Attorney General Eric Holder (WDCpix)

When Attorney General Eric Holder announced earlier this month that the suspected plotters of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would be tried in civilian court, he also promised to seek the death penalty for all of them. But the heated debate that followed over the supposed dangers of trying “the worst of the worst” in a New York federal court has largely eclipsed the question of whether the death penalty is actually the best punishment for convicted terrorists.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

“It is in the strategic interests of the United States to deny these most heinous Al Qaeda terrorists what they want most: martyrdom,” wrote Ken Gude, associate director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the Center for American Progress, in a report released earlier this month. “Al Qaeda will exploit an execution by the U.S. government as a significant propaganda victory, no matter how fair and legitimate the trial,” he added in an article in The Guardian.

Even former Attorney General Michael Mukasey said last year that he hoped that these men would not be executed. Asked by students at the London School of Economics in 2008 whether he thought the Sept. 11 defendants, who were then facing military commission trials, should get the death penalty, he said: “I kind of hope they don’t get it. Because many of them want to be martyrs and it’s kind of like the conversation, you know, between the sadist and the masochist. The masochist says ‘Hit me’ and the sadist says ‘No.’ So I am kind of hoping they don’t get it.”

Other legal experts agree, but for different reasons. “I think the fact that the defendants want to be executed shouldn’t count either way,” said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell University, who advocated against the death penalty for these suspects when they faced military commission trials last year. “However, I do think it is legitimate for the government to worry about the possible counter-productivity of the death penalty here. That is, if the government had concluded that executing [Khalid Shaikh Mohammed], et al were likely to substantially aid Al Qaeda in recruiting, a decision not to seek the death penalty could be based in part on that worry.” According to Dorf, executing the men not only wouldn’t deter other terrorists from committing similar crimes, but could even encourage them.

This debate comes at a difficult time for President Obama and his attorney general. The president has promised to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center by Jan. 22, but faces huge challenges. Those range from where to try the suspected terrorists housed there to where to send those that have been cleared for release but can’t be sent home due to potential persecution or political instability. Republicans, citing the dangers to the United States of trying terrorists on our soil and claiming the terrorists don’t deserve the rights accorded to criminal defendants in federal court, have pushed to try most terror suspects in military commissions. Many Democrats, prominent legal experts and former military leaders, on the other hand, have argued that civilian federal courts are better-equipped to handle such cases and would confer a legitimacy on the trials that is critical to restoring the United States’ reputation around the world. In deciding to try the Sept. 11 suspects in federal court, then, the Obama administration is eager to look like it’s still being tough on terrorism and its perpetrators. That may be influencing the decision to seek the death penalty.

Other countries have faced similar debates in the face of repeated terrorist attacks, and ultimately decided that executing terrorists was counterproductive. Although the death penalty is now outlawed in all European Union countries, when the U.K. House of Commons debated whether to repeal the death penalty in Northern Ireland in 1973, there was widespread agreement that executing terrorists, who often wanted to martyr themselves, would only lead to increased violence and terrorism.

The question raises a classic conundrum for criminal law theorists. Punishment in the American justice system is supposed to punish the criminal in a way that seems proportionate to the crime and also deter others from committing similar acts. But if suicide bombers are blowing themselves up for the cause, how much of a deterrent is the death penalty to these sorts of terrorists?

“It doesn’t make sense as a deterrent,” said Columbia Law Professor Jeffrey Fagan in an email. “Deterrence assumes a rational actor who perceives that the punishment costs exceed the benefits of the crime, and who will not act against his or her own self-interest. in this case, the punishment is no match for either the rewards of striking a significant blow at ‘The Great Satan’ or the rewards of martyrdom.”

Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, agrees. “Terrorists expect to die or want to die,” he said. “There’s a chance that the death penalty feeds into that.” After the federal death penalty in the U.S. was expanded in 1994 to include terrorism, Dieter notes, “the very next year Timothy McVeigh blows up the Oklahoma federal building. So I don’t think anybody believes it’s much of a deterrent. It might even be an attractor.”

Of course, another purpose of criminal punishment is retribution. Under that theory, the criminal is supposed to get his just desserts –– an eye for an eye, in biblical terms. “For retribution, it doesn’t matter what his preferences are,” says Claire Finkelstein, professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

“Simply put, these monsters who specifically target civilians have no right to live,” wrote Rabbi Stuart Weiss, director of the Jewish Outreach Center of Ra’anana,in a recent op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, arguing that Israel, which has abolished the death penalty for almost all crimes, should reinstate it for terrorists. “They have forfeited the most basic human privilege by virtue of their crimes; any punishment save death is too good for them and is an obscene insult to the grieving victims of terror.”

