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.

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.”

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.

Glenn Greenwald has pointed out the irony of Republicans now raising fears of another terror attack simply because the president has decided to prosecute terror suspects in a way that’s consistent with American values.

But some important points are being drowned out by the hysteria. Retired Adm. John Hutson, now the dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, yesterday observed that “there’s no particular reason to believe that if terrorists are going to take vengeance on the US for prosecuting these people, that that’s going to happen at the location or at a hard target.” A federal supermax prison or high-security New York City jail is actually “the least likely place for vengeance to be taken,” given the obstacles presented by all the security, he said on a conference call organized by Human Rights First. “The logical consequence of that stream of logic is that we not prosecute them at all to avoid some form of retribution.”

The other point largely overlooked is that while Attorney General Eric Holder announced plans to try the alleged 9/11 plotters in federal court, he also announced that the suspected USS Cole bomber, among others who’ve attacked U.S. soldiers or military targets, would be tried in the newly reconstituted military commissions. So are they getting a lesser trial?

“Despite the changes enacted by Congress this year, that untested system does not have the track record of fairness and justice that our criminal justice system has,” said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) yesterday, after praising the decision to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators in federal court.

Col. Morris Davis, the former chief military prosecutor for the commissions, made this important point Sunday in The Wall Street Journal: having two different justice systems “establish[es] 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.”

Another former military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who resigned his post in protest last September, echoed that yesterday. “To say that you’ve achieved the gold standard for certain defendants by holding their trials in federal courts, and the rest can go to Gtmo, doesn’t necessarily resurrect the image of Gtmo or the military commissions as beacons of fairness. And if one of the stated goals in closing Gtmo is to restore America’s moral position in the world, the decision taken today won’t get us closer to accomplishing that.”

Holder’s justification for trying the Cole bomber and others by military commission is that in each case, their targets were a U.S. soldier or military installation. But isn’t that what we use our regularly constituted military courts for? Isn’t that why Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who last week apparently shot up 13 soldiers at the Fort Hood military base, is being tried by court martial? The only difference would appear to be that the suspects headed for military commissions are not American citizens. So that’s why they get an inferior justice system?

That decision combined with the implicit acknowledgment in Holder’s  announcement yesterday that U.S. federal courts a superior form of justice to the military commissions just highlights a question that’s becoming increasingly difficult to answer:  Just what is the purpose of those new military commissions?

Seeking the death penalty may be controversial, given that most of the suspects, including self-proclaimed mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, have said that they want to be put to death and thereby become martyrs for their cause.

That’s led some influential policy advisors to recommend that the 9/11 suspects not be given the death penalty, to deny them that apparent victory.

Additional concerns are the risks of trying the suspects in New York City, which some critics claim will make the city yet again a terrorist target. Others worry that the defendants can’t get a fair trial before jurors sitting so close to the scene of the Sept. 11, 2001 crime. Still others fear defense lawyers will use that concern to appeal any convictions.

At a press conference this morning, Holder sought to assuage the concerns by saying the utmost security measures would be employed, and “a really searching, complete voir dire process” will ensure that the jurors are fair. The voir dire process is how jurors are chosen for a particular trial.

As for whether evidence about their treatment by U.S. officials in custody will come out during the trial, Holder said that it depends on “how relevant were those statements” extracted by abusive measures, and “whether those statements will be used.” Even without statements elicited through waterboarding or other forms of torture or coercion, Holder said he’s “quite confident that we will be successful in our attempts to convict those men.” He did not say what would happen to the suspects if they were acquitted.

Holder called the decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court “about the toughest decision that I’ve had to make as attorney general.” A formal indictment listing the charges is expected soon.

The question of where Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attack, and four of his alleged assistants would be tried has been hotly debated for months now, with the administration leaning towards the federal court system and some Republicans and conservative Democrats insisting they don’t deserve the rights that system affords.

Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to make an announcement and provide further explanation later today.

The Graham amendment is expected to come to a vote today during consideration of the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill. The earlier Homeland Security and Defense Department spending bills already include restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

This restriction, which is reportedly backed by 150 family members of victims of the 9/11 attacks, would bar the trials of the alleged 9/11 plotters in civilian federal courts, effectively forcing them to be tried by military commissions.

The Obama administration has suggested that it wants to try the 9/11 suspects in federal court, and so far has fought to retain the power to decide where the terror suspects will be tried. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder warned Senate leaders that Graham’s amendment “would be unwise, and would set a dangerous precedent.”

The administration has said it will begin announcing where it wants to try the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay by November 16.

Yesterday, Jonathan Hafetz, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represented Al-Marri in his challenge to military detention, told The New York Times that the sentence by a federal judge was “a powerful reminder that America’s civilian courts can deliver justice even in the most challenging circumstances.” But David Rivkin, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official and strong supporter of military commissions to try suspected terrorists had a different take. Criminal courts are “ill-suited” to terror cases because the sentences are “a crap-shoot,” he said, adding that military commissions “arrive at a better judgment, being comprised of warriors, as to what level of danger the person poses.”

