January 29, 2010 3:37 PM

U.S. to Seek Death Penalty in 9/11 Cases

(CBS/AP)  Last Updated 5:15 p.m. ET

Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be brought to trial in a civilian federal courthouse in New York, near the site of the devastating 2001 terror attacks. Prosecutors expect to seek the death penalty.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the long-awaited and politically fraught decision at a news conference Friday. He also said five other Guantanamo detainees, including a major suspect in the bombing of the USS Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will be tried through the military commission process.

Holder said the Sept. 11 defendants should be tried where their crimes occurred. Nearly 3,000 people died when the World Trade Center towers were brought down by two hijacked jetliners, another hijacked jet hit the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in western Pennsylvania.

"After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice," Holder said. "They will be brought to New York - to New York - to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood."

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in President Barack Obama's plan to close the terror suspect detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the prison by Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

"For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law," Holder said. "Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."

The plan that Holder outlined is a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.

"This is not a huge surprise. There have been hints that the attorney general was leaning in this direction but it's a huge departure from the strategy and tactics of the Bush administration, which had tried and failed to get Mohammed tried by the military," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

Early reaction was divided along political lines.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said bringing the terrorism suspects into the U.S. "is a step backwards for the security of our country and puts Americans unnecessarily at risk."

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said bringing Mohammed to New York for trial also could result in the disclosure of classified information. Kyl maintained that the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called "blind sheik" who was tried for a plot against some two-dozen New York City landmarks, caused "valuable information about U.S. intelligence sources and methods" to be revealed to the al Qaeda terrorist network.

Former President George W. Bush's last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge in New York, also objected: "The Justice Department claims that our courts are well suited to the task. Based on my experience trying such cases and what I saw as attorney general, they aren't."

But Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorists.

"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system - a system respected around the world," Leahy said.

Some family members of Sept. 11 victims were angered by the decision.

"We have a president who doesn't know we're at war," said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, had been the pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She said she was sickened by "the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys," if the trial winds up focusing on allegations that the suspects were tortured after their capture.

Some Sept. 11 families have supported the move toward public trials, saying they want to see justice done openly.

"If we claim to be a country that believes in the rule of law, then we need to behave that way ourselves," said John Leinung, the stepfather of Paul J. Battaglia, who died in the collapse of the twin towers.

"Sept. 11 families are like any other group of people," said Leinung. "There are going to be people with different outlooks, but there are a significant number of us who believe that the federal courts were the proper way to do this."

The New York case may force the court system to confront a host of difficult legal issues surrounding counterterrorism programs begun after the 2001 attacks, including the harsh interrogation techniques once used on some of the suspects while in CIA custody. The most severe method - waterboarding, or simulated drowning - was used on Mohammed 183 times in 2003, before the practice was banned.

The five suspects are headed to New York together because they are all accused of conspiring in the 2001 attacks. The five headed to military commissions face a variety of charges but many of them include attacks specifically against the U.S. military.

Holder said no decision had been made on where commission-bound detainees like al-Nashiri might be sent. A brig in South Carolina has been high on the list of sites under consideration.

The actual transfer of the detainees from Guantanamo to New York isn't expected to happen for many more weeks because formal charges have not been filed against most of them.

The attorney general decided the case of the five Sept. 11 suspects should be handled by prosecutors working in the Southern District of New York, which has held a number of major terrorism trials in recent decades at the courthouse in lower Manhattan. Other federal prosecutors from northern Virginia, site of the Pentagon, will help with the trial, he said.

Holder had been considering other possible trial locations, including Virginia, Washington, D.C., and a different courthouse in New York City. Those districts could end up conducting trials of other Guantanamo detainees sent to federal court later on.

The attorney general's decision in these cases comes just before a Monday deadline for the government to decide how to proceed against 10 detainees facing military commissions.

The administration has already sent one Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to New York to face trial. But he is not nearly as notorious as Mohammed, who has proudly proclaimed his role in 9/11 and dozens of terror plots.

