Justice for 911 Victims

My son, New York Police Department cadet Mohammad Salman Hamdani, was one of the brave souls who died on Sept. 11 trying to rescue people in the World Trade Center.

My life, like countless others, will never be the same.

One thing that has kept me going is the hope that justice will be served. Unfortunately, after more than eight years of repeated delay, it looks like that process could get derailed before it even begins.

Along with many other victims' family members, I was encouraged in November when Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the 9-11 trials would happen in federal court in New York instead of in the military commissions system. But then, much to my dismay, I watched as some New Yorkers cowered in fear of unsubstantiated threats to their safety, businesses near the courthouse complained they might lose money and local officials fretted about the cost of providing security for the trials.

And while some — though not all — of these concerns are understandable, I cannot tell you what it's like to hear people say that bringing terrorists to justice is just too scary, too expensive, too inconvenient and not worth some sacrifice.

Is this New York? Is it America?

In the face of these objections, reports indicate that the Obama administration might not only move the trials to another location, but might actually move them back to the military commissions. This would be a monumental error. I've been to those commissions, and I can say first-hand that they are an unqualified and chaotic disaster where the rules get made up as they go along.

At one of the early 9-11 hearings, the military judge actually referred to the process as a "learning experience." Now, years later, despite a missed deadline, new rules needed for the latest version of the law authorizing the commissions have not even been issued. Even when they are, they will not answer basic questions like whether a defendant can plead guilty to a death penalty charge.

The most important cases in U.S. history should not be a lab experiment.

In addition to their lack of clarity, the commissions have constitutional problems that could result in questionable verdicts, leading to years more delay due to legal challenges which, ironically, would probably end up in the federal courts, anyway.

For instance, some kinds of hearsay remain admissible, making it possible that statements of an individual pointing a finger at the defendant could come into trial even if that individual is not in court, denying the accused the opportunity to confront his accuser. The accusatory statement could even be used against the defendant if it was made under coercion. It doesn't take a legal scholar to know this smells wrong and I, for one — after all this time — don't want to be faced with a guilty verdict obtained by cutting corners and shrouded in a cloud of doubt.

Another minefield that could sink the entire commission system is that it can only be used to prosecute "aliens." This sets up two systems of justice — one for Americans and one for others. I already had a personal experience with such thinking right after the 9-11 attacks. While my son was still missing, law enforcement authorities — joined by the media — initially decided he was a suspect in the attacks largely because of our last name. Because of this, they actually delayed informing me that Mohammad's remains were found. It wasn't until months later that he was recognized as a hero.

Some are saying that using military commissions is the "tougher" way to proceed against accused terrorists. But the facts say otherwise. Compared to the over 300 terrorism-related convictions in federal courts, the military commissions, in eight years, have produced only three for individuals who are already free after serving relatively short sentences.

The commissions are simply not prepared or experienced enough to handle complex international terrorism cases. Part of the problem is that while many military judges are competent, hard-working and honorable, military criminal cases typically involve prosecutions of U.S. soldiers and sailors for ordinary crimes. There are relatively few murder cases, fewer death penalty cases and almost no conspiracy cases, much less international terrorism trials. This is a problem no new law can fix.

Others worry that federal trials will give the accused a soapbox to spew their hateful agendas. In fact, federal judges are known for preventing such outbursts, as was the case in the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. It was in the Guantánamo commissions that the 9-11 defendants were allowed to give five-minute tirades.

This argument always seemed weak to me: can you imagine not putting Timothy McVeigh on trial because he might make hateful statements? Or any serial killer, for that matter?

The last eight and a half years have been tough. On top of dealing with my personal loss, my faith in our government has been repeatedly challenged as I've seen principle discarded in the name of politics and fear. The Obama administration's November decision to choose principle when it came to the 9-11 trials was a breath of fresh air.

If the administration reverses itself now, it would almost be worse than had it made the wrong decision to begin with. Not only will our hopes have been raised only to be dashed, but it would send the message that our principled decisions become expendable when the going gets tough. That is not the legacy I wish for my son.

911 and Moral Standing of America

One year ago, President Obama promised the world and the American citizens to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. The speech was very eloquent and well delivered, thus raisng hope and faith in the American Justice system and simultaneously, restoring the lost dignity of American values. Since then, the victims families have been taken for a ride, an emotinal roller coaster, causing more pain and lost of faith in our government.

Last summer, I was invited to visit Guantanamo Bay and witnessed for myself the disaster it is. A small group of people comprising of the DOD, DOJ and JTF Guantanamo are running the facility miles away from the US mainland. We never got to see the defendants, nor any trial transpired. It was a puppet show, which breeded more dissatisfaction within me at what's going on in the name of the 911 victims: more injustice and revenge. That is the last objective my son, Salman, would have wanted.

I got to meet AG Holder in DC the same summer, and he reassured us that the Guantanamo Bay will be closed and the rule of law will be restored. In other words, federal trilas will be held vs military commissions. It is a very important legal decision which will have everlasting deep impact on our future generations.

At stake is not the legal status of the 5 defendants. At stake is the legal status of aliens vs American: foreign born naturalized US citizens vs American born US citizens. This is what was the criteria of suspicion that was cast on my Salman when 911 happened. A naturalized US citizen, who came to US soil at the tender age of 13-months, when he could neither walk nor talk, was wrongfully called a possible terrorist. A man who gave his life for his fellow citizens was demeaned and humiliated in death. I ask: is this being American or what my Salman did is American? In simple language, the current administration is writing a law by virtue of which, all non-US born citizens will be under the jurisdiction of a separate rule of law from the US born citizens. In other words, if Timothy McVeigh and the person who flew an airplane in the IRS building in Austin, TX last month, commit an act of terrorism, they will not be tried as terrorist.
This is creating a very dangerous precedent.
President Obama is about to blink. About to blink not only on himself, but on the American Constitution, American values and on America's moral standing in the world. Political expediency should never over rule moral integrity. A leader leads along the morally correct path, without fear. Otherwise, he does not deserve to be called a leader.