ABA Backs Federal Court Trials of Alleged 9/11 Plotters

The president of the American Bar Association sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. today praising the decision to pursue federal court prosecutions of five Guantanamo detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 attacks.

The Nov. 25 letter, signed by ABA President Carolyn Lamm, comes after Holder became the target of criticism from conservative politicians for his decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others in New York.

The letter calls the military commissions before which the detainees were originally charged “constitutionally flawed” and lauds the U.S. court system as “well-equipped to handle trials of this magnitude.”

“[N]o matter how heinous the charges, the long awaited trials of these alleged terrorists must be both fair and perceived as fair, or the resulting verdicts will not be recognized as legitimate,” the letter reads. “The accused must receive the competent assistance of counsel, be afforded due process, and treated as innocent until proven guilty.”

Lamm was not immediately available for comment.

The ABA posted the letter in its entirety on its Web site.

Comments

[thedoctor2001]

Just another reason NOT to join this leftist organization.

[GSM]

Okay, but Holder also announced that 5 detainees would be tried in military commissions, so did the ABA condemn and laud the AG at the same time?

[ed hardy]

I read this article, This post was so great. Thanks for sharing.

[Greg Botvinik]

The problem with the ABA is that they're lawyers first and Americans a distant second. It's more important for them to toe the "civil rights" line for enemy combatants than to worry about the safety and security of the United States. I'm sorry, but if you take up arms against the U.S., expect to pay the price if you're caught. They are not citizens and therefore, don't warrant the due process safeguards that citizens enjoy. They're POW's and should be locked up until the war is over. If they have to be tried, it should be in a military court and, if convicted, punished accordingly. If that means execution, so be it. And don't try that international law nonsense because they don't belong to an army that is a signatory to international agreements. These people would cut our throats in a nano-second if given the chance, so we need to deal with them in the only way that they understand: with brute force.

[David Governo]

Dear ABA
These attacks were an act of war and to provide these terrorists with the rights of Americans is wrong. The ABA's position is not only ill-advised, but our group should stay out of this.
David Governo

[dr. anthony]

Social psychologists have observed that any decision that buttresses an organization's power, i.e., influence and control, is suspect.

By supporting the civil venue as the proper venue the ABA is lobbying for and supporting its member's influence and control over the general issue of what to do with captured terrorists.

I suggest that by striving to increase its members power and influence, the ABA is overlooking and/or disregarding the tangible national security issues created by trying this terrorist in our civil courts. Put aside for a moment the re-terrorizing of New York City victims, put aside the circus atmosphere inherent in a "show trial", and put aside the fact that were defense counsel to win an acquittal, the terrorists on trial will never be permitted to walk free, put all of that aside, one is still left with nothing more than a decision in support of its members.

[bonnie klein]

Excellent comments - and perspective! Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Bonnie Klein
www.legal-eagles.com