Held at Guantanamo since September 2006, Mohammed said in military proceedings there that he wanted to plead guilty and be executed to achieve what he views as martyrdom. In a letter from him released by the war crimes court in September, he referred to the attacks as a "noble victory" and urged U.S. authorities to "pass your sentence on me and give me no respite."

Mohammed already has an outstanding terror indictment against him in New York, for an unsuccessful plot to simultaneously take down multiple airliners over the Pacific Ocean in the 1990s.

When some politicians have objected the trials would be too dangerous for nearby civilians, the Obama administration has pointed out that many terrorists have been safely tried, convicted, and imprisoned in the United States, including the 1993 World Trade Center bomber, Ramzi Yousef.

"The decision is a vote of confidence in the federal courts and in civilian prosecutors and there are still some safeguards in place to ensure that Mohammed doesn't turn the trial into a religious or political showpiece. There also are ways in which the feds can protect their classified information and still use it at trial," says Cohen.

Mohammed and the four others - Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali - are accused of orchestrating the 2001 attacks.

Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, the military lawyer appointed to represent Ramzi Binalshibh, said Sept. 11 attorneys had not been notified of the administration's decision but welcomed the apparent move to civilian court.

The four other detainees headed to military commissions in the United States are: Omar Khadr, Ahmed Mohammed al Darbi, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, and Noor Uthman Muhammed. Their cases are not specifically connected but two of them are accused of plotting against or attacking U.S. military personnel.

Barry Coburn, a lawyer for Khadr, called the decision about his client "devastating and shocking."

Khadr "was 15 years old when he was detained in Afghanistan as a child soldier and has been locked away in Guantanamo ever since," he said.

Supporters of a trial in the civilian court system in New York said the benefits for the trial's legitimacy outweigh the loss of any potentially tainted evidence.

"We can't be afraid of our own laws," said retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, who was the Navy's judge advocate general from 1997 to 2000 and is now president of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H.

© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 314 Comments
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 1:03 PM EST
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 8:04 AM EST
I do not deal with or handle terrorists detentions, in basic training, yes, we receive basic information called the 5S rule that applies.
--------------------------
What is the 5S rule? I can find no information about it. I asked this question before, but my post has since disappeared.
Reply to this comment
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 9:39 AM EST
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:00 AM EST
That is why I am glad I am not a lawyer and not an interrogator... It is not as simple as you think.
------------------------
Yes it is! Normal people know exactly what's right and what's wrong. Would you stand by and watch your mother being waterboarded?
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 11:38 AM EST
Again you are paraphrasing and cut and paste without the whole meaning of the context of what is written to mislead.

The above cut and paste you took from a thought out post (I did) is in reference to your only document wanting to "discuss" which is the Geneva Convention (GC), which you did not acknowledge has a lot of GREY and is not so much black and white. Also, we are working under US Law. Afghan law, US Rules of Engagement, ISAF ROE, Army Regulations and so on and so forth... so NO it is not that simple.

Maybe for you who have never served in uniform for your nation in time of war or conflict it is.

The other part you left out was (just using the GC) is just like a religious fanatic only using the Bible or Qur'an as the ONLY text to conduct your life in. There are manning interpretations of the same versus in both of those "Holy Texts".

So, for me to say (which I have already said), I have an issue with some interrogation techniques which includes water boarding is a generalized statement and is not meant to apply to EVERY situation at hand.

I remember in IRAQ there was a story of a Marine that "shot" a guy dead after he was "Down and wounded" while clearing a room... I think it was in Fallusha (SP?). The media jumped all over the story saying how it violated all kinds of GC rules and human rights and so on. After the investigation was concluded and finally a little bit of the fog of war lifted, come to find out... earlier that day the same individual was in a very similar situation and the "guy down" had a trigger and detonated an IED and killed a few of his men... so on this occasion just hours later the "guy down" made a very suspicious move looking like he was possibly going to detonate an IED with a trigger, the Marine shot him dead, even though he was "so-called unarmed". Come to find out there was no trigger on the guy who was shot dead, However, the Marine was found not guilty of breaking any laws.

Why did I bring this up? Because you try to take a snap shot of time as an outsider looking in and want to judge people, just like you will take a cut and paste of something someone posted and twist it, to try to prove your one-sided point of view.

