On Friday, November 13, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made a shocking announcement: The Justice Department will bring five enemy combatants, currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, to the United States. Here, they will face prosecution for their involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. Most notably, the self-confessed mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will return to the scene of the violence he orchestrated when he stands trial in a U.S. federal court in lower Manhattan.

In the days since the administration’s announcement, intense opposition has erupted in New York, in Washington, and across our nation. Former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, who worked tirelessly to help his grieving city get back on its feet after the Twin Towers collapsed, has been justifiably one of the fiercest critics. 

Mr. Guiliani recently stated, "If there was no other choice…I [would] support this. But the reality is there is another choice. It is a better choice for the government. This choice of New York is a better choice for the terrorists. Why would you seek to give the terrorists a better choice than you're giving the public?"

                           A Historical Precedent
Indeed, there is an alternative. War criminals have been tried in military tribunals for centuries. The U.S. has used them since our founding, prosecuting Major John Andre in 1780 as a spy for the British and co-conspirator of Benedict Arnold during the Revolutionary War. In 1949, the Geneva Convention established protocols to govern military trials. 

After September 11, the U.S. faced the new challenge of detaining and prosecuting some of the most dangerous enemies in our history, and Congress and the Bush administration sought a balance of justice and security. In 2006, the Military Commission Act passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and it outlined a legal process that would bring enemy combatants of this long war to justice. With this system and these precedents in place, there is no need to invite the terrorists back into our communities.

The administration seems hesitant to acknowledge that we are engaged in a war with global terrorists.  They are treating the September 11 planners as ordinary criminals in civil court, rather than as war criminals standing before military tribunals.  The fact remains that the terrorists are at war with us. Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda operatives have clearly and repeatedly stated their intent to violently destroy our way of life.

The administration’s decision is troubling and fraught with risk.

                              High Stakes Trials
First, previous public criminal trials of terrorists have compromised U.S. intelligence, publicized our strategies, and revealed sensitive information we have on al-Qaeda. Because so much evidence collected on the battlefield is inadmissible in court, prosecutors may be forced to divulge secrets in order to get a conviction. The enemy will be watching. During the public trial of those behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, Osama Bin Laden learned that he was a top U.S. target and subsequently went into hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan where he evades detection even today.

Second, administration officials have admitted that detainees on U.S. soil will have greater rights than those held outside the country. Al-Qaeda leaders have reportedly threatened to use our laws against us. By giving these detainees their day in a U.S. courtroom, they will be protected by the very liberties and values they have pledged to destroy.

Third, this decision raises chances that terrorists can be released on our soil. Conviction is never a guarantee. Military tribunals allow for the unique circumstances of interrogation or evidence collection on the battlefield, but U.S. criminal courts have much more stringent procedural guidelines that could make key evidence inadmissible. To have a confessed terrorist acquitted on a technicality would be the gravest miscarriage of justice. It could potentially place dangerous individuals in American communities.

Finally, even under the vigilant guard of local and federal officials, the presence of terrorism trials on U.S. soil makes our communities targets for further violence. Those who wish to exploit the events will seek every vulnerability and opportunity to continue the spread of violence, requiring cities to take unprecedented security measures that will be costly and logistically complex. 
 
The violence America witnessed on September 11 necessarily changed the way we think and the way we live. This decision will take us back to the days that preceded the attacks – when we did not know the threat we faced or the destruction it was capable of inflicting on our nation. The Obama administration should consider the needless risks of voluntarily bringing terrorists back onto our soil and change its course.

###