During the past few weeks it has been difficult to keep track of the Obama administration’s position on where the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is to take place. Mohammed is accused of being the chief strategist behind the attacks of Sept. 11. The administration has gone back and forth between New York City and an unspecified other location within the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder wants the trial to take place in New York City.

It is also undecided whether the trial will be a military tribunal instead of a civilian trial. A military tribunal has no jurors, just military officers, and is designed to prosecute enemies of the U.S. when at war. A tribunal has other various procedural differences that include more restrictions on how the trial proceeds. In general, it is more difficult to be tried in a civilian court because of the rules.

More conservative politicians have brought up several arguments against the civilian trial that President Obama has, at times, advocated for. Jed Babbin of Human Events, an organization collecting signatures against Mohammed getting a civilian trial, believes that his trial would be a ‘media circus’ if it were not a military tribunal. Babbin also argues that there are too many technicalities that could lead to Mohammed’s acquittal. Conservatives have argued that trying Mohammed in a civilian trial would give him a stage that allows him to express his anti-American rhetoric to the rest of the world.

If our justice system works, it should be able to convict Mohammed. The lack of faith in the U.S. justice system when it is under pressure is remarkable. What is more frustrating is the hypocrisy of many of the politicians who are against Obama’s desire for a civilian trial. The same individuals did not object when the administration of George W. Bush prosecuted Richard Reid in a civilian trial. Reid was a British citizen who tried to explode gunpowder concealed in his shoe onboard an airplane on Dec. 22, 2001. It’s difficult to rationalize why there has been a change in thinking when the two situations are nearly identical.

A civilian trial is the correct measure. It demonstrates that our values in a free and open society have not been reshaped by the terrorists’ desire to harm the U.S. It becomes very risky when we selectively ignore our basic laws and principles of fairness in order to build a sense of security.

Those who believe that Mohammed should be tried in a military tribunal need to consider that this is how our society works. If our legal system has to adapt to the unique nature of the defendant, it’s not a just legal system. We need not have a separate trial system for those deemed to be enemies of the U.S. We just need one that is consistent, whether the defendant is a U.S. citizen or not. Many are infuriated that their tax dollars will end up paying the lawyers to defend Mohammed, yet they forget that murderers and other violent criminals also share the same benefit. Sometimes to keep evenhandedness, we must do things we do not want to.

Mohammed’s trial will mainly be a symbolic one. It will demonstrate to the rest of the world that the U.S. has not given up on the justice it is supposed to stand for. Having the trial in New York City would add to the symbolism, proving that New York has recovered from the attacks that occurred more than eight years ago. However, it is not necessary. If it over-inconveniences the residents of New York City, their desires should be respected. Either way, justice must be served.

Harmen Rockler is an undeclared freshman in the College of Arts and Sciences. His column appears bi-weekly, and he can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on February 15, 2010 at 12:00 pm