By Stephen Smoot:

I admit it. After 9/11 I wanted to see whoever was left among the terrorist culprits shackled up and brought to trial in the United States District Court in southern Manhattan. Of course in my mind it looked something like the end of “Hang ‘Em High,” with New York City crowds waiting to get their well deserved look at justice/retribution. The thought creates a mentally pleasing complete circle of symbolism. In the practical world, is this a good idea?

Federal courts can seat themselves anywhere provided by Congress. They could meet in your living room if the legislative branch has the mind to put them there and compensate you for use of your property. A century ago one operated in Shanghai, China. The Constitution states that Congress has this prerogative. Terror trials absolutely do not have to take place in New York City.

Why not New York City? Would not the symbolism of this event help heal wounds and send a message? Maybe, but maybe not. These considerations are based on our feelings about the event; we probably cannot imagine how this spectacle will be received by our friends and enemies in the Middle East. What we do know is that terror trials in New York City will create a huge set of nightmares for everyone involved.

Consider the sheer cost involved in having these trials in a certain place because it will make people “feel good.” Khalid Shiek Muhammed and his cohorts obviously are not your average defendants. Any place that tries them naturally must take the most extreme security precautions. City, state, and federal law enforcement must pull themselves away from their normally busy schedule of crime solution and prevention to protect the area around the courthouse for how long? Weeks? Months? Who will pay for this protection? The federal government welshed on reimbursing Virginia, DC, and Maryland for police protection costs connected with Obama’s inauguration. Why expect them to reimburse New York and New Jersey? The security needed would be comparable to that for a political convention, but without the definite week limit of need and the huge spending by partying participants. Add to that the uncountable cost of the loss of tourism dollars (who wants to go have fun! in a terror target?) and the increased inconvenience for everyone living or working in that part of New York City. These skyrocketing costs will come at the expense of a city, state, and country already deeply in debt and struggling to pay bills. Even worse, if terrorists unleash a WMD in Manhattan, how will people leave safely and efficiently? We should never bow down due to fears of terrorism, but why give them additional reasons to attack our most densely populated city? Obama’s need for a public relations coup should not trump security and pragmatism.

How about a different approach? If the trials must go on, and that is certainly not a necessity, then move the venue to someplace more secure and inhospitable. A city with millions of people crowded onto a single island is not secure. The best possible location for a terror trial, outside of Guantanamo Bay (also a non starter with this administration) would be a temporary federal court established someplace remote and isolated, like for instance Midway Island or Howard Atoll. Forty government

employees live on Midway and no one lives on Howard Atoll, although a military facility once housed 1,100 servicemen and their families. What could be more secure than either of these islands that are hundreds of miles from civilization in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Howard Atoll obviously has structures in place that could serve as a temporary courthouse. Those participating would have Spartan housing available too. Would it be comfortable? Probably not, but this is a trial, not a vacation.

Some opponents of the New York City trials do not oppose the venue as much as the idea of having the trial right now at all. I tend to agree with these people, but the trials are going to happen. Obama may be able to push nothing else through as he wants, but this is one thing he will get. The thought of Muhammed spending his life silently in a supermax cell gives me great pleasure (this is a time when, for cultural reasons, they should take the death penalty off the table.) The main problem lies in the

cost and the danger posed to anyone living or working close to the courthouse.

Facing facts means accepting that these trials will happen. However, the country cannot afford the luxury of trying these defendants in New York City. Not only money, but lives will be at risk. This risk comes for what purpose? Symbolism? And all the cost might end up being for naught anyway. When the defendants first go to New York, forcing the expenditures on all those costly resources, guess what will happen? First thing out of any good defense lawyer’s mouth will be a request for a change

of venue. He will argue that his or her client will not get a fair trial in Manhattan. It’s not likely, but it is possible, that the court might agree and move the whole trial somewhere else and start the security arrangements all over again. Do it right the first time. Put the trials someplace secure.