Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

[Gold9472]

9/11 attacks still haunt potential jurors
Wrenching questions of bias as New Yorkers contemplate trial duty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 30, 2009

NEW YORK -- It was Sept. 12 before Michael Curatola remembered Pablo Ortiz. Watching the people leap from the windows, feeling the earth shudder, Curatola was so immersed in the horror of 9/11 that he failed to register that on the 88th floor of one of the towers was a neighbor -- a friend who, eight years later, would be his reason for wanting a seat on the jury assaying the guilt of the men charged with planning it all.

"Just to get vengeance for my dead friend who's not here anymore," said Curatola, cleaning the lobby of the building next door to the hole where the twin towers once stood, a wound cleaned and tended but still open.

"But that word 'vengeance' sounds too much like a personal vendetta," Curatola added. "I mean justice."

The distinction can be elusive in this city as it tries those accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In announcing this month that five accused plotters, including self-described mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, would be brought from Guantanamo to federal district court in Manhattan, the Obama administration declared that the trials would display not only the crimes, but also the resolute fairness of America's system of justice.

Which was what gnawed at Curatola the longer he thought about it.

"Do you seriously think they can get a fair trial blocks from that hole in the ground?" he asked. "Who are they going to pick for the jury? Everyone was involved, when you really think about it."

Most New Yorkers don't have to think very long.

"Oh, no. No. I have no impartiality," said Laura Stein, 45 and an artist, when asked if she saw herself as a 9/11 juror. "It was the worst day of my life. And I didn't lose anybody. I wasn't even in the area. And still the most fearful day of my life."

"We took it personally," said Sara Martinez, 52, an associate at a Verizon location near Ground Zero. "We don't feel safe anymore, secure anymore. It took away our peace of mind. It took away a lot of things."

In New York, 2,752 people lost their lives. An additional 184 perished at the Pentagon, and 40 more in the Shanksville, Pa., crash of United Airlines Flight 93.

"One of my children is named for someone who was killed in the World Trade Center," said Albert Gregory III, a construction worker from Staten Island. He wore a T-shirt decorated with the names of his six children -- Kristen, now 6, is named after Kristen Montanaro, a friend since childhood who worked in one of the towers. As he spoke, Gregory held a copy of the New York Post rolled in his fist. The day after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s announcement that the accused plotters would be tried in New York, the front page featured a mock postcard.

"Welcome to New York," it said. "Now Die!"

"It's a real liberal town, New York," said Gregory, 40. "A lot of people might not want them executed." He called over his mother-in-law, "a real liberal, see what she says."

"I say hang 'em," said Georgianna Neller, a state Health Department investigator, smiling grimly and gesturing toward the hole in the ground. "Hang 'em right over there. Put the girder up.

"It's just a heartbreaking thing," she said. "And I don't see who could be on the jury and not be emotional."

Legal experts say it can be done.

"Anybody who was in New York on 9/11, or D.C., was touched personally by it," said Anthony S. Barkow, a former federal prosecutor who runs the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University. "But there are different levels of that, and there are different levels of how people have subsequently dealt with that."

He added: "I was in D.C. on September 11 and I remember fighter jets flying overhead. And we evacuated the U.S. attorney's office. But that's different from somebody who saw it out their window, for instance."

Previous terrorism trials have established a culling process, and potential jurors have been called in by the hundreds. Those with obvious links to the events were excused. The others were rigorously interviewed for bias, under oath.

Philippe Rousseau, who spent three days and four nights clearing the wreckage, would be out in the first round.

"I almost died myself that day," said Rousseau, now retired as a New York firefighter. "I'd say hang 'em. Burn 'em. Electrocute 'em. Kill 'em. I am not open-minded on the subject."

Others, however, insist they could be.

Nelson Melendez, now 20, was in sixth grade the day the towers fell.

"I feel like I could make a just decision," said Melendez, now a college student. "Mostly for the reason that I didn't personally have anyone in the tower. I could have the distance from it."

