When you're standing before the massive gap in the financial district, looking up into the vacant sky where the twin towers once loomed, the White House's efforts to prosecute Khalid Shikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda operatives in federal criminal court just a few blocks from the site where thousands of Americans were murdered by their actions may seem like an important demonstration of American justice.
That's how New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg felt up through November.
He steadfastly supported the type and location of the trial, declaring it, "fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site, where so many New Yorkers were murdered."
Some survivors and family members of the nearly 2,900 people who died that morning (in New York, at the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania) also welcomed the decision. Several indicated that they wanted to witness in person the trials.
But over the past few weeks many opinions have begun to shift.
It started with businesses and community leaders questioning the financial burdens that a trial would bring to a heavily trafficked area of the city:
Real estate brokers argued that security restrictions would dampen the market for apartments in Chinatown and TriBeCa
Small-business owners feared a severe drop-off in customers
Residents worried that they would be unable to use local streets
Bloomberg was listening and on Jan. 27 he publically echoed the growing concerns he wanted the trial moved. Besides local New Yorkers' apprehension, he estimated that security for a trial in lower Manhattan could cost as much as $1 billion.
It raised more inquiries whether the Obama administration is fully aware of the financial costs of such a trial. He is proposing a $200 million fund to help pay for security costs. The money will be included in a budget plan for 2011 of roughly $3.7 trillion.
Including and besides the financial expense of having this trial in New York City, many, including me, are curious whether Obama is considering the emotional costs of returning to the scene of the worst terrorist attack in American history ... especially a scene that will take place inside a civilian court.
Mohammed and the other operatives committed an act of war. And as perpetrators of an act of war it seems obvious that the trial should be before a military commission. If held in civilian court, they are in a respect receiving the same privilege of a civilian trial with all the accoutrements of an American citizen on trial for a crime.
Clearly, there is a difference.
These terrorists should be tried in military tribunals where other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be judged.
Other concerns:
A civilian trial could turn into a propaganda forum for the accused. Because the trials would be out in the open, it would give defendants an opportunity to churn out propaganda, which could end up putting the U.S. government on trial.
What if key evidence in the trial is thrown out on a technicality? Related to that, many are concerned that for some reason, one or more of the defendants could be set free and secrets about how the government protects the country will be disclosed.
Many fear that New York City will again become a target.
President Obama repeatedly declares that he supports "change" for the American people; that he listens to American voices; that he wants transparency and open government decisions.
It is apparent what the majority deems appropriate: the layout for the 9/11 trials needs to change.
Sarah T. Schwab is a Sunday OBSERVER contributor. Visit her Web site at www.sarahtschwab.com and send comments to editorial@observertoday.com