Ok, Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, you win.  It has been seven days since I asked you for a response via an email at your site.  I give up.  I get the message.  I just wish the members of Congress would get our message.

It seems the media is coming around. Even the terrorists to be put on trial, understand.  They understand the opportunity before them to do just as we common people in this country already knew – a trial on American soul is the perfect platform.  Even the folks at CNN are reporting it.  This clip of text is from their own website, CNN.com.

Lawyer: 9/11 suspect to plead not guilty, argue attacks justified

Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, shown in a 2008 court sketch, is one of five suspects facing trial in connection with the 9/11 attacks.

Washington (CNN) — At least one — and possibly all five — of the detainees with alleged ties to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, will plead not guilty in a “justification defense,” arguing the attacks were responses to American foreign policy, according to a lawyer who met with one of the defendants.

Attorney Scott Fenstermaker said he met with defendant Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility last week, and that when Ali and four other men face trial in New York, they likely will plead not guilty and then argue that the attacks were justified.

Fenstermaker, who is representing Ali in a procedural matter at Guantanamo, said he expects Ali will acknowledge a role in the 9/11 attacks, and believes Ali’s goal in pleading not guilty would not necessarily be acquittal. The attorney said Monday that during his meeting with Ali at Guantanamo, “he said, ‘Here’s my goal,’ and he wrote down the word ‘death’ on a piece of paper.”

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is described in the 9/11 Commission Report as having helped the hijackers with money transfers, plane tickets, hotel reservations and guidance.

Fenstermaker said that although he is Ali’s attorney in the Guantanamo proceeding, so far he has not been asked to represent Ali at trial in New York. He said he cannot speak on behalf of the other four suspects, but he understands they have agreed to coordinate their strategies.

No charges have been filed yet, but Attorney General Eric Holder said this month he intends to try the five suspects in New York. They include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ali’s uncle, who has boasted to investigators that he masterminded the attacks of 9/11.

A decision by the suspects to plead not guilty opens the possibility of acquittal, although CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said of Mohammed, “I think the chances of him being acquitted are approximately .001 percent.”

Holder has pledged that, even if acquitted, none of the five defendants would be released in the United States.

But many Republican lawmakers say holding the trials in normal public courts is an unnecessary risk, because it gives the suspects rights they would not have had if they were tried in military tribunals. And although cameras are not allowed in federal courts, the trials could also give the defendants a soapbox to incite others.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, last week told Holder he was concerned that holding the trial in open court “will provide Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the position to be a martyr and a hero among al Qaeda sympathizers around the world.”

And after Holder finished testifying before the committee, Alice Hoagland, the mother of a passenger killed on one of the planes hijacked on 9/11, told him, “I am afraid that the theatrics are going to take over.”

Toobin said that during the trial, “a judge would have to restrict the defendants to using, and speaking about, relevant evidence as to guilt or innocence.”

“Their views of geopolitics,” he said, “are not related.”

But during the penalty phase, the defendants could be given more leeway.

“There’s always a time during the penalty phase where the defendant is basically allowed to say whatever he or she wants to,” said Patrick Rowan, a former top prosecutor in the National Security Division. “I suspect the judge here will be quick to cut them off if they go too far afield, but some of that will definitely happen.”

Still, even if a defendant like Mohammed has a chance to speak in court, Holder said, the world “will see him for the coward that he is.”

“I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid, either,” Holder said.

Will we let grandstanding get in the way of good sense?  I hope not, but I fear we will.

My original post from November 16, 2003

I was flipping through the channels this past Sunday and came across Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I began to listen as he was interviewing Senator Jack Reed, Dem. Rhode Island.  The topic of discussion was the announcement of the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City for his role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Attorney General Eric Holder had made the announcement two days earlier.

The point being debated was whether it was wise to hold this trial on American soil with the specter of a full-blown media circus around it.  The argument put forth to Sen. Reed was that this move would convey American constitutional rights to an individual whose lifelong plan is to destroy the very government that now wants to protect his rights.

Sen. Reed responded by stating that where else would there be a more appropriate place to find KSM guilty than a few short blocks from the hallowed ground of the former World Trade Center towers.

The discussion continued.  At the end of the interview, Chris Wallace asked Sen. Reed what might happen if, by some strange occurrence, KSM is acquitted.  Sen. Reed responded to the question by saying he felt we (America) had the best prosecutors in the world and it would be highly unlikely an acquittal would be reached.  Mr. Wallace pressed the issue with a “what-if” type follow up.  Sen. Reed reiterated that the chances for an acquittal were slim, that we had a strong case, and should KSM be acquitted of his crimes, we (America) had the authority to hold him as long as deemed necessary due to the potential danger he presents to our country.

The argument that bringing this trial to New York to showcase the American justice system is a smoke screen for the real purpose – political maneuvering.  The television and Internet images of a terrorist on trial in America for crimes committed against it would show the rest of the world we (America) mean business.

I disagree.  And I couldn’t keep quiet about it.  Below is the email I sent to Sen. Reed.

Senator Reed,

I am from Arkansas and certainly not in your district but I must respectfully disagree with you regarding the trial in New York for the detainees.

My disagreement is non-partisan and hits only one point.  At the end of the interview you stated that the likelihood of the detainees being found innocent was not likely but, with additional questioning from the host, you stated that even if the unlikely event did occur, we could hold them indefinitely because of the risk they present if freed.

With this being your point, does it not then lend credence to those who are stating this is merely a political show for the rest of the world.  If we plan to detain them as long as we see fit, innocent or guilty, then why are we having the trial other than to present a certain image to the world.  If this is not the case, why not take the trial to them rather than bring them here to stand judgment which, as it appears by your comments, seems to be a pre-determined fact anyway?  This is not the example of the United States justice system that I believe in.

Also, having the trial take place at Gitmo would be much more cost effective and practical in a time when both are in short order but greatly needed.

Again, I respectfully disagree with you on this matter.  I thank you in advance for your time and for your response.

I know Sen. Reed is not the only person, regardless of party, who agrees with the announcement of Attorney General Holder.  I suspect there are many more, although I can’t see how or why.

When I hear back from Sen. Reed, I will share with you his response.