Don't let plotters control 9/11 trials

OUR OPINION: Process must be fair, lay out the case of suspects' criminality

Once again, the legitimacy of the Guantánamo military commissions has been called into question, this time by the accused 9/11 plotters and their self-proclaimed mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Their offer to plead guilty must be seen in the context of their loathing for the United States as a display of contempt for the proceedings at Guantánamo and, by extension, the American government and its people.

Unfortunately, the process at Guantánamo has made it all too easy for them because it lacks the usual protections for defendants' rights that are a hallmark of the traditional U.S. system of justice.

Wish for `martyrdom'

Some of the defendants -- notably Mohammed, who was subjected to waterboarding -- have been tortured. The rules of conventional trials have been softened to make it easier for the prosecution to offer hearsay and otherwise introduce evidence a U.S. court would never allow. This undermines the entire process and leaves any punishment issued by the commission -- especially a death penalty -- open to question.

The offers to plead guilty by Mohammed and the other accused terrorists are little more than an effort to manipulate the trial. The plotters made their intentions clear when they withdrew the guilty pleas until the commission can decide whether it can pass a death sentence if the defendant pleads guilty instead of going through a trial. If the answer is Yes, Mohammed and the others will gladly go forward because it will fulfill their wish for ''martyrdom'' and thus be considered a propaganda victory for their warped sense of justice.

The defendants would no doubt love to skip the trial. That way they would not have to listen to a recitation of their crimes and face the grave consequences of their actions.

Consider, for example, the post-war trials of Nazi criminals. The Nuremberg proceedings made it plain that engaging in war does not allow individuals to evade responsibility for committing atrocities. The guilty were forced to endure the judgment of a judicial process with historical significance. Having to submit to justice was a fate worse than death. That's why Hermann Goering committed suicide the night before he was due to be hanged -- the ultimate display of contempt.

There are significant differences between Guantánamo and Nuremberg. The deliberate effort of Mohammed and the other plotters to avoid a trial, however, points to the same unwillingness to accept exposure of criminality, particularly by a system of justice not of their own making. They would welcome a date with the executioner as an easy way out of their predicament.

But real justice cannot come under the present military commission system because of its many shortcomings. Now that the commission has decided to wait until January to answer the question regarding the death penalty and the competency of some of the plotters to stand trial, it is highly unlikely that they will be finished before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

Mr. Obama should seize the opportunity to revamp the system to offer more safeguards for defendants -- ruling out any evidence obtained by torture -- or offer a more conventional process, such as military courts-martial or federal criminal courts.

Not about vengeance

Whatever the eventual venue, the trials should stand as an example of American jurisprudence, controlled by neither the suspects nor a lynch-mob mentality. The death penalty should not be ruled out. However, if recommendations of death are the judgment of the trials, those findings must be perceived by all as having been arrived at fairly and justly. No punishment is severe enough to fit the crime of killing thousands of innocents on Sept. 11, 2001. But these proceeding should not be about vengeance. They must be a demonstration of America's belief in the rule of law, despite the most vile attacks of its enemies.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/810850.html