Al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident living in Peoria, Ill., before his arrest in late 2001, spent almost six years in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina without charge, mostly in isolation. Shortly before his case questioning the legality of his indefinite detention on U.S. soil was set to reach the Supreme Court,  the Obama administration transferred him to civilian custody, incarcerated him in a federal prison and prepared for his trial in federal court. But prosecutors agreed to accept a plea bargain, in which Al-Marri admitted that he’d been ordered by al-Qaeda official Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to move to the United States from his native Qatar and await instructions. Al-Marri moved his wife and five children to Peoria and he enrolled at Bradley University, where he had studied earlier. He admitted in his plea that he “researched online information related to various cyanide compounds” and communicated with other al-Qaeda operatives.

When al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 on charges of financial fraud, he hadn’t carried out any terrorist acts. But 18 months after his arrest, the government dropped the criminal charges and named al-Marri an “enemy combatant,” which in the Bush administration’s view, gave the government the right to hold him indefinitely in military custody. He remained at the Navy big, without charge or trial, until February.

Whether it’s legal for the United States to imprison indefinitely a lawful U.S. resident in a military prison on U.S. soil remains an open question, largely because the Obama administration did not give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule on it. That may have been a strategic move designed to leave open the possibility of using that power again, particularly since President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by January 2010, but hasn’t yet decided what to do with many of the detainees imprisoned there.

For Al-Marri, however, it means he will now serve another eight years in prison. (He faced up to 15 years, but the judge agreed to consider the time he’d already served.) Al-Marri yesterday tearfully apologized for helping al-Qaeda and said he no longer wants to harm the American people.

Notwithstanding Rivkin’s criticism of the federal court’s sentence, it’s worth noting that in the two contested cases where terror suspects were sentenced by military commissions for similarly assisting al-Qaeda, both received lighter sentences. Salim Hamdan, for example, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was sentenced by a military jury of “warriors” to just five and a half years in prison, and given credit for time served. He’s already back home in Yemen. In the other case, Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and was sentenced to only nine months in prison. A former kangaroo-skinner, Hicks is now home.

President Barack Obama (WDCpix)

In signing the Defense Authorization Act, which, among other things, amends the laws governing military commissions, President Obama confirmed Wednesday that he plans to keep the controversial military commissions alive. The effect is to deny at least some suspected terrorists — now called “unprivileged enemy belligerents” — the right to a trial in a civilian federal court. And though Obama has promised to use the commissions sparingly, the new law sets up a parallel justice system that could outlive the Obama administration and leave an indelible stamp on its legacy.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

Even those who fiercely oppose trying suspected terrorists in military commissions acknowledge that the months of wrangling over the legislation in Congress led to significant improvements over the Bush-era military commissions approved in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Still, there are many lingering concerns. The new commissions allow the admission of coerced evidence in certain narrow circumstances. They allow the government to try children as war criminals. And, the new law would allow trials by military commission for offenses that are not traditionally considered war crimes. Those provisions leave even the new-and-improved military commissions vulnerable to constitutional challenge, and their verdicts open to reversal on appeal. And that could undermine the entire purpose of creating military commissions, which is ordinarily to provide swift justice when ordinary courts are not available.

Many legal experts and human rights advocates say the improvements over the 2006 Military Commissions Act are significant.

Under the amendments, an “unprivileged enemy belligerent” — what the Bush administration used to call an “enemy combatant” — is entitled to competent, experienced defense counsel, particularly if the suspect might face the death penalty. The previous commissions did not provide for defense lawyers with significant experience handling capital cases.

The new commissions also require that most statements of the accused must have been “voluntary” to be admitted at trial. That’s in addition to the requirement that the statements were not solicited by torture, or by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as defined by the Detainee Treatment Act. Of course, the Detainee Treatment Act was interpreted by the Bush administration’s lawyer very liberally, so even extreme sleep and food deprivation, stress positions, threatening dogs and confinement with an insect in a small box was deemed lawful under that standard. But adding that the statement must also be “voluntary” — a change pressed by the Obama administration at several Congressional hearings — raises the bar significantly higher.

On the other hand, there is an exception. Statements are admissible even if not “voluntary” if “the statement was made incident to lawful conduct during military operations at the point of capture or during closely related active combat engagement, and the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.”  It remains to be seen how narrowly a judge will construe that.

The admission of hearsay evidence has been narrowed as well. The new law requires whoever introduces the evidence to give the other side enough advance warning to see the evidence and prepare a response, and the judge, in weighing the evidence, must “take into account all of the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statement, including the degree to which the statement is corroborated, the indicia of reliability within the statement itself, and whether the will of the declarant was overborne…” Then, in addition, the judge has to find that the statement is relevant and probative of a fact of the case, that it’s impractical to get direct testimony from the witness, and that “the general purposes of the rules of evidence and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.” That essentially mirrors the hearsay exception for evidence provided in a civilian federal court.

