With the upcoming trial of the people who are said to be the masterminds behind the attacks on 9/11, there are some essential questions that need to be asked.
The first question is, why bring it to the civilian courts? Sure, they were involved in a major crime against Americans so it would technically make sense, however, if you are bringing them into the American justice system, it still has to operate by the same rules by which you would expect it to operate. This means that there has to be a fair trial, probably by a jury of their peers as the constitution allows for in the Bill of Rights.
The next question is whether or not the constitution would apply. After all, they were foreign nationals. Then again it is also the American civilian justice system, key word being American, which means that the American Constitution does come into play. It’s a confusing issue.
The next problem with this is that if we ignore the constitution under one circumstance, what’s to stop us from ignoring it in others? So technically, even if it’s just for show, we still have to give them a fair trial. We ignore the constitution to try people that were behind one of the biggest terrorist attacks in American history, and we lose. After all, the attack was against the way we live our lives, usually in accordance to our laws. So if we shift/ignore/pervert it, even for the sake of prosecution, we’ve played right into their hands. So it either has to abide by the constitution or it just shouldn’t be held in an American civilian court.
One of the biggest questions though is, how do you choose a jury for such a trial? Every American citizen, regardless of how indifferent they might try to act, has some level of bias that might make it impossible to pick an objective jury that would be capable of giving them a fair trial. There’s also the problem of where it’s being held. New York City still has a lot of people who remember that day and feel affected by it. So there’s a problem with the location but for the people across the country that realize the effects of the attacks have their bias as well. There is almost no way to effectively pick a jury for a fair trial. There’s the possibility that even a military trial could end up more fair for them.
Being that it’s to be held in New York City, there is the argument that it could re-victimize the families that had losses that day. It’s actually a pretty good argument too. When something sudden and unexpected takes a loved one from you, it’s harder to get over it. Think about it. Is it easier to get over someone dying of natural reasons, possibly after a nice long life, or someone who dies simply from the bad luck of being at the wrong place or possibly the right place, depending on how you look at it, at the wrong time? So the trial also has that going against it.
Sure, I get what they’re trying to do through this decision. It’s a matter of justice, whether it’s the illusion of justice or not. However, what’s the cost of this justice? If it might cause our justice system to go against the constitution, is it worth it? Is it worth it to also reopen some old wounds for the people who had lost someone in the attacks?