I bet you were one of the people crying foul when the Marine was found not guilty of breaking any laws. It doesnt matter, because if you were, oh well get over it guy... that is called GREY or the "fog of war", both of which you are blind to.

I have to go now and will not be on for a while. I do wish you good luck and hope you find peace. I would hate going through life not open to another persons point of view... I understand yours somewhat, but you do not even try to take the time to really understand those who serve...you just complain and critize. Well, that is your right...enjoy it. Because if you were an Afghan before 2001, what kind of rights would you have had? Think about that Fink... REALLY think about that. Is Afghanistan better now then it was...the Afghans I talk to say 1000 times better, is it perfect NO, does it still have a long way to go - you bet, but we are here side by side with them making a difference.

What are you making? In my opinion... HOT AIR!
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 1:35 PM EST
Yes, I read about that incident in Fallujah at the time and I made no judgement because there was insufficient information....... and in fact there is still only hearsay evidence from fellow soldiers. So your conclusion about me is completely wrong.

So tell me, what possible doubt is there about the right and wrong of torturing a man lying bound, naked and shaking with fear in front of you? There is no 'fog of war', no instant reactions are needed, and the Geneva Conventions are unequivocal........
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 7:56 AM EST
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:52 AM EST
To answer your dumb question you act like all of us are interrogators and have that training. I am not in that line of work, how many times do you have to read that to understand it.
-------------------
So are you saying that you are given NO TRAINING about how to treat prisoners? It's a simple question, not a dumb one.......
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 8:04 AM EST
Fink,

I do not deal with or handle terrorists detentions, in basic training, yes, we receive basic information called the 5S rule that applies. But to act like I am a lawyer or an interrogator is absurb since you already know I deal with reconstruction and development.
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:46 AM EST
NICE TRY FINK below... you are as bad as the media who mislead people, why didnt you put the who statement?

To mislead people, that is why!

------------------------------------------
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:27 AM EST
Under the GC, you might as well not detain anyone, becuase I interpret it as you can not do anything to the individual at all.

Personally I do not agree with waterbording... is it legal? That is up to the courts to decide.
------------------------------------------
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:26 AM EST
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 6:41 AM EST
Are you told in your training that waterboarding is legal? If you only ever answer ONE question on this forum, answer THAT one...............
------------------------------

Fink, I am not an interrorgator so they do not tell me anything about that stuff.

-----------------------------
Reply to this comment
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 7:53 AM EST
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:46 AM EST
NICE TRY FINK below... you are as bad as the media who mislead people, why didnt you put the who statement?
-----------------------
Sorry, I don't understand, your English is not very good. What is "the who statement"?
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:57 AM EST
you know what it was suppose to read "special one"...

Whole... like your a whole lot of a special person, or if I would have typed hole... it would sound like the same word but different.
See all 4 Replies
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 7:16 AM EST
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 6:27 AM EST
Personally I do not agree with waterbording... is it legal?
------------------------
A member of the US armed forces, CW2 John Fleshman, TF Spartan, still doesn't know whether waterboarding is legal or illegal. Does anyone else find that astonishing and disturbing? What kind of training are US forces being given?????
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 7:52 AM EST
Funny Fink (Laughing) I posted on top of yours... with the complete quote... funny how you left that out.

To answer your dumb question you act like all of us are interrogators and have that training. I am not in that line of work, how many times do you have to read that to understand it.

Again, you are the special one!
by jefleshman November 16, 2009 2:37 AM EST
by finkfurst November 15, 2009 12:45 PM EST
I'm not criticizing you for defending anyone, I'm criticising the METHODS you're using.
-------------------------------

Sorry, Had to go earlier (Yesterday)

Thank goodness, I am NOT in that line of work (interrogator); I would have problems with some approved techniques as well (But I do not know the facts on the techniques and only know what you read about, so is it like most things "sensationalized" to sell a story or for a person to be "over dramatic" to get sympathy? I do not know).

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on what are acceptable detention and interrogation techniques for:

1. While engaged in active War and or Conflict
2. Normal everyday life (police business)

Because there is a difference and different standards are put in place because of that.

