Making the case for 9/11 mastermind’s civilian trial

There has been much controversy these past few days over the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind 9/11, in a civilian court. Opponents to the idea have a variety of arguments against it: that it would be too expensive; that it gives Mohammed too much of an “advantage”; that it tries the brutal terrorist with more humaneness than he deserves; that he ought to be tried in a military tribunal; and etc. For example, here’s what Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City at the time of the attacks, had to say on the matter:

“It gives an unnecessary advantage to the terrorists and why would you want to give an advantage to the terrorists, and it poses risks for New York,” Mr. Giuliani said in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Normally, there is a fair amount to appreciate about Giuliani (such as his support for abortion rights, gay rights in general, stem-cell research, his general opposition to the death penalty, etc.), but there is nothing to like in such stupid drivel. First of all, the idea that a civilian tribunal would give Mohammed an “advantage” is utterly ridiculous. What, does he really believe that a country that imprisons over 10% of its own population – that’s over 35 million, to give you an idea of scale – is going to go easy on a terrorist who not only has bulks of evidence concretely and directly linking him to the attacks, but who even proclaims with pride that he himself is the one who thought it all up? Anyone who seriously believes that there is even the slightest risk of Mohammed just walking off deserves to be abjectly ridiculed for their foolishness. Trust me: it ain’t happenin’.

There are other claims the Right constantly spouts that need refuting. Such as the claim that it would be better if Mohammed were tried as an “enemy combatant” in a military tribunal. This is nonsense; there would be no distinguishable difference in the outcome. Either way, Mohammed will be convicted of any number of charges of murder, terrorism and so on, and will be sent to jail for the rest of his life – if a miracle occurs and he escapes the death penalty, that is. His case is certainly one of the rare few in which I would have little against him being removed from the world once and for all.

Also, the idea that a civilian tribunal for Mohammed would be too expensive: seriously. Come on. It’s no more expensive than any other high-profile court case or terrorist trial, and I’ve rarely heard people complain about high monetary costs for them. Yet, suddenly, because it is the man behind 9/11, it’s too expensive?

And finally, anyone who claims that Mohammed does not deserve to be treated with humaneness need to look at themselves in the mirror. If we are to be a people of righteous morality and of good heart and faith, it means we need to stand and act on principles that apply to absolutely everyone, including our worst enemies, those who commit acts of untold cruelty and horror upon us. Some even advocate Mohammed be tortured; such thinking sickens me. How can we call ourselves morally superior to them if we treat our captives the same way they treat theirs? Torture is wrong. This is not a debate; it is a fact. Only the heartless or the emotionally anguished can claim otherwise. We must think rationally, and rationality tells us that causing pain and suffering upon others for such reasons as retribution doesn’t make any good sense. As Prot said, the old “eye for an eye” rule truly is stupid, serving no other purpose than to vent our own pain and frustrations unto others.

I fully support the idea that Mohammed should be tried by a civilian court and sentenced there. If anything, it will show people – both us, and our enemies – that no-one is to be treated differently, no matter who they are or what they’ve done. That even the basest and most terrible of criminals are on no higher or lower footing than anyone else when it comes to criminal justice. If anything, this is symbolically important in many ways, demonstrating how a true democratic society is governed by laws and conventions that apply to everyone equally. In other words, it shows how we truly are better than them.