"Absolutely, I could be on the jury," said Robert Hill, 35, who once worked in the towers but was on the subway that morning. He found proximity compelling. "It happened here, and we were the ones most affected by it. I could be fair."

Dan Jordan, 58, folded a morning paper in the drizzle opposite Ground Zero.

"I don't know the answer," he said. As a lawyer, he knows about impartiality: "It's the whole basis of our judicial system." But as a native New Yorker, he lost 10 high school classmates that day, plus a cousin.

"I think I could do it. It'd be troubling," he said. "I try to be a fair person."

Some New Yorkers said they would be reluctant to give up months of their lives for a trial so likely to end in conviction.

"We have to process them through the system right, that's how America works," said Elvin Singh, a cellphone salesman. "But I wouldn't want to be on that jury. It's a waste of time."

Others admit to apprehension, both for the city and for themselves, whatever precautions are taken to shield jurors' identities.

"Fear is fear," said Hubert Findlay, 59, drawing a finger across his neck. "Plain-spoken, it's a possibility. That's always in the back of your mind. If it's not, you'd be a fool."

In his tiny shop off Queens Avenue, however, Jasbir Kukreja could not see the problem.

"Why should we be fearful?" he said. "We should be strong enough to do what we have to do."

The Indian immigrant demurred on the question of jury duty, moot anyway because Queens stands outside the Southern District of New York. "I'm too small bird for this all," he said. "These are complicated questions."

But in the quarter-century since arriving, Kukreja has grown to admire the character of the place.

"Because America is a land of immigrants, people are very open-minded," he said, alone at rush hour, sipping milky tea amid the shelves of batteries and gloves. "Unfortunately, I did not make any money in New York. But the people are very gentle, very respectful toward each other. This is not a lesson I would learn in India. New York City has given me that lesson."

[Gold9472]

Death penalty in 9/11 trials may be difficult
Legal experts say Obama was overly confident when he said that critics of the New York trial would be silenced 'when the death penalty is applied to' suspect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,6855010.story

By David G. Savage
November 30, 2009

Reporting from Washington - After Zacarias Moussaoui -- the accused "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks -- was sentenced to life in prison in 2006 because one juror in Virginia refused to agree to the death penalty, Moussaoui clapped his hands and called out, "America, you lost and I won." Now the Obama administration plans to seek a death sentence for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind.

Some legal experts say President Obama was overly confident when he predicted that critics of trying Mohammed in a federal courtroom in Manhattan would be silenced "when the death penalty is applied to him." The only modern-day terrorist sentenced to death in federal court was Oklahoma City bomber Timothy J. McVeigh.

"It will be an uphill battle to get a death penalty in these cases," said Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in New York. He helped win convictions for four acolytes of Osama bin Laden who plotted the 1998 simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people. Jurors in 2001 found the men guilty, but they were divided on the punishment. As a result, all four were sentenced to life in prison.

Some jurors said afterward that they opposed a death sentence because the defendants had said they wished to die as martyrs.

"Obviously, the 9/11 crimes are as serious as you can get," Butler said. "But it is difficult to get 12 people in Manhattan to agree on a death penalty."

Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr.'s decision this month to try Mohammed and other alleged Sept. 11 plotters in federal court rather than under the military commission system set up at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, set off a fierce legal and political fight that shows no sign of subsiding.

Critics say a Manhattan trial poses a grave security threat to New York. They also worry that the defendants will be acquitted or escape the death penalty, or that the suspects will use the trial to spew terrorist propaganda.

But defenders of the decision say the nation's courts have shown themselves fully capable of trying and convicting the worst of criminals. And, they say, trying the suspects as ordinary murderers is more fitting than treating them as warriors.

"The best thing Obama is doing here is saying these people are not terrorists with superhuman qualities. They need to be brought to justice and tried as criminals," said Karen J. Greenberg, a law professor at New York University. "We should have brought them to trial a long time ago."

She and others noted that a long list of terrorists have been tried and convicted in federal courts in Manhattan, including World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef.