It’s the classic notion of retribution. “The idea is that you return to the defendant what he has inflicted on the victim,” said Finkelstein. She herself doesn’t really think that’s possible, though. “There is no way to kill this man nearly 3,000 times, or force him to experience what his victims suffered as they tried to escape the twin towers,” she said.
Still, logical and even strategic considerations are often not what guides such decisions.

“There’s a lot of politics involved,” says Dieter. The Obama administration’s latest decisions on closing Guantanamo and trying terror suspects in federal court has opened it up to a rash of criticism from conservatives . “Maybe it’s part of this total picture that we’re closing this prison down there but that doesn’t mean we’re going to be soft on them,” said Dieter. “Once you open up the whole political world, the calculations are different.”

Scott Fenstermaker, a lawyer defending one of the men, told The Associated Press that they won’t deny their role, but will use the opportunity to “explain what happened and why they did it,” and they will provide “their assessment of foreign policy.” Fenstermaker reportedly met with his client, Ammar al Baluchi, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), at the Guantanamo Bay prison last week. Baluchi told him the men had discussed the trial among themselves.

Critics of the trial have complained, among other things, that KSM — who has boasted that he was the lead planner behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as many others — will use the opportunity to grandstand and spread terrorist propaganda. The alternative, however, would be to not allow them to speak at their own trial, which would hardly showcase the American principles of open government and fair trials that the attorney general presumably wants to highlight.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told the AP on Sunday that he’s not worried that the men will dominate the trial or be able to use it as a vehicle to win new recruits. “We have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past,” he said.

The Southern District of New York, where the Justice Department wants to hold the trial, is the most experienced of all U.S. federal courts in handling major international terrorism cases.

The federal judge who helped draft Justice Department memos on torture has set up a legal defense fund to pay the costs of defending against possible disciplinary or impeachment proceedings. Jay Bybee, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge in Las Vegas, quietly set up the fund last July following widespread news reports that he and a former deputy, John Yoo, were the focus of a long-running investigation by the Justice Department’s internal ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), over their role in crafting the memos.

Attorney General Holder said yesterday he expected the Justice Department would finally release a version of the OPR report by the end of the month. Judge Bybee is evidently prepared for the rather nettlesome case of his former employer considering him unfit to practice law: Isikoff reports that he’s got Liz Cheney’s advocacy group, Keep America Safe, on his side.

One interesting question arises. Bybee’s former deputy John Yoo helped him craft the torture memos in 2002. Yoo faces similar criticism and legal difficulty, and is reportedly implicated in the OPR report alongside his old boss. But Yoo’s personal legal expenses are, risably, covered by the American taxpayer. Will Bybee similarly stick us with the bill?

Holder was trying to reassure his many Republican critics, who insist that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged al-Qaeda colleagues in a New York federal court is a “grievous mistake” that will endanger American citizens and undermine the “war on terror.”

But Holder’s statement was also eerily reminiscent of one made during the Bush administration by Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes — a statement which outraged Democrats and contributed to the resignation of the military’s top prosecutor.

In October 2007, Col. Morris Davis resigned from his post as military commission chief prosecutor, saying that he refused to report to Haynes. Davis later testified that he felt there was interference in his cases from Defense Department officials, citing specifically Haynes’ statement that “We can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals. We’ve got to have convictions.”

Haynes resigned several months later.

Davis, now a civilian, is still concerned about justice and the appearance of justice for Guantanamo detainees. He recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that using both federal courts and military commissions to try terror suspects “is a mistake. It will establish a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive.”

Attorney General Eric Holder (WDCpix)

Attorney General Eric Holder surely knew he’d be facing a tough audience when he prepared to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. That may be why instead of delivering the written testimony he’d prepared, he focused his opening remarks on explaining his decision, announced last Friday, to try the alleged co-conspirators of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in a New York federal court.

As I reported yesterday, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) sent a letter asking the attorney general to produce information that’s been classified but which they feel is necessary to allowing Congress to decide whether certain provisions of the Patriot Act — specifically section 215, known as the “business records provision” — should be renewed in their current form. That provision now allows the government to obtain personal records of people who are not suspected of any connection to terrorism, so long as the FBI claims the records are “relevant” to some terrorism investigation.

