The Trial of the Century?

Posted in: Civil Rights

With last week’s announcement that charges against Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and his four co-defendants had been authorized, the on-again, off-again military commission proceedings in the 9/11 case have now officially begun. The United States is seeking the death penalty against all five men, who are accused of the crimes of terrorism, hijacking, murder, conspiracy, and intentionally causing serious bodily injury.

The case has been called the trial of the century.  Sixty-six pages of the 123-page charge sheet are taken up by the long list of victims of the 9/11 attacks, from flight attendant Barbara Jean Arestegui, on American Airlines Flight 11, to passenger Honor Elizabeth Wainio, on United Airlines Flight 93.

The stakes in the case are high; the facts are extremely emotive, and the defendants could hardly be less sympathetic. Khalid Shaikh Mohammad has already claimed responsibility for planning the attacks, and the other defendants are accused of playing key organizational or financial roles in them.

For the verdict in such an important, high-profile case to be recognized as just, the trial needs to be seen as fair.  The defendants should be granted basic procedural guarantees in proceedings before an independent and impartial tribunal.

But while US officials have put much recent effort into lauding the fairness of the military commissions at Guantanamo, the government still asserts that defendants before the commissions have no constitutional rights.  And though the rules governing military commission proceedings have improved significantly over the years, the commissions’ basic structure is still unconducive to independence and impartiality.

Judicial Independence vs. Military Discipline

The normal work of military commission judges is to preside over courts-martial of active-duty US soldiers who are accused of military offenses.  As the U.S. manual for courts-martial explains, the purpose of military court proceedings is not simply to uphold justice, but also “to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces [and] to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment.”

Unlike the federal courts, where justice is the overriding goal and judicial independence has strict constitutional protection, military court proceedings are structured to accommodate the imperative of military discipline.  Both the members of the commissions—the commissions’ version of a jury—and the military judges who preside over them fall within the military chain of command. They belong to a force that deems everyone held at Guantanamo to be the enemy, are part of a hierarchy that leads upward to the president as commander-in-chief, and depend on their hierarchical superiors for promotion and career advancement.

Military judges do not have life tenure, and are not independent adjudicators belonging to a co-equal branch of government. Unlike federal judges and civilian juries, military judges and members of military commissions are selected for their duties rather than drawn randomly.

Even before the current set of military commissions were given their challenging and controversial caseload, the flaws in the military justice system were apparent.  Proposals have been made to reform the system to strengthen the independence of military judges and shift the scales toward justice. The 2001 Cox Commission Report, for example, recommended that military judges be granted more authority and autonomy, and that the power of military commanders be limited, similar to changes made in recent decades in countries like Australia, Canada and South Africa.

Without meaningful protections for their independence, judges and juries are less likely to pursue justice without fear or favor, or to make unpopular and controversial decisions.

The First 9/11 Trial

To the extent that the importance of an independent and impartial tribunal is in doubt, it is worth remembering the only defendant who has, to date, been prosecuted for the 9/11 attacks: Zacarias Moussaoui. Tried in federal court in Virginia, Moussaoui was sentenced in 2006 to life imprisonment without parole for his role in the 9/11 conspiracy.

Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presided over the trial proceedings, issued a series of courageous and controversial rulings.  Unhappy with the CIA’s refusal to permit defense counsel to interview detainees whose testimony could aid in Moussaoui’s defense, she took aggressive steps to force the question.  Moussaoui was as obnoxious, unsympathetic, and politically toxic as a defendant could be, but Judge Brinkema still made formidable efforts to ensure his right to a meaningful defense.

The Moussaoui case also underscores the power and humanity of a civilian jury.  Although prosecutors sought the death penalty, despite exceedingly thin evidence implicating Moussaoui in the 9/11 conspiracy, the jury voted for life without parole.  A single juror reportedly saved Moussaoui from death.

“Disappearance,” Torture, Indefinite Detention, Military Trial

Since entering US custody, the five defendants in the current 9/11 case have been subject to a range of abuses: “disappearance,” torture, indefinite detention in CIA black sites, and now Guantanamo.  A flawed trial before a military commission is probably the best they expected.  But it is not what we should give them.

  • Dr. Kevin Barrett

    “TRIAL of the century?!” More like kangaroo court of the century. KSM is a CIA or Mossad agent – his behavior during his pre-9/11 terror escapades was beyond un-Islamic, more like James Bond, and they had to completely tear down and rebuild his personality and insert false memories via prolonged torture in order to make him a plausible candidate for 9/11 scapegoat.  But it was Larry Silverstein, not KSM, who has confessed to demolishing the World Trade Center.  Please do some elementary research at the Complete 9/11 Timeline.

    • warren currier


      I was not expecting to find anything near to ‘the truth’ here…

  • Grant1932

    I find it ironic, at least, that Bush as President of the United States — “the land of the free” — led a willing herd of sheep-like citizens into a war to “extend freedom” and by the stroke of the same pen instituted a system of “justice” which denies basic fairness and due process — not to mention torture, rendition, etc.  I am even more outraged that Obama has continued, with little attenuation, the same policies, applauded, of course, by the “Christian” right who passionately oppose the evils of contraception and with equal passion embrace war and torture.  
    It would be a simple job of draftsmanship to create an Article III court to protect real national security secrets (if there be any after ten years) and conduct fair trials for those charged with terrorism.
    Why not subject executive assassination orders to review by the same court.
    Surely, the nation would not collapse around our heads if we acted, as we claim, to be the beacon of freedom and fairness.

  • Jredeemed

    I find this frightening because of the implications of the Bush Administration and its known lies to start wars. We all know of the lies, trickery of the American citizens and the information known to that administration that was kept secret and that could have prevented this tragedy. So I am wondering are these persons really guilty of the crimes or are they being used as scapegoats to crimes that could have possibly been caused by or allowed by the government? Two people have been murdered as terrorists yet terrorism continues. Who will be the new scapegoat? 

  • Dougflor1955

    In my opinion, the people who planned this “Act of War” should be tried in a military court. I also hope that you take that into consideration. As a non-lawyer, American, reading your “opinion” – I cannot help but think you considered the act of these terrorists as nothing more than a contractual legal situation like a medical malpractice claim. If so, you are as dead wrong as all the victims of this military act of war. Get real and rewrite the article so it places the act of war by these terrorists in the forefront, instead of poo-pooing in by your silence. If I am wrong for missreading and misinterpreting your writing, then still rewrite your piece, as it left too much to the imagination of the reader.

  • Pingback: Today’s News LInks: 04-15-12 | Material Truth()

  • Pingback: Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm – New York Times | Lexington Christian Radio()

  • Pingback: Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm – New York Times | Madison Christian Radio()

  • Pingback: Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm – New York Times | Grand Rapids Christian Radio()

  • Pingback: Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm – New York Times | Louisville Christian Radio()

  • Pingback: Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm | News()

  • Pingback: Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm – New York Times | One Nation Hosting()

  • Pingback: George Zimmerman Trial Could Start a News Swarm | News Fringe()

  • Pingback: The Trial of the Century? | 9/11 - A Cheap Magic Trick()