Attorney General Eric Holder announced that five detainees, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will be tried in New york City and another five will be tried by military tribunals, including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the bombing the U. S, navy destroyer, the USS Cole in Yemen.

The trial of Mohammed promises to be the biggest trial since the OJ trial. It carries risks and benefits for the United States. The difference between military tribunals and trials in the United States District Court is that a District Court trial must follow all of the rights found in the Bill of Rights, while the defendant’s rights are more limited in a trial before a military tribunal. Specifically the Supreme Court has ruled that testimony obtained by torture or coercion cannot be used in a court but it is permissible before the military tribunals.

Some family members of those who died and conservative Republicans argue that terrorists do not deserve the same rights as American citizens. But by giving terrorist the same rights as we give to others accused of crimes we exhibit our belief in our judicial system and our humanity. What if some of the detainees are innocent. We believe that people are innocent until proven guilty and none of the detainees have been proven guilty in a court of law. Certainly innocent people deserve the full benefit of our laws and the Bill of Rights.

But there are certainly risks involved. It may lead to further terrorist attacks on New York City. They may come on the day set for trial, the day the verdict comes down or on the date of sentencing. While the world may admire our Bill of Rights it will not admire the death penalty if the defendants are convicted. Some may say the death penalty is as barbaric as some of the terrorist acts. Furthermore the government will be rightly blamed for bringing Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri to trial before the tribunal and not in a court of law. The use of testimony obtained through torture will and should be condemned. Furthermore, the use of the death penalty may make the detainees martyrs in many parts of the world and lead to revenge on the United States.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani who is accused of participating in the 1998 bombing of the United States embassies in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya in which 224 people were killed was transferred from Guantanamo to New York City where he will stand trial. He is the first person held in Guantanamo to be transported to the United States for trial. Immediately upon his arrival he was taken to the U. S. District Court where he entered a not guilty plea.

He was arrested five years ago in Pakistan and he has been held in Guantanamo for three years. Between the time of his arrest and his placement in Guantanamo Ghailani was kept in secret foreign CIA prisons.

He is accused of buying a truck used in the Dar Es Salaam bombing. It is also alleged that he bought and loaded explosives onto the vehicle. From 2001 to 2004 it is alleged that he worked as a forger, forging documents for Al Qaeda,

Wadih el-Hage, an American citizen was convicted in 1998 of conspiring with Al Qaeda to kill Americans. He is serving his sentence at a super secure prison in Florence, Alabama. In the same trial Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-’Owhali, Khalfan Khamis Mohamed, and Mohammed Saddiq Odeh were convicted of murder in connection with the bombing of the embassies. they are also serving life terms.

Whatever happens Ghailani’s prosecution and trial must be carried out with the greatest transparency. In order to validate the trial in the eyes of the international community and in compliance with President Obama’s opening to the Muslim world the government should invite international observer including representatives from Muslim countries and representatives of Al Qaeda to observe the trial. The observers must be given the greatest latitude to view American jurisprudence. Furthermore Ghailani’s attorneys must be provided with all of the documents and discovery necessary for a vigorous and zealous defense. Not only will such efforts justify the trial in the eyes of the world community but it will prevent revengeful terrorist attacks on this nation if there is a conviction.

The release of nine Department of Justice memos written in the months following the 9/11 attacks, during the Bush presidency, shows the total contempt the government had for the Bill of Rights.

In an October 23, 2001 memo Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert J. Delahunty stated that not only could he military be used to arrest terrorists in the United States but that they did not have to comply with Fourth Amendment requirements regarding the use of search warrants. In a September 25, 2002 memo Yoo justified amending the law to allow warrantless searches in the United States to obtain intelligence.

Also in the October 23, 2001 memo Yoo stated that, “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo wrote, in another memo: “The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

A cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is that when the language of the statute (or the Constitutional amendment) is clear the plain language supersedes other interpretations. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It has no exception for terrorists or for al-Qaeda or for the whims of George Bush and John Yoo. As Benjamin Franklin said,

They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.

As Edward R. Morrow said,

We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home

As Abraham Lincoln said,

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

The memos point out the need for Senator Patrick Leahy’s Truth Commission. Such a commission would investigate torture, illegal wiretaps, and other violations of human rights.

For it is clear that if we violate our own rights we cannot cry when others violate rights.

The government, according to The Daily Five indicted Al Saleh Kahlah al-Marri for allegedly giving material support to Al Qaeda. Al-Marri, a native of Qatar was arrested in the United States and imprisoned on a naval brig for 5 1/2 years. The Bush administration considered him an enemy combatant and refused to try him. His detention and imprisonment without being charged is currently set to be heard by the Supreme Court next month. Perhaps it is to avoid a Supreme Court decision that the Obama administration indicted him in Illinois.

Al-Marri first came to the United States to attend Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. He graduated in 1991 and returned to Qatar. He came back to the United State on September 10, 2001 with his family to get a graduate degree from Bradley. He was arrested by the government and held as a material witness in the 9/11 attack. He was indicted on credit card charges and for lying to the FBI. In 1993 President Bush declared him a enemy combatant and transferred him to military custody. Since then he has been held in a military brig off the coast of Charleston, South Carolina.

“This indictment is an important step toward restoring the rule of law and is exactly what should happen when the government suspects an individual of terrorist acts,” ACLU lawyer Jonathan Hafetz who represents him. Attorney General Eric Holder is quoted in thge New Yorker as saying: “This indictment is an important step toward restoring the rule of law and is exactly what should happen when the government suspects an individual of terrorist acts,”

In al-Marri’s habeas matter the government is trying to avoid a decision which may apply to other enemy combatant who may be arrested in the future while legally in this country by moving to dismiss the case in the Supreme Court as moot. Al-Merri is the only enemy combatant currently housed in the United States or who was in this county legally at the time of his arrest.