1/29/10

This week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg requested that the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the "9/11 Mastermind," not be held in Lower Manhattan.  This has sparked speculation that the trial will be moved and reignited efforts from conservatives to advocate for military commissions.  However, the Mayor and other local officials' opposition to hosting the trials in Lower Manhattan is based out of concerns over cost and disruption to business and daily life in a busy and crowded city, and specifically not about concerns over security or the principle of bringing terrorists to justice through federal courts.  In fact, civilian courts remain the most effective instrument for bringing terrorists to justice.  During the years of the Bush administration, hundreds of terrorists were brought to justice through civilian courts, while only a few have been sentenced through a military commission and even they received "shockingly" short sentences.  The commitment to try terrorists in federal courts not only remains the safest and most capable way of bringing terrorists to justice, but it is a vital part a broader counterterrorism strategy.  Whether they are in Lower Manhattan or not, federal trials are tough on terrorists and remain the way to bring them to justice.

Opposition to Lower Manhattan trials is about cost and logistics, not security or principle.   This week New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he would prefer the terror trials not to be held in Lower Manhattan.  The Mayor's opposition to hosting the trials in Lower Manhattan is because of the costs to the city, the logistical concerns, and the financial disruptions that the trial would have on one of the busiest commercial centers in the world, not because of concern over our security or the principle of federal trials.  As he said, "It's going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb an awful lot of people." Julie Menin, the chairwoman of Community Board #1 in Manhattan agrees with the Mayor, but makes clear that federal trials are the way to bring terrorists to justice. Regarding logistics and the disruption to business the chairwoman said on Hardball that, "We`re the fourth largest commercial business district in the country. It`s the financial capital of the country."  The chairwoman's, and other local politicians' opposition is strictly based off of concern about disruption, and not on the principle of federal trials for bringing terrorists to justice.  She said about the Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial that, "We should have the venue as the federal courts. We`ve got to remember that in the Bush administration, we had hundreds of terrorists prosecuted in the federal court systems. How many did we have in the military tribunals? Two. And both of those had to be actually switched over to the federal court system precisely because government lawyers and the Bush administration were concerned that the Supreme Court would rule parts of those trials unconstitutional. I want to see KSM prosecuted, and the best venue to do so is in the federal court system." 

Charles Komanoff, a New York City-based energy and transportation analyst, says that in addition to the estimated $1 billion that security measures would cost the city, the disruption to daily life in the busy commercial center would cost the city's citizens significantly:  "The soft perimeter appears to include around five-and-a-half linear miles of streets comprising 17 ‘lane-miles.' Clearly, restricting vehicular travel on these streets will aggravate gridlock, but by how much, and at what ‘time cost' to travelers?... Assuming that the restrictions take away one-quarter of the carrying capacity of the affected streets (one-half for streets within the inner section), vehicles in the area can expect to spend 2,200 additional hours stuck in traffic each weekday. Scaled to a full year, that translates to $30 million in lost time for motorists, truckers, taxi riders and bus passengers." [Washington Post, 1/29/10.  Michael Bloomberg, via NY Times, 1/29/10. Charles Komanoff, 1/25/10. Julie Menin, via Hardball, 1/27/10]

Civilian courts remain the most effective instrument for bringing terrorists to justice.  Mayor Bloomberg's request for the U.S. government to consider a different location for the trial of the 9/11 conspirators does not change the fact that civilian courts are the most effective tool for bringing these extremists to justice. Ken Gude, of the Center for American Progress, writes, "The facts are clear: Criminal courts are a far tougher and more reliable forum for prosecuting terrorists than military commissions."  Yet many conservatives continue to advocate for this unproven process.  Washington Post writes today that, "Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) plans to introduce a bill next week that would prohibit funding of a federal trial for Mohammed and other Sept. 11 defendants, in an effort to force the case into a military tribunal." 

Federal Courts are the toughest, most tested and effective mechanism for trying terrorists. The record of federal courts for trying terrorists, particularly since 9/11 is formidable.  Former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma Mickey Edwards writes: "[Critics] scowl and declare that our American courts will not, or can not, convict terrorists.  They seem pretty damned certain of that.  Which is weird since nearly 200 terrorists have been convicted in our federal courts in the last nine years (that's 65 times as many as have been convicted by military commissions)." A 2009 report by Human Rights First written by a team of former federal prosecutors found that terror trials in civilian courts had "a conviction rate of 91.121%," and a separate study by NYU's Center on Law and Security, found that New York City courts have a zero acquittal rate for terrorism cases.  [Former Congressman Mickey Edwards, 1/05/10. Human Rights First, 7/23/09. NYU, 9/11/08]

America's best legal traditions will "put Jihad on trial."  Writing in the New York Times last year, Council on Foreign Relations counterterrorism expert Steven Simon pushed back on the idea that civilian trials would act as a soapbox for Al Qaeda: "Historically, the public exposure of state-sponsored mass murder or terrorism through a transparent judicial process has strengthened the forces of good and undercut the extremists. The Nuremberg trials were a classic case. And nothing more effectively alerted the world to the danger of genocide than Israel's prosecution in 1961 of Adolf Eichmann, the bureaucrat who engineered the Holocaust." [Steven Simon, 11/18/09]