Despite the disagreements, it's not certain that the different legal systems would produce different outcomes.

Lawyers on both sides have said that they fully expect Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators to be found guilty. And though 12 military officers at Guantanamo might be more likely to impose the ultimate sanction than 12 civilians in New York, the limited experience with such commissions does not make that a foregone conclusion.

So far, the military commissions have surprised civil libertarians and the Pentagon by dismissing charges against some terrorism suspects and giving relatively lenient sentences to others.

The Pentagon's lawyers had sought a 30-year prison term for Salim Hamdan, Bin Laden's former driver, but last year a military judge sentenced him to serve just six more months in prison. Hamdan subsequently was released and sent home to Yemen.

It also is hard to assess the commissions' fairness or effectiveness.

Earlier this year, Congress adopted revised rules for the military trials that largely parallel those of the federal courts. The obvious difference is that the judge, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the jurors are military officers.

The rules of evidence differ in a few areas as well. For example, the military judge may permit hearsay -- out-of-court statements -- if the judge considers the testimony reliable. This would allow prosecutors to use statements from witnesses who are overseas.

By contrast, the Supreme Court has barred the use of nearly all such statements in civilian courts if the witness cannot or will not appear at the trial to be cross-examined.

Critics of trying the alleged Sept. 11 plotters at Guantanamo have said that uncertainty over the commission rules could have led to delays or lengthy appeals.

"These prosecutions could have been delayed for years while the courts resolved questions about hearsay or secret evidence," said Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"A federal court trial should go more smoothly," he said, because the rules are well established.

Meanwhile, critics of Holder's decision have focused on the difficulties of trying international terrorism suspects in a civilian court in the heart of Manhattan.

"I suspect KSM is absolutely delighted by this decision," said Brad Berenson, a former White House lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, referring to Mohammed by his initials. "This means a return to the scene of his greatest triumph. And it gives him a megaphone 100 times greater than he would otherwise have."

Earlier this year, Mohammed said at a Guantanamo hearing that he wished to plead guilty. But Duke University law professor Scott Silliman said the government should not count on him and his four alleged co-conspirators to plead guilty now.

"I think it's likely KSM will want to use the trial as a forum for himself and to put the government on trial. I will be very surprised if he pleads guilty," said Silliman, a former military lawyer. "We should expect a long, convoluted trial full of difficulties for the government."

Before trial, the five defendants' attorneys are likely to ask for a change of venue and to ask for the charges to be dismissed because the long-held defendants were denied a "speedy trial."

"There also will be a mountain of discovery motions," said Charles "Cully" Stimson, a former Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. Defense lawyers will demand to see files and cables that contain evidence involving the alleged 9/11 plotters.

Supporters of Holder's decision say convictions in an open federal court will be a triumph for American justice.

"This trial is going to be fair," said Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University. "It will show that we Americans play by a set of rules. And that the truth comes out in court for all to see."

[Gold9472]

Protesters rally against 9/11 trial set for New York

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120502318.html

Reuters
Saturday, December 5, 2009; 5:25 PM

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Demonstrators angered by the Obama administration's move to prosecute the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks in civilian court on U.S. soil called on Saturday for the trial to be moved to a military tribunal.

More than 1,000 people braved cold and rain to rally outside the Manhattan federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried.

Speakers blasted U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder for his decision to hold the trials in a court just blocks from the World Trade Center site, where thousands of people were killed in the 2001 attacks with hijacked planes.

Demonstrators -- among them family members of victims and rescuers-- held U.S. flags and signs reading "no constitutional rights for enemy combatants," and booed and jeered as speakers invoked Holder's name and that of President Barack Obama.
ad_icon

"They were murdered ... by the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Edie Lutnick, executive director of The Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund, said of the victims.

Lutnick's brother Howard Lutnick is chief executive of the Cantor Fitzgerald brokerage firm that lost two-thirds of its staff -- more than 600 people. A brother of theirs died in the attack.

"We will be victims no more," Lutnick said drawing cheers from the rally organized by the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition. She called on the U.S. Congress to block the trial.

