By Charlie Meyer:

In the film “Casablanca”, Humphrey Bogart replied to a Nazi officer asking about the prospect of German troops in New York City: “Well, there are certain parts of New York, Major, that I'd advise you not to try to invade.” I guess it never was shown enough in Arabic. Bogie kissing Ingrid Bergman probably wouldn't fly in that corrupt “religious” family racket called Saudi Arabia, anyway.

The last time I looked, these United States took great pains to insure the fairest application of justice under law. We have almost always been leery of subscribing to the World Court, or adjudicating beyond these shores, believing in our own system of justice. While imperfect on rare occasions, American jurisprudence has almost always been more fair than anything else man could devise. Why then are the al Queda detainees feared so much to subvert one of our most cherished institutions: Justice? Obviously, some of my pals on the Right need a civics refresher.

The proposal to try “enemy combatant” suspects under military tribunals isn't new. In 1942, several almost comically inept German Abwehr agents landed in Maine and Long Island by submarine, were quickly captured, tried by military tribunal, convicted, and, except for one defendant who provided evidence against his co-conspirators, were executed. Even then, the sentences were reviewed and upheld by the Supreme Court. We hadn't “offshored” it then, unlike the last conservative clown troupe (Dubya, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez), who “super-sized” the program with torture, secret detention, extraordinary rendition to places without even GOP scruples, and proposed the wholesale use of trial by military tribunals. Never forget the lessons of history: sixty-odd years ago, another Right-wing government, an adversary whose surviving leaders would later hang at Nuremburg by the score for their crimes, had a policy of denying Allied military raiding parti! es the protection of the Geneva Conventions, and programs such as “Nacht und Nabel (Night and Fog)”, where irregular resistance suspects were consigned to death in concentration camps in secret. Judge Roland Freisler meting out death with a swish from a robed hand from the dais of "The People's Court." Is this something we want to emulate? I think and hope not. We applied military tribunals in and just after the Second World War; the fractious relationships among the Allied victors and the massive scope of death and destruction required an International Military Tribunal to determine guilt and punish the culpable individuals of the Axis powers. Since then, we try terrorists as common criminals, trials that belong in established civilian criminal courts. The current detainees have not been held as prisoners of war, ergo, they should be subject to trial in a criminal court, as any other criminal suspect. You can't have it both ways.

America is a signatory to the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Before you let mob anger control your thoughts, deeds, and national policy, remember the American soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine, whose life might just depend upon how an adversary regards these treaty obligations. Whatever lapses in the treatment of military captives our enemies have, our “taking the gloves off”, as the “anything goes” mob wants, won't bode well for our servicemembers in enemy custody, now or in the future.

Reconcile that with your “Support the Troops” sticker in the safety of these Appalachian hills.

Trying suspects near the scene of their crimes is a prosecutor's favorite tactic. Despite the increased difficulty of empaneling an impartial jury, a fair trial before the bar of American justice in our quintessential city is appropriate demonstration of the American way to those who aimed to harm it.  

We've had a couple of hundred years to build and refine our system of justice, with many bad examples found throughout the world shaping what not to do.

We need not, and should not, seek to conduct justice from the shadows. I lived and worked for many years inside the Beltway, and a longstanding joke was that if you wanted to keep something secret, don't tell it to anyone in Washington. Everything, especially shoddy legal work, comes out eventually.

For those who fear the terrorists using the courtroom for their soap box, let's not forget the words of Federal District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema as she sentenced an al Queda conspirator to six life sentences in federal prison. After the defendant tried to show jihad bluster from the dock, Judge Brinkema was quoted by the BBC: "When this proceeding is over, everyone else in this room will leave to see the sun... hear the birds... and they can associate with whomever they want. You will spend the rest of your life in a [S]upermax prison. It's absolutely clear who won ...You came here to be a martyr

in a great big bang of glory, but to paraphrase the poet T. S. Eliot, instead you will die with a whimper. ... You will never get a chance to speak [in public] again and that's an appropriate ending."

That's not mob speak; that comes from a jurist with thirty-odd years ' experience in the law. By the way, she's a Jersey girl, they're not considered “pushovers.” Trust me. The Bushies found this out when Judge Brinkema derailed Ashcroft's clumsy death penalty case attempts that trampled the Sixth Amendment, ultimately sanctioning the Justice Department for prosecutorial misconduct. She still put the creep away for multiple life sentences in our harshest prison, but according to the law and the Constitution.   I hope he hasn't tried holding his breath for his al Queda “buddies” to do something to spring him; it appears they forgot him too. Isn't American justice sweet?

