Courts can handle 9/11’s mixture of war, crime

Reasonable, intelligent people can disagree over whether five accused 9/11 conspirators should be tried in federal courts in New York City for that day’s horrendous destruction.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammed Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi could have been brought before the military commissions that have evolved from lengthy struggles over proper procedures for prosecuting suspected terrorists detained at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

But too much of the criticism against Attorney General Eric Holder’s choice of civilian federal courts borders on apoplexy rather than reasonable disagreement.

Let’s be clear about what a federal trial will and won’t be.

It will be public.

One of the great strengths of the American criminal justice system is the public oversight that imbues proceedings with legitimacy and accountability.

The evidence is presented for all to see. Observers can determine whether the prosecution, defense, judge and jurors have acted properly. Defendants can confront their accusers and question the evidence in the light of day.

But federal trials are not televised. I generally argue that they should be. But even if they were, they wouldn’t automatically devolve into circuses. Judges have substantial power to maintain order in their courtrooms. They can cut off rambling defendants, sanction disruptive outbursts, even close parts of a trial if sensitive information is presented.

In fact, Holder pointed out during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week that federal law lays out strict procedures for the handling of classified material, such as discussion of intelligence-gathering methods, to prevent harming national security.

And if Mohammed continues to boast of plotting 9/11 and a litany of other attacks, Holder said: “I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is. I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say at trial.”

It will provide a better understanding of the terrorist threat and our response to it.

Almost 200 terrorists have been tried in civilian courts, and the worst among them have been convicted, including the perpetrator of the first World Trade Center bombing.

Holder said those who worry that the accused 9/11 conspirators will get off by exploiting constitutional protections haven’t seen all the evidence he reviewed in deciding that federal court would be the venue “where the government has the greatest opportunity to present the strongest case.”

Holder is a former prosecutor and judge, and he could not have moved forward with a criminal prosecution against Mohammed without compelling evidence beyond whatever interrogators gleaned during repeated waterboardings. It’s time for the public to know what the government has uncovered against these alleged terrorists.

Any waterboarding-induced confessions would almost certainly be excluded as coerced. If the government has engaged in other dubious practices, the American public ought to know that, too.