As for the admission of classified evidence, the military commission has to follow the same procedures a civilian federal court would to determine how and if the evidence can be used, and to what extent and in what form the accused and his lawyer are entitled to see it.

But if the procedural safeguards are so similar to those in federal court, then why have the military commissions at all? The question is even more important because Congress, in passing this law, defined the court’s jurisdiction to include crimes that are not traditionally war crimes, such as conspiracy, and suspects who are not traditionally considered war criminals, such as those who provide “material support” for terrorism. Even Assistant Attorney General David Kris, testifying before Congress, testified that it’s not clear that those crimes — which are commonly charged against terror suspects in civilian federal courts — can constitutionally be brought before a military commission. Justice Stevens, in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in an opinion joined by three other justices, specifically notes that “conspiracy” has not traditionally been considered a war crime. (The court did not ultimately rule on that basis, so it’s not clear how a majority would rule on it now.) Therefore, defense lawyers could argue that for Congress to make it a war crime after the suspect’s crime was committed would be an unconstitutional “ex post facto” law, says Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney of the Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

For the administration to bring a terrorism case before a military commission and be sure to avoid this issue, then, it would have to avoid charging conspiracy and substantial support for terrorism. Those charges are made in almost all terrorism cases.

Which raises the question, why bring cases in military commissions at all?

Justice John Paul Stevens in Hamdan argued that the purpose of military commissions is “military necessity.” Yet in this situation, as many legal experts have pointed out, it’s not at all clear that these commissions are necessary.

As the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer said in a statement released yesterday after the President signed the new law: “The commissions remain not only illegal but unnecessary – the federal courts have proven themselves capable of handling complex terrorism cases while protecting both the government’s national security interests and the defendants’ rights to a fair trial.”

Many other lawyers and advocates agree. A study conducted by former prosecutors for Human Rights First, for example, found that civilian federal courts had successfully prosecuted more than 214 terrorism cases since September 11, 2001. Prosecutors won 195 convictions, and successfully handled the challenges of unavailable witnesses, classified evidence, undercover informants and other complexities that arise in terrorism cases, the report found. By contrast, the military commissions created by President Bush after the 9/11 attacks and subsequently authorized by Congress tried only three cases. In only one of those did the defendant even put on a defense. In that case, Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was sentenced to only five and a half years in prison, with credit for the more than five years he’d already served. He was released to his home country of Yemen in January.

Part of the reason the military commissions have been so ineffective is because they were vulnerable to constitutional challenge. But legal experts say that even the new commissions would be vulnerable. As ACLU attorney Chris Anders put it, “they’ve narrowed the gap, but they still fall far short of the due process guarantees in Article III courts, which will still make them vulnerable to reversals.”

“This is a brand-new system, for the third time,” said Kadidal, referring to the two earlier incarnations of the military commissions during the Bush administration. The first commission system was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the second was suspended by the Obama administration.

“This lesser degree of process is not justice,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the bipartisan Constitution Project, in a statement released yesterday. “Furthermore, these modest improvements cannot save the irretrievably tainted military commissions.”

The Obama administration surely knows that these cases are vulnerable to challenge, particularly since Congress included provisions in them that Justice Department lawyers admitted were legally questionable. And it’s not clear that it wants to bring important cases in the military commissions, and risk having convictions of major terrorists reversed on appeal.

What’s more, there’s no “sunset provision” in the legislation, so the military commissions can exist indefinitely. That’s also contrary to what the administration itself asked for. David Kris, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, noted that traditionally, “military commissions have been associated with a particular conflict of relatively short duration.” Buy contrast, the current conflict “could continue for a much longer time.”

The result is that the military commissions could outlast the Obama presidency, raising another potentially sticky point that the Obama administration might prefer to avoid. “By not having a sunset provision,” said Kadidal, “this system will be a permanent part of President Obama’s legacy.”

Center for Constitutional Rights Executive Director Vincent Warren yesterday made the point even more starkly: “These are now President Obama’s military commissions: he owns them and all of the problems that come with them, and their inevitable failure will scar his legacy and embolden our critics in the world. Military commissions are an unnecessary, jury-rigged creation, second-rate in comparison to our legal system. Obama is tinkering with the Constitution for no good reason.”

As TWI reported last week, the biggest ongoing controversy is over where to try the five suspected 9/11 co-conspirators. The administration has said it prefers to try terror suspects in federal court, whenever possible, and legal experts say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators have all committed crimes easily triable in civilian court.

On the other hand, Congress last week passed amendments to the Military Commissions Act, giving military commissions broad jurisdiction over so-called “unprivileged enemy belligerents” (what the Bush administration called “enemy combatants”), suggesting that many lawmakers prefer trials by military commission.

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff acknowledged in his story late Friday that in fact, no final decisions have yet been made on where any of the detainees will be tried. As TWI reported, the U.S. Attorneys’ offices in four different federal jurisdictions are vying for the opportunity to try the cases, with prosecutors in Manhattan, the principal site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, making the strongest case.

Security concerns, as well as the ability to offer terror suspects a fair trial before a local New York jury, remain among the major challenges.