Other speakers, including people who were badly injured on September 11, blasted the trial as "a multimillion-dollar charade" and an "exercise in global Jihadist recruitment" which would only give terrorists a platform.

Sixteen years ago "they attacked and we indicted," said former assistant U.S. attorney Andy McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case, tried at the same federal courthouse in lower Manhattan.

"We know it's a war ... You don't bring your enemies to a courthouse," said McCarthy, a contributor to the conservative periodical National Review who criticized Obama during the 2008 election campaign for his "collaboration with radical, America-hating leftists."

Holder has defended his decision to move the trials from the prison camp at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba to a federal criminal court in Manhattan, saying the men can be tried fairly and successfully in New York.

But the decision has divided the families of victims. Some say the trial is an opportunity to face the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks and help bring closure, but others say the men should be treated like war criminals.

No date has been announced for the suspects' transfer to New York or their first appearance in court.

[Gold9472]

Protesters Slam Holding 9/11 Trial in N.Y.
Organizers Say Trial Would Make City Terror Target, But Some 9/11 Family Members Want Case Heard Near Ground Zero

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5903851.shtml

Several hundred people rallied in the rain near Manhattan's federal courthouse complex to protest the plan to put major terrorism suspects on trial in New York.

The demonstrators, including 9/11 families and their supporters, gathered in Foley Square, just blocks from the site of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. They say a New York trial could again make the city a terrorism target.

Last month Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. would put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison on trial in a federal civilian court in New York City.

Anger at the Obama administration ran hot in the crowd. One person held up a sign calling Holder "disgraceful and despicable." Another sign said "Obama/Holder ... Jihad from within."

Supporters of the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition say the five defendants should face a military tribunal instead.

A "statement of support" for the rally, posted on the coalition's Web site and signed by actors Robert Duvall, Brian Dennehy, Jon Voight, Danny Aiello, Robert Davi, Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Ben Stein, states that Holder's decision to try key figures in the September 11 attacks in a civilian court in New York City is "a travesty of our justice system" that puts the national security of the United States of America at risk.

The signers said the trial would give the defendants a platform "to spew their propaganda and hatred to the world from a courthouse just blocks from Ground Zero.

"We stand with 9/11 families, New York City's first responders and the U.S. military who will be forced to cope with the consequences of this dangerous decision if it is not reversed," the statement said.

Addressing the crowd, Dennehy said he didn't believe the men deserved "normal constitutional protections."

Lee Ielpi, a retired firefighter whose son, also a firefighter, died on 9/11, said he believed the U.S. has been in a state of war since the attacks, and that a military tribunal was therefore the appropriate venue for justice.

"They deserve a fair trial in a military tribunal, not on our soil," he said. "Guantanamo is where it should be."

But other victims of the 9/11 attacks disagreed.

Lorie Van Auken lost her husband at the World Trade Center. She said in an interview before the rally it was fitting that the accused answer charges a short walk from where the twin towers once stood.

John Feal lost half his foot at Ground Zero. He told the N.Y. Daily News, "If you’re afraid of terrorists, then they’ve already won." He said trying the defendants in New York was "poetic justice."

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., says military commissions have a poor track record when it comes to trying terrorism suspects. He expressed confidence that U.S. prosecutors can win a conviction in a regular, civilian court.

[Gold9472]

Hundreds protest New York 9/11 trial

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...EAnAKmDSeCJR9g

By Sebastian Smith (AFP) – 4 hours ago

NEW YORK — Hundreds rallied Saturday in New York against plans to give the alleged 9/11 mastermind a civilian trial in the city, saying the court will be turned into an Al-Qaeda propaganda platform.

"They are war criminals," one of the speakers, firefighter and US Marine Peter Regan, said to cheers. "The terrorists should be tried in a military court."

