OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

RICHMOND COUNTY

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

130 STUYVESANT PLACE

STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK 10301
TELEPHONE (718) 876-6300

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release on April 22, 2010 Contact: William J. Smith (718) 556-7150
William.Smith@rcda.nyc.gov

D.A. DONOVAN CALLS ON DOJ TO TRY 9/11 MASTERMIND IN A

MILITARY COMMISSION & EXCLUDE NYC AS VENUE
***Decries Treating KSM as a “Common Criminal” and Turning Lower Manhattan into a “Fortress”***

STATEN ISLAND, NY – On the occasion of President Barack Obama’s visit to New York City and in response to recent
comments by Attorney General Eric Holder before Congress that the Department of Justice still has not taken New York
City “off the table” as the venue for the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Richmond County District
Attorney Daniel M. Donovan, Jr. today reiterated his call for the trial to take place before a military commission, far from
New York City federal courts.

District Attorney Donovan, the chief law enforcement official of Richmond County, which lost 268 residents in the
terrorist attacks, issued the following statement:

“Prior to the Attorney General’s recent remarks, it appeared that common sense was prevailing in the
arguments against trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City. Sadly, the Department of Justice
continues to fail to heed the common sense arguments made by Mayor Bloomberg and city business leaders.
An estimated cost of at least $200 million dollars per year, when our city is facing massive deficits and
layoffs is unacceptable; not to mention turning lower Manhattan into a fortress and its’ residents, businesses
and employees into virtual prisoners for the duration of the proceedings.

As a prosecutor, I am deeply disappointed that so little attention has been paid to the core considerations
against trying this self-professed terrorist in civilian court as if he were a common criminal, entitled to rights
under a Constitution he proclaims to despise.

Our system of justice is predicated on protecting the rights of the accused. The terror attacks of 9/11 occurred
almost a decade ago and KSM has been in US custody since 2003. Under the Department of Justice’s
proposal is he not entitled to a “speedy trial” guaranteed by the 6th Amendment? It has been reported that he
told American interrogators he would not answer questions until he was provided a lawyer, which was
refused. While KSM has confessed to his crimes, could his attorney not argue that his confession was
coerced? After all, he was allegedly water-boarded over 180 times by CIA interrogators. Is he not protected
by the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination? Under our laws his confession would be rendered
inadmissible as well as all other evidence gathered from his statements.

-more-
Our 4th Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, specifically requiring search and
arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. KSM was arrested and his
computer hard drive seized without a warrant. According to information presented during the Combatant
Status Review Tribunal Hearing in 2007 this hard drive included, among other information, details about the
airplanes hijacked on 9/11 including code names, airlines, flight number, targets, as well as the names and
photographs of the hijackers . Will this information be excluded in a civilian trial?

As a prosecutor I know the vital importance of protecting the integrity of the jury pool by avoiding
statements that could taint potential jurors in the “court of public opinion.” Yet Vice- President Biden,
Attorney General Holder and Press Secretary Gibbs have publicly described KSM’s conviction and
execution as a fait accompli, rather than a matter for a judge and jury to decide. In any court in this state,
such statements would be cause for a change of venue. When top government officials make such statements,
is there any juror untouched?

In a civilian trial, KSM is entitled to “discovery” of the evidence against him. How can we limit the access of
KSM, who may represent himself, to sensitive intelligence and investigative materials vital to national
security? Former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the 1993 WTC bombing trials in federal
court, has stated that those trials compromised our intelligence sources and methods, leading to a weakened
national security stance preceding 9/11.

In 1998, KSM’s mentor, Osama Bin Laden, issued a “fatwa” essentially declaring war on America. 9/11 was
an offensive act of war against our nation and should be treated as such, with the perpetrators treated as
enemy combatants.

There is precedent for such actions. The planners of the Pearl Harbor attacks were not brought to Honolulu
for civilian trials, but rather Japanese defendants in the post-World War II War Crimes trials were prosecuted
before military tribunals, charged with waging aggressive war against the peace. In Europe, Nazi leaders
were prosecuted for unprovoked attacks on their neighbors. Does masterminding the hijacking of civilian
planes, causing the death of 2,976 Americans and spawning wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not constitute an
act of aggressive war?

A trial before a military commission, in accordance with the standards set in the Military Commissions Act,
will protect the rights of the accused to a fair trial, but will also ensure the integrity of our system of justice
and protect the security interests of the American people.

The current proposal by the Justice Department will not result in justice, but will offer a venue in the world’s
largest media market for those who hate America and seek to make a mockery of our system, all while
further crippling the economy of New York City.”

-end-