In Support of a Civilian Trial: United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Not be a Test Case
The American Security Project today released a new report, authored by ASP Adjunct Policy Analyst Justin Rubin, which assesses the decision to try to case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court. The piece, entitled: “In Support of a Civilian Trial: United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Should Not be a Test Case,” argues that the case is better tried in a civilian court, because of military commissions’ inexperience. This difference makes using a civilian court to try the 9/11 case – which is too important, high-profile, and sensitive to serve as a test case – essential.
Insights include:
– The law governing the current military commission – the Military Commission Act of 2009 – was passed less than three months ago and due to its lack of judicial testing, is likely to face significant questions in any case under it.
– Prior to ruling against the first post 9/11 military commissions, the Supreme Court had not ruled on the constitutionality of military tribunals in over 50 years. In that time, the United States signed the Geneva Convention, which defined rights for prisoners of war, and the Supreme Court expanded civil liberties protections, changing the landscape of the law behind the tribunals.
– While military commissions remain untested, civilian courts have been demonstrably effective in handling terrorist prosecutions.
– By choosing the more stable forum, the Attorney General avoided lengthening the process for trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and placing an unnecessary burden on the country and the families of the 9/11 victims.
Click Here to Download the Report >>