Today, Holder said that “we are working on ways to make available to senators and congressmen the information needed to vote on the Patriot Act. … That information will be made available.”

“The report is completed,” said Holder. “It is in its last stages of review now.” Holder said it was delayed “because of the amount of time we gave to the lawyers who were the subject of the report to respond. And then people in OPR had to respond to their responses.” Holder said that in this final stage, “a career prosecutor has to review the report. We expect that process should be done by the end of the month. At that point the report should be issued.”

Section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to meet to obtain personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions. Previously, the government had to show that it had evidence that the person whose records it sought was a terrorist or spy. With passage of the Patriot Act, that standard was lowered to permit the government to collect any records it considered “relevant to an investigation.”

Wyden, Feingold and Durbin have been arguing that the relevance standard is far too broad and violates the privacy rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans. But they also claim that the government is withholding key information from Congress that would allow lawmakers to make an informed judgment about the issue. Although it’s not clear exactly what information they’re talking about, since even a description of the information is classified, it would seem to be information about how the government has used the business records provision, and what evidence it has obtained by its use.

As Jennifer Hoelzer, Wyden’s communications director, said in an e-mail: “The fact that I can’t in anyway characterize the information in itself highlights the problem and why we believe it is so essential that the Justice Department declassify this information. Senators should know what they are voting on.”

Here’s part of what Wyden wrote in The Huffington Post on this issue a few weeks ago:

I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years, and I have yet to see evidence — classified or otherwise — that has convinced me that revising the business records provision to include a less intrusive standard would be harmful to U.S. national security. Yet as Congress considers whether to reauthorize this standard — written in a rush to judgment eight years ago — some will undoubtedly argue that Congress should just trust that the provision is essential and blindly sign-off on reauthorization. I disagree. While “just trust us” has passed as informed national security debate in this country for eight years, it hasn’t resulted in good national security policy.

The senators’ latest letter to the attorney general on this issue is here.

I’m unsure if that was the intention of President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder when they decided to try the five “worst of the worst” terror suspects in New York, but Ratigan was right (and very creative in his word choice) when he said seeing these guys in person could not only let the air out of some America’s inflated fears of Muslim boogeymen. It could also help shrink the suspects’ own enormous reputations among jihadists around the world.

The contrast of seeing these ordinary-looking men on trial in an orderly U.S. courtroom — where they’re accorded the right to a lawyer, the right to speak in their own defense and the right to call witnesses — could go a long way toward publicly revealing the absurdity of their cause, as well as the justice that a fair and functioning legal system can provide. Even if the trials don’t totally “deboogeymanificate” KSM and his allies, they would certainly make the United States look good. And after all the mistakes the U.S. government made over the last eight years in carrying out its “war on terrorism,” Obama and Holder have made an enormously important global public relations move in choosing not to hide these men away in a military commission somewhere, but to cut them down to human size by treating them as the twisted — but “ordinary” — mass murderers we believe them to be.

We, the members of September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, support the Attorney General’s decision to bring the trials of the five individuals currently accused of plotting the attacks of Sept 11, 2001 to a New York federal court.

Each of us lost a loved one in those attacks. We are dedicated to true justice.

We believe in our country and we believe in our time-tested federal legal system that has, to date, convicted 195 terrorists who are now being held in maximum security prisons in the US. In the 100 years of their existence, no one has ever escaped these secure units. We trust that the guilty will be tried and judged in this venue, as federal courts have many tools to convict and will not need to rely on the results of interrogations tainted by torture.

In open and transparent court, we will again show the world who we are: a fair and just people. Family members, many of whom reside in or near New York, will be able to choose to see the proceedings, as will the whole world, and attest to the fairness of the process. We are confident that the authorities can secure our safety, as they have done for these last eight years.

Conversely, we are troubled that some of the Guantánamo accused will be tried under the Military Commissions Act of 2004, essential parts of which have been struck down by the Supreme Court, and altered by the Congress multiple times. This system is a new and untested one, and we fear that any of those convicted in these secret tribunals could have convictions overturned by further legal alterations to the basic law.

New York is a great city which stood strong, a symbol of our nation’s strength, through the horrific attacks. Physically and psychologically, New Yorkers can and will live through the challenges of these nationally painful trials, and our nation, united as Americans dedicated to justice and our nation’s highest ideals, will emerge ever the stronger.

For a harsh position against the terror trials, here’s a 9/11 families’ group allied with Liz Cheney, whom my colleague David Weigel aptly describes as the most influential deputy assistant secretary of state in American history.