Hey folks! It's New York City. There's no better place to show those Third World "religious” wacko thugs “how we do things Downtown.” I know just the gal for the job. Put Judge Brinkema on the Metroliner train to New York. Let them be judged in accordance with the Constitution.

I admit it. After 9/11 I wanted to see whoever was left among the terrorist culprits shackled up and brought to trial in the United States District Court in southern Manhattan. Of course in my mind it looked something like the end of “Hang ‘Em High,” with New York City crowds waiting to get their well deserved look at justice/retribution. The thought creates a mentally pleasing complete circle of symbolism. In the practical world, is this a good idea?

Federal courts can seat themselves anywhere provided by Congress. They could meet in your living room if the legislative branch has the mind to put them there and compensate you for use of your property. A century ago one operated in Shanghai, China. The Constitution states that Congress has this prerogative. Terror trials absolutely do not have to take place in New York City.

Why not New York City? Would not the symbolism of this event help heal wounds and send a message? Maybe, but maybe not. These considerations are based on our feelings about the event; we probably cannot imagine how this spectacle will be received by our friends and enemies in the Middle East. What we do know is that terror trials in New York City will create a huge set of nightmares for everyone involved.

Consider the sheer cost involved in having these trials in a certain place because it will make people “feel good.” Khalid Shiek Muhammed and his cohorts obviously are not your average defendants. Any place that tries them naturally must take the most extreme security precautions. City, state, and federal law enforcement must pull themselves away from their normally busy schedule of crime solution and prevention to protect the area around the courthouse for how long? Weeks?  Months? Who will pay for this protection? The federal government welshed on reimbursing Virginia, DC, and Maryland for police protection costs connected with Obama’s inauguration. Why expect them to reimburse New York and New Jersey? The security needed would be comparable to that for a political convention, but without the definite week limit of need and the huge spending by partying participants.   Add to that the uncountable cost of the loss of tourism dollars (who wants to go have fun! in a terror target?) and the increased inconvenience for everyone living or working in that part of New York City. These skyrocketing costs will come at the expense of a city, state, and country already deeply in debt and struggling to pay bills. Even worse, if terrorists unleash a WMD in Manhattan, how will people leave safely and efficiently? We should never bow down due to fears of terrorism, but why give them additional reasons to attack our most densely populated city? Obama’s need for a public relations coup should not trump security and pragmatism.

How about a different approach? If the trials must go on, and that is certainly not a necessity, then move the venue to someplace more secure and inhospitable. A city with millions of people crowded onto a single island is not secure. The best possible location for a terror trial, outside of Guantanamo Bay (also a non starter with this administration) would be a temporary federal court established someplace remote and isolated, like for instance Midway Island or Howard Atoll. Forty government

employees live on Midway and no one lives on Howard Atoll, although a military facility once housed 1,100 servicemen and their families.   What could be more secure than either of these islands that are hundreds of miles from civilization in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Howard Atoll obviously has structures in place that could serve as a temporary courthouse. Those participating would have Spartan housing available too. Would it be comfortable? Probably not, but this is a trial, not a vacation.

Some opponents of the New York City trials do not oppose the venue as much as the idea of having the trial right now at all. I tend to agree with these people, but the trials are going to happen. Obama may be able to push nothing else through as he wants, but this is one thing he will get. The thought of Muhammed spending his life silently in a supermax cell gives me great pleasure (this is a time when, for cultural reasons, they should take the death penalty off the table.) The main problem lies in the

cost and the danger posed to anyone living or working close to the courthouse.

Facing facts means accepting that these trials will happen. However, the country cannot afford the luxury of trying these defendants in New York City. Not only money, but lives will be at risk. This risk comes for what purpose? Symbolism? And all the cost might end up being for naught anyway. When the defendants first go to New York, forcing the expenditures on all those costly resources, guess what will happen? First thing out of any good defense lawyer’s mouth will be a request for a change

of venue. He will argue that his or her client will not get a fair trial in Manhattan. It’s not likely, but it is possible, that the court might agree and move the whole trial somewhere else and start the security arrangements all over again. Do it right the first time. Put the trials someplace secure.