Civilian trial defies justice

The following editorial appeared recently in the Chicago Tribune:

In explaining his decision to put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other accused terrorists on trial in federal court rather than before military tribunals, President Barack Obama said, "I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions."

Complete confidence? In that case, why is the administration going to try five other Guantanamo inmates in front of military commissions, where the rules are more favorable to the prosecution?

The administration claims it's upholding the rule of law. But in the days since the announcement that Mohammed would be tried, it has made the process look like a kangaroo court. Obama said, "I don't think it will be offensive at all when he is convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." When the nation's president pronounces a sentence before trial, he doesn't convey a commitment to impartial justice.

The Justice Department thinks there is no doubt these defendants will be convicted. But in any honest trial, there is the possibility of acquittal. Why take the risk of a huge propaganda victory for al-Qaida?

It's particularly hard to justify since the administration has made it clear none of the suspects will be released even if they are found not guilty. Why not be honest and simply hold them as unlawful enemy combatants without a trial?

In the case of Mohammed, the whole exercise is especially unnecessary. He has expressed an eagerness to plead guilty before a military tribunal, which would surely mean a death sentence.

The decision is not the looming catastrophe portrayed by some conservative critics. Former Bush Justice Department official John Yoo predicted a trial would be "an intelligence bonanza for al-Qaida" because it will force the disclosure of all sorts of vital secrets about how we combat terrorists. Others fear that the accused will gain a priceless platform from which to champion their cause.

The fears are greatly exaggerated. The Classified Information Procedures Act sets down strict rules to protect national security secrets, and it has worked well in other terrorist trials. Critics note that in the 1993 trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, the government had to turn over 200 names of possible co-conspirators, which quickly found its way into the hands of Osama bin Laden. But in that trial, the government failed to use CIPA as it was intended. It won't make that mistake again.

True, the defendants might find ways to spout propaganda before a world audience. But judges have great discretion over what defendants may say. And the same risk would exist in a military tribunal.

Bottom line: A military tribunal would be the better option, with rules of evidence that are appropriate for wartime. Or the administration could hold the detainees as unlawful combatants for as long as the conflict lasts.

Trying them in civilian court won't be a disaster, but it will be an exercise in empty symbolism.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services