The alleged masterminds and perpetrators of 9/11, headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are finally facing a civilian court in New York City. In a stroke of agit-propaganda genius, the 9/11 suspects will be tried in a court that is ‘just blocks from where the World Trade Center once stood.’ The decision by US Attorney General Eric Holder to hold the trial in said civilian court spells a controversial milestone in the US long-drawn campaign against al-Qaeda and terrorism. The court, as well as Obama’s anti-terror strategy, faces some tough challenges.

Part of Barack Obama’s campaign promise was strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America. The New York trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantánamo Bay detainees as normal criminals in a civilian court sends a clear message that the US is serious about following the rule of law. The question now is whether the overt display of America’s rule of law will be effective in keeping the US safer from another terrorist attack in the magnitude of 9/11.

There are some huge considerations behind this US move to hold civilian court trial in New York. Foremost of these is the nagging worry about New York’s safety and the jury’s protection from any retaliatory attacks by al-Qaeda. There is grave concern over the possibility that jihadists might use this trial as further propaganda to recruit more terrorists, and that seeking the death penalty for the suspected terrorists on trial might even make these suspects look like martyrs for the sake of religious ideology which radical Islamists champion.

While America wants to display its adherence to the rule of law as a major pillar of democracy, the apparent propaganda might backfire, with Muslim extremists utilizing the situation as a similar propaganda, albeit oppositionist, for themselves as well.

Image

The Christian Science Monitor