Melissa Bailey File Photo
Try alleged 9/11 terrorists in New Haven — or in a military court?
The leading Republican candidates in Connecticut’s 2010 U.S. Senate race — Linda McMahon and Rob Simmons — offered the latter answer Tuesday. They seized on a rumor to try to put their leading Democratic opponent, Dick Blumenthal, on the defensive on a hot-button issue, terrorism. The utterly unsubstantiated but widely circulated rumor: That the Obama administration might move the trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators from New York City to the Elm City.
Not only did McMahon and Simmons say the trial shouldn’t take place here — they called the idea of holding the trial in Connecticut “a direct threat to our state” (McMahon’s words) and argued that it shouldn’t take place in a civilian court, period.
Blumenthal responded by agreeing with his opponents that the trial should take place in a military court. In a conversation with the Independent, Blumenthal (pictured), a former U.S. attorney, said he does have “great confidence” in civilian federal courts to handle terrorism cases. He argued that this specific case belongs in a military tribunal because it involves a foreign “enemy combatant directed by foreign terrorists and a foreign government to attack this nation.”
The back-and-forth Tuesday was the latest echo of the recent Senate election in Massachusetts. Ever since the Tea Party-backed Republican Scott Brown won an upset in that race, Connecticut’s GOP Senate contenders have sought to claim his mantle and portray Blumenthal as the pro-Obama establishment liberal — while Blumenthal has sought to portray himself as a crusader against big interests and the D.C. status quo. (For instance, Blumenthal came out against the confirmation of Federal Reserve Chaiman Ben Bernanke.)
In New Haven, meanwhile, a leading Connecticut Democrat who’s not running for higher office this year, Mayor John DeStefano, echoed the Obama administration’s argument that the 9/11 case belongs in a civilian court, though he wasn’t necessarily “shopping” to host the trial here.
From A Thin Thread
By raising the military tribunal question, McMahon and Simmons reframed the story — and made it a campaign issue — on day two of speculation over whether the Obama administration might move the 9/11 trial here.
On day one, Monday, the story concerned the wildly inflated rumor that the trial could in fact come here. A speculative article in the Connecticut Law Tribune led mainstream media outlets to report that “sources” have “reportedly” suggested that the Obama administration is considering moving the trial from New York City to New Haven. It turns out those “reports” came from a Jan. 29 New York Post story quoting in passing an unnamed source about where a likely new location for the trial could be.
Sure, New Haven has a federal courthouse. Sure, the trial could come here — or a slew of other places. But there was no further hard information to suggest New Haven was seriously under consideration, despite the avalanche of unsourced stories (all leading back to the Post) claiming otherwise. (The last time the Post reported on a national news story in New Haven, the Annie Le murder, police scurried to refute what they called outright false information.)
That was enough for McMahon and Simmons to come out swinging about “today’s report confirming that the White House is considering such a move,” as Simmons put it. (In fact, the story Simmons was referring to, in the Hartford Courant, didn’t confirm the report. It merely reported that the New York Post had previously reported the speculation. In fact, the Courant story reported in the lead paragraph that “experts on Monday were downplaying talk that New Haven could emerge as an alternate location.”)
Separate from the question of what city hosts the trial, Simmons and McMahon struck out at the Obama administration’s decision to hold the proceedings in any civilian court. They challenged Blumenthal to take a stand on the question.
“I strongly oppose holding the 9/11 terror trials in New Haven,” McMahon said in a press release. “This is not only a potentially grave security threat that puts our state at risk, but it will also cost taxpayers millions of dollars.
“Holding terror trials in Connecticut provides a public stage in our state for Khalid Sheik Mohammed to denigrate the United States and
justify the 9/11 attacks. The only acceptable venue is a military tribunal, where we can protect sensitive national security secrets and silence the deadly rhetoric of mass murderers.”
Ben Johnson File Photo
“Now that these civilian terror trials pose a direct threat to our state,” McMahon (pictured) concluded, “we can hope that Attorney General Blumenthal will finally take a stand against them.”
McMahon was first asked about the terror trials last fall. She took heat for not yet having formulated a full position on the issue. (Read about that here.)
Simmons, in his own statement issued Tuesday, echoed the call on Blumenthal to “stand up for Connecticut.” And he presented himself as the oracle of the brewing threat.
“For months, I have warned about the possibility that Connecticut could be identified as an alternative venue for the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,” Simmons said. “Today’s report confirming that the White House is considering such a move should be extremely troubling to Connecticut’s political leadership. As New York finally realized, the costs and security risks that come with such a trial are enormous, and Connecticut is in no position to assume them any more than Manhattan.”
“It is Attorney General Blumenthal’s responsibility to stand up for Connecticut,” Simmons continued. “Thus far, he has openly backed these misguided civilian trials and failed to speak up for Connecticut’s interests, even as the specter of a trial here gains steam.”
Blumenthal responded to the challenge in an Independent interview just prior to an unrelated press conference (in which, in his capacity as attorney general, he was ruling on whether a fellow Democrat, Susan Bysiewicz, can legally run for AG).
Like Simmons and McMahon, Blumenthal called for moving the Mohammed trial to a military tribunal. He agreed with his opponents’ concerns about alleged security problems and intelligence leaks. But the “crucial issue,” Blumenthal said, involves the nature of the crime.
“Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is quintessentially an enemy combatant, allegedly guilty of war crimes against civilians this country. He is a foreign national trained and directed by foreign terrorists and perhaps coordinated by foreign governments,” Blumenthal argued. “He should be tried and convicted in a military tribunal.
“Military tribunals are part of the American system of justice — an appropriate in cases where enemy combatants committing war crimes and attacks on American civilians trained and directed by foreign terrorists and foreign governments.”
Blumenthal served as U.S. Attorney for Connecticut in the late 1970s under then-President Jimmy Carter.
“As a former federal prosecutor, I have a great confidence in civilian courts to try and convict terrorists,” he said. “The goal here is to try and convict and punish Khalid Sheik Mohammed for these alleged crimes — including execution.”
DeStefano Sees A Reason
A passionate rebuttal to the Simmons/McMahon position came from a different Connecticut politician, New Haven Mayor DeStefano.
DeStefano said the 9/11 trial belongs in a civilian court.
“These guys perpetrated a crime against Americans on American soil and ought to be tried in an American court of law in an open, transparent environment,” DeStefano said in a conversation Tuesday.
“That said, I think few of us, from what we know, have any doubt about what we’d like to see happen to them. The American legal system is capable of trying them successfully in an free and open courtroom in a transparent courtroom. That’s what differentiates us from them. I don’t think we should run away from that.”
Should that civilian court be New Haven’s federal court on Church Street?
DeStefano said he doesn’t know the answer. He said he’s “open” to discussing the idea with federal officials.
“I’m not shopping for it,” DeStefano said. “I’m not aware that New Haven is being considered for this. But frankly, if the federal government were to want to have a discussion about New Haven, I would certainly engage in that discussion with an open mind. The issue is: Could it be done in a fashion that’s safe and with respect for the need to be in an open and transparent fashion?”
Police Chief James Lewis said Monday that he doubts New Haven would make an appropriate host city for the trial.
“I think it would be too much for New Haven” to handle, Lewis remarked, “from the standpoint of the congestion with all the news media. There’s not that many hotels downtown. It would be too difficult to handle.”