The small crowd huddled under umbrellas in chilly rain outside Manhattan's federal courthouse where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects are to be tried after transferring from the controversial US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The courthouse is a few blocks from Ground Zero, site of the former World Trade Center, which was destroyed on September 11, 2001, when hijacked airplanes slammed into the Twin Towers and into the Pentagon outside Washington, killing nearly 3,000 people.

President Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, have made bringing Mohammed to a fair trial a centerpiece of a broader plan to end what they see as serious abuses of law under the previous administration of George W. Bush.

But the 9/11 Never Forget Coalition, which organized the rally, argues that those behind the attacks do not deserve the same legal rights provided to US citizens.

Many protestors waved the US flag, chanting: "USA, USA!" while others displayed slogans supporting Bush and the secretive Guantanamo facility, or voicing criticism of Obama.

"This is treason!" one man shouted repeatedly.

One of the most common complaints was fear that a public trial would enable Mohammed and his co-accused to make incendiary speeches.

"America has given these people an even louder megaphone in the best theater in the world," actor Brian Dennehy told the crowd. "I am worried that millions of angry young people watching Al Jazeera will come to the conclusion that America has caved in."

Protestor Sue Vaccaro, an elegantly dressed, elderly woman trying to shelter with a friend under a flimsy umbrella, echoed that warning.

"Holder is giving a megaphone to the terrorists to spout their hatred of this country," she said.

The same message is being aired in Washington, where Obama's decision last month to move the 9/11 suspects into the civilian justice system -- after years of secret detention and abusive interrogation -- caused an uproar.

"A civilian trial gives these conspirators a national platform from which to spew their propaganda and access to sensitive information regarding American intelligence," said Republican congressman Trent Franks.

Holder responds that America will take the moral high ground by giving its enemies a proper trial.

"I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is," Holder said. "I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial and no one else needs to be afraid either."

While many speakers at the New York rally Saturday lost relatives on 9/11, or themselves narrowly survived, not all 9/11 victims' organizations oppose Obama's policy.

Experts say many factors will determine the extent to which the five accused could mount a public spectacle.

If they plead guilty, the judge would move straight to sentencing, offering the men only limited opportunity to speak.

If they plead not guilty and dismiss their attorneys, as they did in military tribunals at Guantanamo, then they would mount their own defense and be able to address the jury at length.

However, judges have wide powers to cut short testimony deemed irrelevant or time-wasting.

"It's all going to depend on the judge in the end. They'll be dealing with a court of people experienced with these things," said Edward MacMahon, who represented convicted Al-Qaeda member Zacarias Moussaoui.

Moussaoui insulted both the judge overseeing his case and his lawyers in legal documents. As a result, he lost the right to represent himself.

"If they are their own lawyers, they have to conduct themselves as lawyers. If they don't, they'll just have to sit there," MacMahon said of the 9/11 suspects.

But a determined defendant can always make headlines simply by blurting out statements, MacMahon said.

"What would often happen was that... all the reporters would pull out their notebooks and he (Moussaoui) would say 'God bless Osama Bin Laden!' and they'd all write that down."

[Gold9472]

9/11 families, supporters, rally against NY trial

http://www.lohud.com/article/2009120...ainst-NY-trial

By Verena Dobnik • The Associated Press • December 5, 2009

NEW YORK (AP) — Several hundred people rallied in the rain near Manhattan's federal courthouse complex Saturday to protest the plan to put major terrorism suspects on trial in New York City.

Demonstrators at the Saturday event included the actor Brian Dennehy and a number of people who lost friends and relatives in the 9/11 attacks.

Anger at the Obama administration ran hot in the crowd. One person held up a sign calling Attorney General Eric Holder "disgraceful and despicable." Another sign said "Obama/Holder ... Jihad from within."

Opponents of the plan say that a New York trial could again make the city a terrorism target, and that the five suspects should instead face a military tribunal.

Addressing the crowd, Dennehy passed along a message from the father of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who is opposed to a public trial for reputed terror mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The actor said he also believed the trial would be "an uncalled-for ordeal that could be used for political purposes."

"This will provide the radicals with a huge forum," said Dennehy, a Marine Corps veteran. "Why should they have the normal constitutional protections?"

