Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

1st WTC bombing’s prosecutor calls federal 9/11 trials ‘dangerously irresponsible’

Andy McCarthy led the team that successfully prosecuted those who bombed the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and conspired in the Landmark Bombings plot, including “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman. He has been critical of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to bring the 9/11 conspirators into federal court. McCarthy weighed in again today, in the New York Daily News:

In the military system, we could have denied them access to classified information, forcing them to accept military lawyers with security clearances who could see such intelligence but not share it with our enemies. In civilian court, the Supreme Court has held an accused has an absolute right to conduct his own defense. If KSM asserts that right — as he tried to do in the military commission — he will have a strong argument that we must surrender relevant, top-secret information directly to him. And we know that indicted terrorists share what they learn with their confederates on the outside.

Finally, as policy, the administration’s decision is perverse. A half-century of humanitarian law, beginning with the Geneva Conventions, sought to civilize warfare. To receive enhanced protection, combatants must adhere to the laws of war and refrain from targeting civilians. Under Obama-logic, the Cole bombers get a military commission while the 9/11 savages are clothed in the majesty of the Bill of Rights.

‘Eric Holder’s Horrible Hearing’ by Mary Katharine Ham

The Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham writes of the “mixed” reaction by 9/11 family members who attended Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing wherein AG Eric Holder testified about the decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al in federal court:

Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican, raised cheers from the gallery with his sharp questioning of Holder, who contended that his decision to bring 9/11 terrorists to civilian courts was based, not on politics, but on where he’d have the best shot at conviction.

“How could you be more likely to get a conviction in federal court when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has already asked to plead guilty to a military commission and be executed,” he asked. “How can you be more likely to get a conviction in a [civilian] court than that?”

Peter Regan — who lost his dad, a New York firefighter, on 9/11 — is disturbed by the plan on several fronts. After 9/11, the then 20-year-old joined the Marines, serving two tours in Iraq before coming back home to follow in his father’s footsteps in the fire department. The possibility that they may face trial in civilian courts means suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield may have to be informed of their right to counsel and to remain silent.

“I just couldn’t imagine,” Regan says. “We’re soldiers and Marines and sailors. It’s not our job. We’re not cops. We learn Miranda rights once we come back if we want to pursue that career.”

Holder could not answer when asked by Lindsey Graham if combatants apprehended on the battlefield had ever in U.S. history been prosecuted in federal courts.

“I’ll answer it for you, and the answer is no,” the South Carolina Republican said. “We’re makin’ history. And, we’re makin’ bad history.”

MKH has the take from others who attended and keen observations about the level of agreement with Holder’s decision.

——

Note: 120,000 people have co-signed our letter to President Obama. (You can still add your name.) 911FamiliesForAmerica.org is partners with theBravest.com and KeepAmericaSafe.com in this effort.