For example, I do not see an issue with "Sleep Deprivation" to find out more information (where does he get the stuff, who does he work for, who pays him, who else is in his cell... etc) for a captured terrorist (Intel confirms the guy is a bomb maker and has led to the deaths of Coalition Forces and Afghan citizens, not to mention in the house was all the bomb making material and he has already confessed during tactical questioning in his home), in War or Conflict, but it doesnt really seem appropriate in normal everyday life... such as Police catch a "suspect" who just robbed a gas station.



Your thoughts on what is appropriate for the 2 very different circumstances I mentioned?
Reply to this comment
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 3:16 AM EST
You asked me question 1 before and the answer is still perfectly obvious - the Geneva Conventions. What the hell did you think they're for? Wiping your backside? Maybe you haven't abused any prisoners yourself, but you work for an organisation that DELIBERATELY breaks the Geneva Conventions, and you have just admitted that you have a problem with that! How can you possibly continue? Don't you have any personal morals or integrity?

Question 2 - UK police procedures are just about right, and are very effective.

Have you noticed that I answer EVERY ONE of your questions clearly and honestly, but you can't answer mine. Would you like to know why that is?
by finkfurst November 16, 2009 3:44 AM EST
P.S. When I said "I'm criticising the METHODS you're using", I also meant your illegal invasion of countries, drone attacks killing innocent people, and much more.
See all 14 Replies
by 50BMS13 November 16, 2009 12:28 AM EST
The Liberals just love that these terrorists are given full US citizen rights. Why parade them in New York? New York has a HUGE BULLSEYE ON IT NOW! (Thanks to liberals and Obama.) When the next terror happens in New York you may as well say the government invited it. Weak leadership = happy terrorists. Shut those 4 mosques down and that skyscraper that launders money for terror. It is a start. If this trial doesn't become about torture and terrorists rights, then I'll eat my words. If they are convicted speedily and dealt with I for one will be surprised and will eat my words. BUT IF THIS BECOMES A TRIAL ABOUT BUSH AND INTELLIGENCE/TORTURE TACTICS, All you liberals owe us an apology. This is what the terrorists want this to be about. Is this what you want this to be about?
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:46 PM EST
Fink,

If the 5 mentioned in this article are found guilty, will you stop crying foul?

Or will continue to find something else to complain about?

Prove me wrong, I bet you will still complain and defend them!

Got to go for now, take care and smile once in a while Fink... the world is not all bad!
Reply to this comment
by finkfurst November 15, 2009 1:17 PM EST
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:46 PM EST
If the 5 mentioned in this article are found guilty, will you stop crying foul?
----------------------
Of course not! Have you not read ANYTHING I've written? I will only be satisfied when ALL those people detained by America are given EXACTLY the same rights as an American criminal suspect, and those who have not are properly compensated and given a full apology.

No, the world is not all bad. For once I agree with you! Some of it is astoundingly good and so are some of the people in it. I have had the privilege to meet a few, and one or two were from America. The real question is whether the world is REALLY better as a consequence of your 'war on terror', which you continue to support. Please answer that in the privacy of your own conscience.
by finkfurst November 15, 2009 12:20 PM EST
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:01 PM EST
Who is Binyam Mohamed? He sounds like a big deal in the UK (Laughing)
--------------------------------
You think it's FUNNY to lock an innocent man up for years and torture him????????????
Reply to this comment
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:31 PM EST
Fink,

Laughing... I am Laughing at your ignorance! Not the situation, which you only read about (When I googled his name all the stories were from the UK).

In this case I had to read about too. And provided you with a good look into "WHAT" this dude was going to do with his AQI (terrorist)training.

Keep defending your friends Fink! It is ok to stick by your friends.
by finkfurst November 15, 2009 12:37 PM EST
Why is it that the only way you can attack my arguments is to try to imply that I approve of terrorism?

The only 'facts' you can muster are unattributed accounts. Read what he has ACTUALLY said, not what some trash online magazine claims he said whilst being detained and tortured.