Lee Ielpi, a retired firefighter whose son, also a firefighter, died on 9/11, said he believed the U.S. has been in a state of war since the attacks, and that a military tribunal was therefore the appropriate venue for justice.

"They deserve a fair trial in a military tribunal, not on our soil," he said. "Guantanamo is where it should be."

Other victims of the attacks disagreed.

Lorie Van Auken, who lost her husband at the World Trade Center, said in an interview before the rally that it was fitting the accused answer charges a short walk from ground zero.

"Opponents of the trial don't represent all families," she said in a telephone interview on Friday.

Another supporter of the trial plan, U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, said military commissions have a poor track record when it comes to convicting terrorism suspects. The New York Democrat expressed confidence that U.S. prosecutors can win a conviction in a regular, civilian court.

On Saturday, the protesters included 9/11 families, ground zero rescue workers and former World Trade Center executives.

Greg Manning was a senior vice president at Euro Brokers, whose life was spared because he was on business outside the trade center. He said the decision to stage the trial in New York shows the government's "casual attitude towards security."

He said Mohammed, who is accused of being the mastermind of the attacks, "is not the same as any defendant." Manning said that if Mohammed decides to defend himself, "he will exploit every right in the Constitution and use the trial as a platform."

[Gold9472]

The short list of lawyers to defend 9/11 suspects

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/nyt..._suspects.html

By Benjamin Weiser / New York Times
12/8/2009

NEW YORK » One lawyer calls it the "death list" -- a cadre of about 20 veteran defense lawyers in New York who have broad experience in death penalty and other complex criminal cases. They have represented defendants in terrorist bombings in East Africa, drug-related killings in Manhattan and the Bronx, police killings in Brooklyn and on Staten Island.
Click Here For More Info!

They are not all household names, and the list is closely held. But every day in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, a lawyer from the list is on call, ready to be appointed in a capital case.

And it is from this short list that lawyers are expected to be initially chosen to defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others accused in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks when they arrive at the courthouse early next year.

Of course, there is uncertainty about whether Mohammed and his co-defendants will even want lawyers or a trial. But if the court follows its own practice, the list, or "capital panel," as it is called, will be the source of lawyers as the defendants begin their journey through the civilian system.

"I would imagine this is the hour of truth for the panel," said Isabelle A. Kirshner, a former panel member.

The list includes lawyers like Frederick H. Cohn, 70, a 6-foot-2 graduate of Antioch and Brooklyn Law School, who is known for his Fu Manchu-style mustache and acid wit in the courtroom. Cohn, one of the lawyers consulted, said the public should want a system that ensures the best lawyers are opposing the death penalty -- "even where there seems to be unanimity of opinion that it ought to be imposed."

There, too, is Avraham C. Moskowitz, a 52-year-old Columbia Law graduate and former federal prosecutor who describes himself as a committed Zionist, who has family in Israel, and whose brother was in the World Trade Center when it was attacked in 1993. Joshua L. Dratel, 52, is also on the list -- a Harvard Law graduate who lived a block from ground zero and had to relocate for three months after his apartment building was damaged.

Today, the list has evolved into a kind of ad hoc terrorism bar as well, with a majority of those on it experienced in such cases. For any lawyer on the list who gets a Sept. 11 case, said Kirshner, "there's going to be an enormous personal, professional and emotional commitment that's going to have to be made." And that, she added, is "going to translate into their friends and relatives saying, 'How can you represent these guys?"'

Some lawyers on the list are undertaking their own searching review of whether they should participate.

"I could not take that case," Moskowitz said. He said that although he felt confident that he could vigorously defend an accused Sept. 11 terrorist, "my background, my politics, my very essence would create the appearance of a conflict."

But some lawyers said they would have no problem taking a case of one of the men held for years at Guantanamo. "I'm not campaigning for one," said Edward D. Wilford, a lawyer on the list whose last high-profile case involved his representation of a man convicted last year in the murder of a New York police officer, Russel Timoshenko, during a traffic stop in Brooklyn.

"But if I'm privileged enough to be asked," he said, "I'll step to the front and gladly represent one of these human beings with the same zest and zeal I would any other human being who is facing the death penalty."

The list of lawyers to be turned to for capital cases was developed after use of the federal death penalty was expanded in the 1990s, and judges and lawyers realized that New York City needed a seasoned bar.

Leonard F. Joy, the city's federal public defender, consulting with other lawyers, recommended an initial group of names from the larger pool of lawyers appointed to represent defendants. (His office may end up taking one of the 9/11 cases.)

Mohammed and four other men detained at Guantanamo have not been publicly charged, and it is not known precisely when they might arrive in New York.

Lawyers on the capital panel are eligible to be paid up to $175 an hour. Some said they would not be intimidated by the strong criticism, some of it directed at lawyers, that followed the decision to send the cases to New York.

"I believe that you approach this case the same way you would approach any other case," said Anthony L. Ricco, a veteran of high-profile trials. "You cannot allow the public sentiment to dictate what you do," he added.

The judges in the federal court in Manhattan were sent a memo this summer detailing the practice. "The lead attorney should be chosen from the capital panel," it said.

The lawyers on the list over the years have developed wide expertise in terrorism cases. A majority have represented terrorism defendants in New York, including in the trial stemming from al-Qaida's 1998 bombings of two U.S. Embassies in East Africa. At least two of those lawyers -- Dratel and Ricco -- have gone on to represent terrorism defendants in other major cases.

The terrorism-case backgrounds of many lawyers on the list, though, could produce conflicts that would prevent them from participating in the Sept. 11 cases, making that shortlist even shorter.

In Brooklyn, the federal court is reviewing its own list of experienced lawyers in an effort to identify those with the willingness and ability to take on terrorism cases, and so far has confirmed interest from about two dozen lawyers, said Chief Judge Raymond J. Dearie.

Because Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said he intends to seek the death penalty, each Sept. 11 defendant will be entitled to the appointment of a second lawyer who is considered a "learned" specialist in death penalty law. This selection can come from appropriate lawyers on the list or from a group of such lawyers around the country.

There has also been talk of trying to bolster each of the five legal teams by adding lawyers who helped defend the men while they were at Guantanamo. These lawyers received security clearances, may already have investigated their client's cases, and developed relationships with them.

"There'd be a great advantage in the court here making an exception and allowing such people even if they are not normally on the panel," said Don D. Buchwald, another lawyer on the list.

[Gold9472]

Cheney: Trying 9/11 suspects in NYC 'huge mistake'

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...x8rvwD9CFGVR00

(AP) – 10 hours ago

NEW YORK — Former Vice President Dick Cheney says trying suspected Sept. 11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (HAH'-leed shayk moh-HAH'-med) in New York City will make him "as important or more important than Osama bin Laden."

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, Cheney said holding the trial in a lower Manhattan courtroom near ground zero will make Mohammed "a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world."

Cheney said the trial will put Mohammed "on the map."

The Republican called Attorney General Eric Holder's decision in November to try Mohammed and four other 9/11 suspects in a civilian federal court near ground zero "a huge mistake."

The interview, for which Fox News provided a partial transcript, aired Tuesday.

[Gold9472]

Dick Cheney hits out at Obama again by calling 9/11 trial in New York 'a huge mistake'

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ma_again_.html

By Thomas M. Defrank
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
Tuesday, December 8th 2009, 8:32 PM

WASHINGTON - Dick Cheney has ratcheted up his criticism of President Obama again, calling the decision to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York a "huge mistake."

In an interview with Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity, the former vice president said the trial, which isn't expected to begin for at least a year in Manhattan's federal district court, will allow KSM an ill-advised showcase to spew his anti-American venom.

"He'll be able to go in whenever he's up on the stand and proselytize, if you will, millions of people out there around the world including some of his radical Muslim friends and generate a whole new generation of terrorists," Cheney said.

