Nov 17, 2009 12:00pm

Views on the Terror Trials

Americans divide evenly on whether to try 9/11 suspects in U.S. civilian courts or military tribunals, a split – like so many – driven chiefly by partisan and ideological differences.

Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll asks whether suspects accused of involvement in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, should be put on trial in the federal court system in the United States or in a military tribunal set up for that purpose. Result: a 47-48 percent split.

The Obama administration last week opted for the former, saying it would move alleged 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accomplices from detention in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be tried in federal court in New York.

The chief divisions on the question, as noted, are political and ideological. Democrats divide by 61-34 percent in favor of federal court trials; Republicans, almost exactly the opposite, 58-36 percent for tribunals. Independents favor tribunals by a narrower 53-42 percent. Ideologically, again, it’s 61-31 percent for the court system among liberals, 57-38 percent for tribunals among conservatives, with moderates dividing exactly in half.

We’ve released results from our latest poll on Sarah Palin and on the president, politics and health care reform. Check back at 5 p.m. when we’ll have fresh results on public views of the war in Afghanistan.

Meantime, further on terror trials…

A CNN/ORC poll released yesterday had some different results than ours; on one hand it found 64-34 percent preference for “a military court run by the U.S. armed forces” over “a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system.” In a separate question, it found 60-37 percent preference for trying the suspects in the United States rather than “in a U.S. facility in another country.”

How to reconcile these? The first question differs from ours in a variety of ways; one that jumps out at me is that it notes that the suspects now are held “at a U.S. military prison in another country,” and doesn’t go on to specify what civilian judicial system it’s referring to – that country’s, or ours. On the other hand, our question doesn’t give a location for tribunals; we saw the issue as a choice between federal court trials here, or military tribunals, wherever.

Another is that these questions ask specifically about Khalid Sheik Mohammed, accused of planning 9/11; ours asked about “suspects accused of involvement” in the attacks. Lastly, our first night of interviews  were done before the administration announced its decision; nonetheless the results that night were essentially identical to our full result.

There are other differences (e.g. military “court” vs. military “tribunal”); the wording and results of these questions follows for your review – and, if you like, comment.

ABC/Post: Would you rather have suspects accused of involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks put on trial in (the federal court system in the United States), or in (a military tribunal set up for that purpose)?

                11/15/09Federal court      47Military tribunal  48Either (vol.)       2No opinion          3

CNN/ORC: Now here are some questions about Khalid Sheik Mohammed who may be responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks and who is now in custody at a U.S. military prison in another country: If you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to trial in a criminal court run by the civilian judicial system, or would you rather see him tried by a military court run by the U.S. armed forces?

              11/15/09Criminal court   34Military court   64No opinion        2

CNN/ORC: And regardless of which court system you think he should be tried in, if you had to choose, would you rather see Khalid Sheik Mohammed brought to the U.S. to stand trial or would you rather see him tried in a U.S. facility in another country?

                       11/15/09Brought to the U.S.       60Tried in a U.S. facility   in another country      37No opinion                 3

User Comments

If the administration had chosen to use a military tribunal, the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity crowd would be screaming that KSM should have been tried in New York.

Posted by: Nat Ehrlich | November 17, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm

If the trials are moved into US standard courtrooms, they will cost the taxpayers a fortune, the trials will become a media circus, the trials will go on forever, and the trials will become a terror target as well.
So where’s the benefit? Closing Guantanamo? Just get on with the military tribunals, and quit sitting on the duff! Then you can close Guantanamo, the right way.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | November 17, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm

Amazing that it is Republicans who are opposed to appropriate justice for the 9/11 attacks.

Posted by: Matt | November 17, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm

The Republicans is Trying to Scare Americans again………”TERRORIST”…..THESE TERRORIST IS NOT Supermen with Superpowers!…They are Terrorist that Committed Crimes against our people. Some of the Republcians should be classified as Terrorist for using FEAR and SMEAR to divide their country. UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

Posted by: sara | November 17, 2009, 3:25 pm 3:25 pm

What’s a “standard” courtroom? Are you talking about State or Federal. Like I said, they are Not SuperMen! MY TAXES Has BEEN PAYING FOR THEIR LODGING AT GITMO FOR 8 YEARS!

Posted by: sara | November 17, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm

It is reported that Holder consulted his wife and someone else, perhaps his brother.
Doesn’t Holder have anyone else he could have ask questions of? Congress, military, cia? He just as well said he consulted his pet rock.

Posted by: david | November 17, 2009, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm

We would be nuts to try terrorists in a civilian court. Why would we want to give them an open forum? Use the toughest form of justice for foreign combatants! These are not civilian criminals. They are military prisoners of war and should be treated as such. It would also cost a fortune to try them in a civilian court. We can secure the trial much more cheaply on a military site. No mercy for random murderers of noncombatants.

Posted by: John | November 19, 2009, 9:44 pm 9:44 pm

KSM and his little friends were not mirandized.
Should what they told interrogators be admitted? In federal court, it will not be admitted any more than my statements would be admitted without Miranda. After all, equal protection.
Are you ready for THAT fallout?

Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 2, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.