Come on...... WHAT DID HE DO TO WARRANT BEING LOCKED UP FOR YEARS AND TORTURED?
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 11:06 AM EST
Fink I LOVE how you will take one to very few cases to justify ALL detentions as everyone is innocent and cry "there was no reason to detain".

Again, you are a special person who has never served in the military while in combat.

Lets see all the detention examples:

1. Shoting Mortars/rockets
2. Firing Direct fire weapons (PRGs and AK47s)
3. Setting up IEDs and Making IEDs
4. Internally financing and facilitation of the Terrorist network
5. Suicide Bomber with the frigging vests in their homes or vehicles
6. Participating in planning attacks against the Gov't Of Afghanistan
7. Providing sanctuary to the terrorists (trying to hide them after they attack us)
And the list goes on and on

YOU ARE SPECIAL and live in a "Fink World" where reality doesn't come into play. Seriously, do you think we just randomly detain someone? If so there is no use even continuing responding to your "Special Posts"
Reply to this comment
by finkfurst November 15, 2009 11:41 AM EST
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 11:06 AM EST
Lets see all the detention examples: [Note "ALL"]
1. Shoting Mortars/rockets
2. Firing Direct fire weapons (PRGs and AK47s)
.... etc.
----------------
So which of these 'offences' did Binyam Mohamed commit that justified his imprisonment and torture? He is not just one example, he's the first of MANY that I can ask you about................ answer this one first and then we can move on to some more.

Come on John, you're way out of your depth, but far more importantly you're simply one of the bad guys now. Why not admit it and try to make amends?

P.S. Your update on ancestry.com after I criticised it is even funnier!
by jefleshman November 15, 2009 12:01 PM EST
Fink,

You are special... Seriously, there have been by 'your accounts' thousands of detainees and you choose one dude... so how about the thousand others...

I do not even know who B. Mohamed is? I have to look him up on the internet.

So to be "out of depth"... The same goes for you... you only read about stuff and have no REAL examples to draw your OWN conclusions... you have to REALLY on the media and OTHERS to give you answers.

How about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees
-----------------------------
Who is Binyam Mohamed? He sounds like a big deal in the UK (Laughing)

SOURCE:http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/binyam_mohamed_the_f.php

Some press reports have repeated the claim that Mohamed went to Afghanistan before the September 11 attacks for the purpose of kicking his drug habit. This is a flimsy alibi, to say the least. Why would anyone go to the heroin capital of the world to get away from drugs? In fact, there is no doubt that Mohamed traveled to Afghanistan in June 2001 to receive training in an al Qaeda camp. Mohamed admitted this to the personal representative assigned to handle his case at Guantánamo. Mohamed did not testify at his hearing at Guantánamo, but his personal representative submitted a memo on his behalf. The memo indicates that Mohamed "admitted items 3A1-4 on the UNCLASS summary of evidence." That is a reference to the unclassified summary-of-evidence memo that was prepared by the US government for Mohamed's case.

The items Mohamed admitted include the following:

1. The detainee is an Ethiopian who lived in the United States from 1992 to 1994, and in London, United Kingdom, until he departed for Pakistan in 2001.
2. The detainee arrived in Islamabad, Pakistan, in June 2001, and traveled to the al Farouq training camp in Afghanistan, to receive paramilitary training.

3. At the al Farouq camp, the detainee received 40 days of training in light arms handling, explosives, and principles of topography.

4. The detainee was taught to falsify documents, and received instruction from a senior al Qaeda operative on how to encode telephone numbers before passing them to another individual.


At a minimum, therefore, we know that Mohamed has admitted being an al Qaeda-trained operative.

Mohamed claims that he was not going to use his skills against America. Mohamed told his personal representative that "he went for training to fight in Chechnya, which was not illegal." In 2005, Mohamed's lawyer echoed this explanation in an interview with CNN. "He wanted to see the Taliban with his own eyes," Mohamed's lawyer claimed. "I am not saying he never went to any Islamic camp," the lawyer conceded, but he "didn't go to any camp to blow up Americans."
See all 9 Replies
See all 314 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook