Menu
Share
 
Switch to Desktop Site

Obama’s NYC terror trial switch: Pragmatism or indecisiveness?

The Obama administration says it won’t hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda suspects in Manhattan after all, mainly because of security costs and community backlash. But to some, it's another political misstep.

Image

With the Supreme Court in the background, Rep. Steve King, center, (R) of Iowa, speaks during a news conference in Washington last month on the impact of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terror suspects to American soil for trial.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

About these ads

The positive symbolism of American-style justice – bringing 9/11 terror suspects back to the scene of the crime – marked the Obama administration’s bold decision last year to try the suspects in lower Manhattan, just five blocks from where the twin towers fell.

But the cost and practical reality of trying accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Al Qaeda lieutenants in New York City proved, in the end, too large a burden. The Obama administration on Friday acknowledged that it has abandoned Lower Manhattan idea and is looking for other sites in New York.

The administration says it’s making a pragmatic move and is sticking by its basic and most important premise: To try the men in a US civilian court instead of in a military tribunal.

But how the seemingly inevitable cost and security scenario escaped the administration in the first place is a key question, and one that gives both supporters and critics a clue into how the president and his cabinet shapes and makes decisions.

Pragmatism – or indecision?

Next

Page 1 of 4


Follow Stories Like This
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

Loading...