Holder Says 9/11 Trials to be Held in New York

Choice Meets Article III and Sixth Amendment

0 Comments
Join the Conversation
 Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - AP
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - AP
The decision announced Nov. 13, 2009 by Attorney General Eric Holder to try 9/11 conspirators in New York is controversial, but strongly grounded in the Constitution.

The United States strives, though sometimes falters, to be an example to the world regarding living up to the rule of law. This effort is the most challenging when there are lawless acts committed by persons that are so heinous that a particular individual does not appear deserving of the protections provided by the law.

The decision to try 9/11 conspirators in New York will present unprecedented physical security, national security and legal issues. These issues should not trump constitutional principals: that a trial is to be held where the crime took place, and that it be held in public. There are two constitutional provisions at issue.

Article III and the Sixth Amendment

Article III, section 2 of the Constitution provides: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed…”

Additionally, the Sixth Amendment provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

New York a Proper Constitutional Location

These provisions properly place the location of the trial in New York. As there were three planes involved, and the hijackers traveled over many states, there were many possible constitutional locations for the government to choose. Choosing New York more properly meets the constitutional requirements regarding location and that the trial be public than a military tribunal in Guantanamo, Cuba.

The constitutional location of the trial becomes more complex with conspiracy charges, as acts of conspiracy may be tried where those acts took place. However, it is very clear that where the ultimate criminal act happened is a correct place for the trial to take place. The five defendants have not had formal criminal charges filed yet, but the allegations from the military charges of May, 2008 give some clue as to what can be expected.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The military charges alleged that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed masterminded the 9/11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Usama bin Laden, obtaining approval and funding from bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the operation, and training the hijackers in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash

Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash is alleged to have supervised the al Qaeda training camp in Logar, Afghanistan and the training of two of the Sept. 11 hijackers. It is alleged that 1999 he went to Malaysia observing U.S. air carriers security to assist in devising the hijacking plan.

Ramzi Binalshibh

Ramzi Binalshibh is alleged to have lived with three of the 9/11 hijackers the Hamburg, Germany. It is alleged that Binalshibh was originally scheduled to be one of the 9/11 hijackers, making a “martyr video”. Binalshibh was also accused of finding U.S. flight schools for the hijackers, and assisting the conspiracy in numerous financial transactions to support the 9/11 attacks.

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali’s is alleged to have sent approximately $120,000 to the hijackers for expenses and flight training, and made U.S. travel arrangements for nine of the hijackers.

Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi

Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi is alleged to have helped the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler’s checks and credit cards. He is also alleged to have transferred thousands of dollars between the alleged 9/11 hijackers and himself on Sept. 11, 2001.

A Government of Laws, Not Men

While the actions alleged against the five ultimately resulted in one of the most terrible acts of human history, it is important that the U.S. government remains true to constitutional mandates. If passion or prejudice result in departure from principals regarding human beings accused of the most horrible actions, then the U.S. has abandoned its core.

David J. Shestokas, John Fernandez

David J. Shestokas - Mr. Shestokas is a former prosecutor & writes on the Constitution & legal issues for the Save America Foundation & Suite 101.

rss
Advertisement
Leave a comment

NOTE: Because you are not a Suite101 member, your comment will be moderated before it is viewable.
Submit
What is 1+7?
Advertisement
Advertisement