Putting Terrorists on Trial Could Have Brought Healing And Justice
After the 9/11 attacks, we had a world-altering choice that was rarely even hinted at in the corporate media. Yes, 9/11 changed the world. But the three thousand people who died that day would be multiplied countless times over by the choice made almost immediately after—a choice that brought neither justice, nor safety, nor closure, but only helped create a more lawless, chaotic world, exactly as the terrorists had wanted.
We could have responded by putting the terrorists on trial—as the overwhelming majority of our NATO allies’ population (and the rest of the world) wanted—rather than invading Afghanistan in what turned out to be a fruitless attempt to capture bin Laden.
Responding with war made the terrorists warriors, not criminals—exactly as they wanted and something they could never do on their own. Warriors fight other warriors. Terrorists kill civilians, which makes them just criminals. Their hope, of course, is that their crimes will provoke a government response that in turn will result in war—and then, only then, will they become warriors, retroactively claiming that their crimes were all justified.
That is exactly what we did after 9/11. Exactly what the terrorists wanted. And we did it for no good reason.
We invaded Afghanistan less than a month after 9/11 even though its government had offered to turn over bin Laden for trial—in an Islamic court. Both the prime minister and foreign minister made statements to this effect, but “the US showed no interest in it,” Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil said at the time.
Contrary to public ignorance at the time, bin Laden he would surely have been convicted in such a court, as Islamic clerics almost universally condemned the 9/11 attacks. And once in an Islamic court, a Western trial could have followed—focused victims of all faiths, including Muslims.
This is another key fact that’s been buried: More than 60 Muslims died on 9/11. All their relatives could have testified against bin Laden. If that path had been taken, it’s likely no child would be named “Osama” for at least two generations, so great would be the disgust and horror with what he’d done. All the families of different faiths who’d lost relatives that day could have found justice together—and with it, the opportunity for shared healing, along with the rest of the world.
Most people wanted just that.
We know this because immediately after 9/11, Gallup International polled people in 34 countries around the world. In all but 3 countries, super-majorities (2-1, 3-1, up to 10-1 and more) said the US should seek to extradite the terrorists & put them on trial, rather than attack the countries they were based in.
In Western Europe, NATO’s traditional heart, France (favoring trial over invasion 67-29, better than 2-1) was the least anti-war, while our other main allies Italy (71-21), Britain (75-18), Germany (77-17) opposed war 3 or 4-1. In Spain (86-12) it was over 7-1.
Only two countries people overwhelmingly favored war: India (72-28) and Israel (77-19), both of which had been at war with Muslim neighbors off-and-on for generations. The fact that they wanted us to follow their failed path should have been a huge red flag, telling us that going to war was not the way to go.
In America, a bare majority of 54% favored war, 30% favored trial and 16% were undecided. This slight majority for war was sharply at odds with elite war lust at the time, which undoubtedly influenced public opinion.
The war lust was evident in a survey of op-eds in New York Times & Washington Post by Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting, which found a lopsided 44 columns stressed a military response vs just two stressing non-military solutions in the first three weeks after 9/11.
These figures show there was no serious reflection on alternative responses, no check at all on our knee-jerk reaction, which is just what bin Laden wanted—a violent lawless response making us seem more like him once innocent civilians started dying by the thousands.
Our knee-jerk response to 9/11 created the chaotic, war-torn, increasingly lawless world we live in today. It gave permission to Putin’s invasions abroad and eroded trust in elites, paving the way for Trump. The flood of refugees fleeing the wars we started after 9/11 also feed anti-immigrant sentiment across Europe, as many people who never wanted Middle East wars in the first place resented both the elites who took them to war, and the refugees fleeing it afterwards. This, in turn, was a major factor in the rise of far right parties in Europe.
It didn’t have to be like this. Another world was possible—and the peaceful alternative was widely popular where it was thoughtfully considered. Democracy could have saved us—if we’d put it into practice when we needed it most.