoan an apparent decision by the Obama administration to retreat from a planned trial in New York City’s civilian courts and an effort in the Senate to cut funding for any civilian trial of the alleged plotters.

In Huffington Post, Dan Collins writes that until recently, New York was to be the venue where the accused 9/11 mastermind “met American justice.” But now, “that’s all over. So, perhaps, is the Obama administration’s plan to end the Bush-era assault on the Constitution. If so, New York City will have been the critical player in turning back the tide.”

As Gavel Grab reported earlier, the Obama administration stepped back from plans for the Manhattan trial after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke out against them.

Legal analyst Andrew Cohen belittles leaders of a bipartisan Senate group for their bill to block administration funding for a civilian trial, arguing in The Atlantic they can not point to an instance where terror suspects like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed have gotten a break in civilian courts, and maintaining that the record for prosecuting Al Qaeda operatives in federal courts is “stunning for its success.”

Cohen asks, if these senators succeed, would the headline read something like this: “Acting boldly, Congress moves to eliminate startlingly successful terror-trial program administered by able, veteran judges!” He adds, “It’s a joke, right, with a cosmic punchline somewhere?”

The senators who introduced the bill want the alleged conspirators tried before a military commission. You can read about all the developments in this controversy by clicking on Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 04, 2010 (boomark / email).