Litigation

Terror Plea: a Victory for Civilian Courts?

By Peter Hardin

Attorney General Eric Holder has a dual victory to declare. Prosecutors not only won a guilty plea in a New York terrorism plot but they secured it in civilian court.

“In this case, as it has in so many other cases, the criminal justice system has proved to be an invaluable weapon for disrupting plots and incapacitating terrorists, one that works in concert with the intelligence community and our military,” Holder said about the plea by Najibullah Zazi (photo at right), according to a Washington Post article.

The airport shuttle bus driver’s plea in a plot to trigger explosives in New York’s subway came at a moment of fierce debate over the use of military tribunals versus civilian courts to try terrorism suspects. The Post headline announced, “N.Y. terror plea hailed as a validation of court strategy.”

And it came on the heels of remarks by two major figures from the administration of President George Bush, John Ashcroft and Colin Powell,  acknowledging or proclaiming the strengths of civilian trials for terror suspects.

Former Attorney General Ashcroft told Huffington Post that trying these suspects in a civilian court “has use and utility.” He said there exist “a variety of tools that ought to be available to an administration” in trying to curb terrorism and prosecute suspects.

Former Secretary of State Powell said on CBS News’ Face the Nation that the record of civilian courts speaks volumes:

“In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail. Meanwhile, the federal courts, our Article III, regular legal court system, has put dozens of terrorists in jail and they’re fully capable of doing it. So the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn’t borne out by the history of the military commissions.”

“And so you didn’t get out of the military commissions what a lot of people thought at the beginning you would get, and a lot of us did not think it was a good idea in the beginning.”

The debate isn’t anywhere near over, however. A New York Times article profiled Andrew C. McCarthy, the lead prosecutor in a major terrorism trial in a federal courtroom 15 years ago. He has emerged as an outspoken opponent of the Obama administration’s plan to try accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a civilian court.

It still is not certain whether the administration will pursue, or has abandoned, that plan. You can read more about the controversy in Gavel Grab.

Full post as published by The Gavel on February 23, 2010 (boomark / email).