Justice in the Courtroom

Since Eric Holder announced on Friday that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other terrorists would be brought to trial in the Manhattan federal courthouse, there has been no shortage of media sparring over the pros and cons of this decision. Of course much of the discussion has centered around the justification of such a move by the Obama administration, but with our recent discussion of the various 'layers' of truth that often times unfold out of incomprehensible tragedies, I wonder if a court of justice really is the most appropriate venue for this matter.

Obviously, based on the principals that establish our government, a trial in the civil courts is the surest way our government can attempt to seek out a bit of justice for the horrible events that happened on September 11th. This certainly seems to be the moral high ground as far as justice by our laws is concerned. However, it is highly unfortunate that this sort of trial will most assuredly become a media circus of never before seen proportions. This point has been raised repeatedly over the weekend news cycle because as many of the pundits have rightly assumed, a huge spectacle is probably just what someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would prefer.

But in light of our classroom discussions I think the most pertinent question to ask is whether or not our civil court system can appropriately work through this trial without making a mockery of the process. Because if a fair trial is set in motion, it will be a dream case for those providing the defense. Since the courthouse is literally blocks away from the place where the World Trade Center once stood, what competent defense attorney wouldn't file for a change of venue? Or better yet have a large portion of the evidence thrown out for a litany of reasons - torture, chain of evidence custody, or improper discovery due to national security issues.

At best we can hope that the trials will be executed with as few disturbances as possible, but I think there is little doubt that a savvy defense attorney could give his or her clients a propaganda tool of very dangerous proportions. But we can look to the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman for some solace. He was the blind sheik that was tried in a civil court for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. And that trial went forward without making a mockery of the court system. But there is no doubt that the tragedy that brought to U.S. soil on September 11 was much much worse than any other act of terrorism ever conceived. And the subsequent capture and treatment of men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will certainly make these upcoming cases arguably some of the most complex judicial proceedings that our court system has ever faced.