"I think it will make Khalid Sheikh Mohammed something of a hero in certain circles, especially in the radical regions of Islam around the world. It will put him on the map. He'll be as important or more important than Osama Bin Laden, and we will have made it possible."

The Obama administration has previously rejected Cheney's argument, saying Mohammed won't be allowed to grandstand by the trial judge and that his conviction and possible execution will show the world the U.S. isn't afraid of putting terrorists on trial in civilian courts.

Cheney also zapped Obama for telegraphing a 2011 exit date for some of the 30,000 surge troops the President has just ordered into Afghanistan.

"When (Al Qaeda) see him announce in advance that there's going to be a withdrawal 18 months down the road, they come to the point where they feel like their strategy, their world view has been validated and in the meantime, your task of trying to control the situation, trying to put down the Taliban and so forth, has simply gotten harder because you're weak and indecisive when you made the decision to do it."

Cheney ducked when served up the chance to label Obama a Socialist, seeming to settle for card-carrying liberal instead.

"I don't want to use that kind of a label," he said. "I think on his part he does not have the kind of commitment to the private sector that most of us have and have lived with in the past."

He also was more judicious than friends say he really feels about his successor, Vice President Biden.

"Joe and I have a different approach to the job and to politics in general," he said.

[Gold9472]

New York City is the right venue for the 9/11 murder trials

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...york_city.html

By Jim Riches
Wednesday, December 9th 2009, 4:00 AM

Last week, a group of family members who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks protested against putting the terror suspects on trial in New York.

They do not speak for all the 9/11 families.

My son, Firefighter Jimmy Riches, was killed in the north tower. He was responding to the call with Engine 4 from lower Manhattan. Jimmy was a firefighter for just 18 months, joining the FDNY after spending seven years as a narcotics police officer with the NYPD. After his murder, I spent months leading search-and-recovery efforts at Ground Zero. I witnessed the aftermath of the devastation.

Jimmy was found on March 25, 2002. I, along with my three other sons, carried his body, smashed and broken, from the bottom of the north tower. He was buried April 12, 2002.

No one wants to see the 9/11 terrorists face justice more than I do.

The men who orchestrated the murders of nearly 3,000 people must be put on trial in New York. New York is where they perpetrated their crimes; New York is where they must face justice.

Those who want a military trial must remember that more than 300 terrorists are now behind bars after federal courts convicted them of offenses that include the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Military commissions, by contrast, convicted only three.

I attended the military trials in Guantanamo and saw the terrorists declare their guilt and say that they were proud they had killed innocent Americans. They were happy they killed my son.

The terrorists made a mockery of the military courtroom with frequent outbursts. They asked to have their foot shackles removed, requested softer seat cushions and wanted chairs and computers in their cells. They got everything they asked for. Yet, eight years later, there is still no accountability for their heinous crimes. Osama Bin Laden's driver, caught with a rocket launcher in his car, was tried in military court in Guantanamo and given time served. He was released to Yemen.

My son deserves better than that. And I deserve to be able to attend the trial, near the place where my child was murdered.

The federal courts have a superior record in prosecuting high-profile terrorist cases without compromising national security. In Guantanamo, the military prosecutors assured me that there is much evidence that does not rely on any information obtained through torture or by confessions. I take them at their word.

At the weekend rally protesting a New York trial, a man held up a sign calling Attorney General Eric Holder disgraceful and despicable.

That vitriol is better directed at the terrorists who murdered thousands of innocent people.

I have met President Obama and Holder. They are not despicable. They have assured swift and certain justice. They have answered all the questions being asked. Obama told me he would be accountable for the outcome of the trials. He promised to keep America safe and said he would be judged in four years by America and by the 9/11 families. These trials are about justice for the 3,000 murdered Americans who went to work on a sunny September morning. This is not about politics.

In four years, America can hold Obama accountable. But right now is the time for all Americans to unite, like we did after 9/11, and support the President in his effort to hold the terrorists accountable for their heinous crimes. Anything less would be a great injustice.