Trial by Absurdity

The alleged authors of Sept. 11 seek death -- and a propaganda coup -- in a flawed legal system.

THE PROCEEDINGS at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have again become a forum for the absurd.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four others are scheduled to be tried by military commission for their roles in the attacks; if convicted, they could face the death penalty. On Monday, the presiding military judge, Army Col. Stephen R. Henley, disclosed that the defendants intended to plead guilty. Under typical circumstances, those facing capital charges enter such pleas to avoid execution. But these are not typical circumstances or typical defendants. Once informed that a plea deal could eliminate the possibility of execution -- and thus thwart their quest for martyrdom -- Mr. Mohammed and his cohorts backed off, at least for the time being. Col. Henley has asked both sides for legal briefs on whether the death penalty is a possibility if the defendants plead guilty.

Judges do not often reject voluntarily submitted guilty pleas, but Col. Henley should do so if these defendants resurrect their pleas. Mr. Mohammed and the others have not explained their rationale, but their acts seem clearly aimed at undermining the legal process and scoring a propaganda coup for their warped cause. This is made all the more possible because of the deeply flawed nature of the Guantanamo proceedings, which deny the detainees basic due-process rights that are available in civilian courts. Further eroding the legitimacy of the commissions is that the Bush administration has admitted that it subjected Mr. Mohammed to waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique that has long been considered torture. Although coerced testimony is normally inadmissible in a conventional court, such admissions are permissible in military commissions under certain circumstances.

It is highly unlikely that the case against Mr. Mohammed and the others will be wrapped up before President-elect Barack Obama is sworn in. This is both a burden and an opportunity. Mr. Obama should either work with Congress to revamp the military commissions to include far more transparency and robust rights for defendants, or he should suspend them in favor of federal court trials. The latter would present formidable challenges for prosecutors because of the tougher standards. But short of establishing a national security court for terrorism trials -- a proposition we endorse, but which could take some time to establish -- federal courts would immediately infuse a level of legitimacy that has been sorely lacking in the Guantanamo proceedings.

The world is watching, which must please Mr. Mohammed. And he must know that the United States is as much on trial as he is. Regardless of whether the death penalty is in play -- but especially if it is -- Mr. Mohammed and the others must be tried under a system that is beholden to nothing but the rule of law.