Proposed terrorist trial in NYC creates uproar

   Justice. Webster's defines it in this manner: “the maintenance or administration of what is just (acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good) especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignments of merited award or punishment”. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justice) This is the premise of law that binds our courts and legal system. The authors of the Bill of Rights saw this as imperative. 'Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.' 'Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.' (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
   There is a huge uproar about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tried in New York City, just a short distance from the WTC site. The problem lies with the former Bush administration. Since these men were never declared prisoners of war, they don't fall under the rules of military Tribunal. President Obama has then seen fit to give them the protections of US law as described in the Bill of Rights.
Here is a small piece of information that nobody seems to notice, whether in the media or at the local burger joint. Neither amendment (6 or 8) states specifically that the rules of fairness pertain to only US citizens. We take for granted that all the amendments speak of US citizens, but the wording projects that protection to all that fall under the jurisdiction of the US courts. President Obama has placed them there.
   In this regard, one must ask, will Mr. Mohammed, or any other prisoner from the war on terror, find a jury of their peers or a truly fair trial? The remnants off hatred for those that perpetrated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 still persist in the American psyche. While we hold to the claim of justice, do we not truly seek revenge? There is nowhere in this country, that can place a jury against the accused, that is fully unbiased. President Obama in a statement said about the harsh feelings of US citizens toward civilian trial instead of tribunal that those offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by virtue of getting a civilian trial rather than a military tribunal won't find it "offensive at all when he's convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34015727/ns/us_news-security/) It seems as if the President already knows the outcome of the trial, conviction and death. Like everyone that is protected under the US Constitution, even though we want blood returned for blood, this man like the others, are innocent of the charges until there is enough evidence provided that proves them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
   If the US government truly thought the prisoners in Cuba guilty, should they not have been declared prisoners of war and tried through a military court? Or, since they were claimed as only enemy combatants, should not they be tried in the Hague? Our leadership has chosen their place of trial. New York City is a proper place under the Sixth Amendment. So would Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Arlington, Virginia. These are the districts where the crimes took place. Under President Obama's ruling for use of the US court system, these are the three places that need to be used for trial.
   We are a nation that claims the moral right. Then we must prosecute and judge justly, even these prisoners that we hate. For unless we do, our Constitutional protection of the accused means nothing. And we place ourselves, as a people, below the moral right.