9/11 Terrorists To Be Tried by Military Tribunals After All

First enemy terrorist were be tried by a U.S military tribunal. Then they weren't. I lost count of the back and forth.

Then President Obama announced that some suspect were to be tried in civilian court. The backlash forced Obama to back off the plan. Congress threatened not provide the funds for the trials. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg stated that security for the trials would be to expensive for the city to pay.

Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced that certain suspects will be tried by military tribunal.

Of course the spin masters are out. Rep. Lamar Smith from Texas states:

"unfortunate that it took the Obama administration more than two years to figure out what the majority of Americans already know: that 9/11 conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not a common criminal, he's a war criminal."

I find that quote laughable. Republican President George Bush had longer to bring the suspects to trial. Instead of taking action, he punted and let the incoming president decide.

Congress painted Obama into a corner with restriction against trying terrorists in civilian courts. Obama really was left with no options.

With the trials moving forward, a few things need see how they play out. First is how open the courts will be. Maybe not right away during proceedings but sometime after the trial to release evidence on why the verdicts were guilty. We already know the evidence standard is lower than civilian courts and hearsay probably allowed. It will be interesting to see what evidence produces a verdict. Will the tribunal convict on flimsy evidence? Will they instead take this as a solemn duty and see that justice is done?

What the tribunal must do is avoid all appearances of victor's justice. That is railroading a suspect with a show trial and the verdict a forgone conclusion. Some people already question the legitimacy of the courts.

Obama had planned to seek the death penalty in a civilian trial. In a civilian court, all evidence would be public. Should the defendants be sentenced to death at least there is public evidence to support the cause. In closed secret tribunals, the very legality comes into question. The death penalty should only be imposed for the most serious and strongest cases.

Anything less that a solemn and diligent court will only enforce public opinion that they are show trials.

Why Is This Still A Concern?

We all know the story of September 11, 2001. The U.S. and allies have since embarked on a War on Terrorism. The goal is to disrupt, destroy, kill or capture terrorists that threaten the U.S. and allies.

Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.

My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.

Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.

All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.

My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.

Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.

I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.

Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that

terror trials as a 'distraction' from the administration's domestic agenda, especially health care.

I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.

These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.