Sept. 11 mastermind should not be unfairly tried on U.S. soil

The fact that al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of Sept. 11, and four other alleged co-conspirators are being brought to the United States to be tried in a civil court is foolish to say the least. I’m all for trying these men for the crimes they claimed to have  committed, but it would be a mistake to try them in civilian court, only a short walk away from Ground Zero.

It is also a sad attempt by the Obama administration to make an example of the supposed terrorists.

Either convictions or acquittals of the alleged terrorist would be counterproductive to the Obama admnistration’s goals, as it would glorify the five men. Furthermore, the trial will only fuel the fire of remaining al-Qaeda members.

Civil law is intended for the citizens of the United States, on U.S. soil, under normal circumstances. In no way does this apply to the situation in which Mohammed was apprehended. The evidence and his capture were all in a war scenario.

Sept. 11 was certainly an act of war. To say that the United States is not at war is a contradiction to our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have taken over other governments and are applying our rule in their lands. That is war.

Mohammed should be tried in a military tribunal where the laws of war apply. The evidence found in 2003 when Mohammed was captured in Pakistan would normally not be admitted in a civilian court (I say this because this trial could see some strange processes).

For instance, there was no search warrant, and if you look at it from a legal aspect, Mohammed was basically kidnapped. If the evidence found there is not allowed because of these discrepancies, the trial against Mohammed would become almost unwinnable.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently commented on the situation, saying, “I would not have authorized the prosecution of these cases unless I was confident that our outcome would be a successful one.”

With this statement, Holder basically guaranteed a conviction, making  a spectacle of the trial that is to come. His statement does not point to the fair and just trial that the U.S. Constitution promises.

If the Obama administration can’t or doesn’t want to give the four alleged terrorists a fair trial, it should have gone with a military tribunal, in which all evidence could be used.

To al-Qaeda sympathizers, this view mocks them and will further their dislike for Western ideas of justice and freedom. I can understand why Holder would say this and why the trial would be brought to the United States; the Obama administration wants to make an example of this guy and show that they are strong. But it also gives the terrorists a chance to portray themselves as martyrs.

Beside the fact that this will make a conviction more difficult if these men are indeed guilty, but there is a question of safety in bringing five potential terrorists to American soil.

“The attacks of September 11th were an act of war,” U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas said on CNN.com. “Reverting to a pre-September 11 approach to fighting terrorism and bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans.”

Out of 593 individuals tried for terrorism-related offenses since September 11, 523 have been convicted, according to Center on Law and Security.  And the District Court in Manhatta

If allowed to proceed, the trial will backfire and cause more deeply rooted dislike for Western ideals, even if voters in the U.S. approve of the move. And it’s almost impossible to see the long-term politics of that move working out well.

Will Taylor is a journalism senior and Mustang Daily reporter.