9/11 Terrorist Trials Research Paper
Running head: THE 9/11 TERRORIST TRIALS
The 9/11 Terrorist Trials
Jose Quesada
CRJ-305
September 5, 2013
For over a decade the central debate about enemy combatants has been what kind of trials
and due process rights are they entitled to. These combatants are not quite prisoners of war, but
they are not run-of-the mill criminals either. They are being detain at Guantanamo Bay with no formal charges or access to the free world. The reasoning for this is, on September 14, 2001 the
United States Congress, authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” …show more content…
The AUMF was signed by President Bush on September 18, 2001. So in short, if this enemy is captured either in the United States or abroad, they will be taking to
Guantanamo and detain until, (a) the threat to national security is no longer an issue and or (b) this enemy stands trial. www.citizenjoe.org/node/235 According to Eviatar (2013), in a federal courtroom in downtown Manhattan, Osama bin
Laden’s son-in-law appeared before the court and was charged with conspiring to kill
Americans. In a sober, orderly proceeding that lasted a total of 17 minutes, Judge Lewis Kaplan explained to Suleiman Abu Ghaith his rights, appointed his defense lawyers, read the charges against him, recorded his plea of not guilty, ordered the prisoner’s continue detention and announced that he would set trial date for the case in 30 days. Eviatar (2013) found, it an ordinary, orderly federal court arraignment in an international terrorism case. Almost 500 such defendants have been convicted in U.S. federal courts on U.S. soil since the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Unlike the proceeding at Guantanamo Bay, where five alleged September 11 co-conspirators: a 13 hour fiasco at which the …show more content…
“The military commission proceedings at Guantanamo Bay usually are spectacles of absurd, characterized by detainee outbursts and a bewildered military judge, with no experience in trying terrorism cases, struggling to apply confusing laws and procedures along on a remote U.S. military base in Cuba. In federal courts is clear that the presiding judge has complete control of his courtroom. With only the usual guards in the courtroom, and security was never an issue” ( Eviatar, 2013). The other question that comes to mind: Are they protected under The Fourteenth
Amendment? The amendments first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause,
Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Due
Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.
Conclusion There are still many debates on whether the United States should continue operations at
Guantanamo Bay. Many detainees are being taken into federal courts rather than a
The 9/11 Terrorist Trials
Jose Quesada
CRJ-305
September 5, 2013
For over a decade the central debate about enemy combatants has been what kind of trials
and due process rights are they entitled to. These combatants are not quite prisoners of war, but
they are not run-of-the mill criminals either. They are being detain at Guantanamo Bay with no formal charges or access to the free world. The reasoning for this is, on September 14, 2001 the
United States Congress, authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” …show more content…
The AUMF was signed by President Bush on September 18, 2001. So in short, if this enemy is captured either in the United States or abroad, they will be taking to
Guantanamo and detain until, (a) the threat to national security is no longer an issue and or (b) this enemy stands trial. www.citizenjoe.org/node/235 According to Eviatar (2013), in a federal courtroom in downtown Manhattan, Osama bin
Laden’s son-in-law appeared before the court and was charged with conspiring to kill
Americans. In a sober, orderly proceeding that lasted a total of 17 minutes, Judge Lewis Kaplan explained to Suleiman Abu Ghaith his rights, appointed his defense lawyers, read the charges against him, recorded his plea of not guilty, ordered the prisoner’s continue detention and announced that he would set trial date for the case in 30 days. Eviatar (2013) found, it an ordinary, orderly federal court arraignment in an international terrorism case. Almost 500 such defendants have been convicted in U.S. federal courts on U.S. soil since the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. Unlike the proceeding at Guantanamo Bay, where five alleged September 11 co-conspirators: a 13 hour fiasco at which the …show more content…
“The military commission proceedings at Guantanamo Bay usually are spectacles of absurd, characterized by detainee outbursts and a bewildered military judge, with no experience in trying terrorism cases, struggling to apply confusing laws and procedures along on a remote U.S. military base in Cuba. In federal courts is clear that the presiding judge has complete control of his courtroom. With only the usual guards in the courtroom, and security was never an issue” ( Eviatar, 2013). The other question that comes to mind: Are they protected under The Fourteenth
Amendment? The amendments first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause,
Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Due
Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.
Conclusion There are still many debates on whether the United States should continue operations at
Guantanamo Bay. Many detainees are being taken into federal courts rather than a