Obama’s NYC terror trial switch: Pragmatism or indecisiveness?
The Obama administration says it won’t hold the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other Al Qaeda suspects in Manhattan after all, mainly because of security costs and community backlash. But to some, it's another political misstep.
The positive symbolism of American-style justice – bringing 9/11 terror suspects back to the scene of the crime – marked the Obama administration’s bold decision last year to try the suspects in lower Manhattan, just five blocks from where the twin towers fell.
But the cost and practical reality of trying accused mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged Al Qaeda lieutenants in New York City proved, in the end, too large a burden. The Obama administration on Friday acknowledged that it has abandoned Lower Manhattan idea and is looking for other sites in New York.
The administration says it’s making a pragmatic move and is sticking by its basic and most important premise: To try the men in a US civilian court instead of in a military tribunal.
But how the seemingly inevitable cost and security scenario escaped the administration in the first place is a key question, and one that gives both supporters and critics a clue into how the president and his cabinet shapes and makes decisions.
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Pragmatism – or indecision?
To many, Obama’s decision shows a welcome pragmatism in sharp contrast to President Bush’s stubborn go-it-aloneness, Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn told Bill O’Reilly on Fox News “The Bill O’Reilly Show” Friday night.
Critics call the turnaround a rookie mistake, evidence that the administration is led by ideology and is heeding bad advice. They say the switch is part of a growing list of political missteps as the President’s ambitious progressive agenda runs up against constituent backlash in even liberal enclaves like New York and Massachusetts.
“The seemingly hurry-up decision to move the trial to New York City and the equally abrupt decision to move it away from there smacks of federal officials acting before thinking,” writes Peter Roff of US News & World Report. “It projects indecision, which might be OK when discussing the right way to count the impact the stimulus has had on job creation but is positively irresponsible when it comes to the war on terror.”