Uncertainty over terror trials

Opinion: February 4, 2010 at 12:00a.m.

Dallas Morning News: As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama made no secret of his plan to begin civilian trials of terrorism suspects and halt the U.S. military’s closed-tribunal form of justice at Guantanamo. We made no secret of our support for such a plan.

We assumed, of course, that the Obama administration actually had a plan. The administration’s behavior in recent months suggests that it decided on a new course and started making bold announcements without actually thinking through the mechanics and consequences of these decisions. A perfect example is Attorney General Eric Holder’s November announcement of Manhattan as the venue for the high-profile trial of accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Bloomberg balking

Now that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is balking at the potential expense and upheaval, the Justice Department is looking for new venues. Holder isn’t the only one embarrassed by this reversal; Bloomberg initially applauded a New York trial so justice could be administered at the scene of the crime.

No one promised this process wouldn’t be messy. Submitting these suspects to a civilian system, where they enjoy constitutional rights, was bound to produce legal challenges. But as the administration notes, 348 terrorists have been prosecuted in civilian U.S. courts, with the convicts serving their time in civilian prisons.

Still, this is no time for on-the-job training. The old trial lawyer’s adage of never asking a question unless you already know the answer is directly applicable here. Obama’s justice team needed to have its plan well-researched — with authoritative answers prepared to all of its anticipated challenges — long before it announced and began executing these moves.