Conservatives supporting military commissions do so for narrow political reasons. Conservatives may prefer military commissions, but by doing so they are supporting a less effective means for bringing terrorists to justice.  As Ken Gude writes, "military commissions have never handled a single case of murder or attempted murder and have doled out shockingly short sentences to terrorists... since their formation in November 2001, military commissions have only had one trial, negotiated one plea bargain, and convicted one defendant after he boycotted the proceedings," while sustaining multiple Supreme Court challenges.  The American Prospect's Adam Serwer suggests an explanation of why conservatives like Lindsey Graham wish to try the 9/11 terrorists in military commissions: "Graham, a former JAG lawyer, is the Senate's expert on military law. He helped craft the revised military commissions, so he has to know that the prior commissions were ineffective, and that the new ones still might not be constitutional. Republicans have an interest in not revisiting the torture of terror suspects in open court, so preventing a civilian trial for KSM, depending on whether or not the commissions pass constitutional muster, could mean simply putting off any kind of trial indefinitely." [American Prospect, 1/29/10. Ken Gude, 1/20/10]

Trying terrorists using our time-tested criminal justice traditions is a vital facet of a broader progressive counterterrorism strategy.  Bringing terrorist to justice in civilian courts is just one element of progressives' comprehensive strategy for defeating extremists.  This strategy rests on striking at terrorists where they plot, building regional partnerships to prevent extremism from spreading, bringing terrorists to justice in order to deter would-be perpetrators while reinforcing our values, and refusing to fall into the trap of overreaction that al Qaeda seeks to instill.  This is the best comprehensive approach for keeping America safe from terrorism.

Taking the fight to the extremists.  In 2009, the Obama administration executed key military operations that either disabled or disrupted extremist organizations in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, including killing Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. According to the  President's State of the Union address, "hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008." [NSN, 1/25/10. President Obama, 1/27/10]

Building regional partnerships in order to thwart terrorism. As a new report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee puts it: "U.S. government cooperation with foreign partners must be redoubled across the counterterrorism spectrum: Information-sharing, counterterrorism and law enforcement training, and border control are all areas where allies will benefit from cooperation. Foreign partners are often the first line of defense."  In recognition of the importance of regional cooperation, the Obama administration has strengthened a range of partnerships from Europe to India to Yemen to combat extremists. [SFRC, 1/20/10. NSN, 1/25/10]

Bringing terrorists to justice in a manner that deters future extremism, rebuilds global support for the US, and complies with our values.  Experts in the counterterrorism field concur: our constitutional principles are the best guide for bringing terrorists to justice.  A coalition of national security experts, former members of Congress, diplomats, federal judges, prosecutors, high-level military officers recently signed a letter saying: "As it moves to close Guantanamo and develop policies for handling terrorism suspects going forward, the government should rely upon our established, traditional system of justice. We are confident that the government can preserve national security without resorting to sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition that has served us effectively for over two centuries." [The Constitution Project, 11/04/09]

Refusing to give in to Al Qaeda's politics of fear. Marc Lynch, senior fellow at CNAS and professor at George Washington University writes that: "It is just wrong to suggest that Obama has not taken al Qaeda seriously just because he doesn't use the magic words so beloved of his critics. His administration has continued or expanded a wide range of effective measures to degrade and dismantle its networks across the region and world. Its escalation in Afghanistan was, for better or for worse, largely justified in terms of degrading and destroying al Qaeda's South Asian base." Rather than cave to conservative hysteria, the public has largely been reassured by the president's cool-headed approach with 57% of Americans placing their trust in his response. [Marc Lynch, 1/02/10. CNN, 1/11/10]

What We're Reading

Donor nations at the London Conference for Afghanistan are mapping out a strategy to best support reconciliation with the Taliban and a plan to more quickly stand up Afghan Security Forces. High level UN officials are reported to have met with some Taliban officials. A NATO convoy accidentally killed an Afghan Imam. 

Militants in Pakistan have struck a NATO supply convoy while doubt lingers about any immediate effects USAID funds are having in Pakistan.

Almost seven years after he ordered British troops to join the American-led invasion of Iraq, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair offered a passionate defense of his actions at a British inquiry.

Relief efforts in Haiti continue to frustrate even the US troops on the ground. Tensions between Haitians and Dominicans, however, have thawed as humanitarian work has overcome an otherwise politicized relationship.

The North Korean military continued to fire shells for the second straight day into waters near the disputed western sea border with South Korea, asserting its territorial claims in the most volatile section of the Korean peninsula.

Israel is taking a harder line against protesters along its border with the West Bank, and fears of escalating violence. Syrians in an annexed Israeli village are unsure of whether they will be transferred to Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon if the Israeli Army pulls out.

The Pentagon will, for the first time, offer recommendations to Congress next week on a way forward on "don't ask, don't tell" following President Obama's declaration that he wants to repeal law this year.

After a month-long trial and weeks of deliberations, a French court rules former prime minister Dominique de Villepin not guilty of trying to taint his main political rival, President Nicolas Sarkozy, with fraudulent bank documents.

Commentary of the Day

Vice President Joe Biden outlines the Administration's nuclear infrastructure agenda for the upcoming year.

The New York Times applauds President Obama on pushing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" issue out into the open, and hopefully, to some resolution.

Roger Cohen imagines a future in which Beijing no longer freeloads on the declining United States.

The Los Angeles Times wonders if the five-month extension for the UN peacekeeping mission in the Congo will provide enough time for the UN to hold its Congolese Army partners accountable for the human rights abuses they have committed while fighting rebels accused of violating human rights.