By: Paige Rohe

A man was convicted in a German court on Wednesday to fifteen years imprisonment. To most, particularly to many Americans, this news item might seem rather ho-hum. After all, on this side of the Atlantic, people get convicted to similar punishments practically everyday. For Americans, 15 years isn’t anything nearly as serious as life imprisonment or the death penalty. Yet it’s the weightiest penalty the German judicial system  can divvy out. Why should we, American’s care how German’s chastise and rehabilitate their criminals? Because the defendant in this particular case, Mounir el-Motassadeq, was found guilty of providing ‘crucial’ logistical support to the terrorists who participated in the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.

Mounir el-Motassadeq stood unflinching before the panel of five German judges as he was convicted of five counts of attempted murder and gross bodily harm, holding membership in a terrorist organization, and more than 3,000 counts of accessory to murder. As he listened to his sentence, this terrorist did not weep. He did not protest his innocence. He didn’t even bow his head in solemnity. Instead, he is reported to have stood emotionless. At one point, he even gazed down at his watch. Apparently the trial’s unfavorable decision
didn’t strike him as particularly ominous. Perhaps Mr. El-Motassadeq couldn’t care less that he is associated with September 11th- he might even be proud of it. Or maybe, he feels he is innocent and knows that an appeal is on the way. But, I feel that the most likely of all the possible explanations for Mounir el-Motassadeq’s behavior during his sentencing is the fact that he knows he is young. Of course he wasn’t terribly miffed, he only has 15 years to wait before he will be set free.

One can hope that, by 2018, the threat of the Al Qaeda terrorism network will only be as real as chapters in history books and memorials in New York City. One can hope, but I wouldn’t bet on it. It’s been a year since September 11th, and we don’t even know if there are terrorist cells in the United States. Although President Bush has promised that we are slowly but surely winning the fight against terrorism and Al Qaeda, it is common knowledge that one of the more organized Al Qaeda units was/is (who can be sure) in Germany. If we manage to arrest members of the Al Qaeda in the US, they would likely receive life-sentences- making them a lost asset to their counter-parts around the
world. If they are caught outside of the United States, in their country of residence, what will happen to them? At least, in the case of Germany, it sounds to me like more 15-year sentences. No matter what atrocities against humanity these individuals might be found to have accomplished or are planning to do, if that’s all German courts can hurl at these dangerous men, then in fifteen years’ time, we’ll still be facing the same problem with terrorists that we confront today.

To me, this scenario is less than ideal. Granted, in the name of all that’s Just, Prudent, and Diplomatic, we ought to allow citizens and residents of other countries to be tried in their own country by their own country’s rules. Yet, as an American, I can’t help but feel a little short-changed. This man assisted in the murder of so many of my countrymen and women! In fifteen years time he’ll walk the earth again a free man, with only a few more gray hairs to
show for it. Will a man as hungry to help others commit such a horrific act of violence as September 11th really have been rehabilitated in 15 years? Will he re-enter society as a changed, peace-loving man? I highly doubt it.

I’m not suggesting that American conceptions of punishment or rehabilitation ought to be applied to Germans, French, or the Chinese. I am arguing that the criminal cases of international terrorists ought to be tried in an international court.

Much like the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg, I propose an international court that would have special defense and prosecution teams who are both allowed to access to US or another country’s classified evidence against the defendant. The strongest complaint about the decision of the judges in the case of Mr. El-Motassadeq is the fact that the prosecution was given top-secret information which the defense was unable to examine. Does Mr. El-Motassadeq stand likely to win an appellate case on this flaw in the trial? If he does, all that is Just, Prudent, and Diplomatic will find itself hog-tied indeed. Judges from not only the country where the act of terror was committed, but also from the place of residence, or citizenship of the defendant ought to sit on the trial, so as to insure that the criminal receives a fair punishment, and the victims of the crime, a fair retribution.

I’ll admit, even this system has flaws. There is no guarantee that the US would even participate in such a court system, since it could care less about the present-day International Criminal Court. Who knows how judges from states that ordinarily institute the death penalty in such a case would compromise with infamously anti-capital punishment nations like Germany? I don’t have all the answers, but I do think the necessity of such a judicial system will become increasingly apparent with time, and, I hope, with the future capture of other international terrorists around the world. Until then, we must count the days as Mr. El-Motassadeq languishes in jail and pray that his release finds him of
little use to any of his former compatriots.

Paige Rohe is an International Studies student at Emory University and a contributing writer for PurePolitics.com. She can be reached at feedback@purepolitics.com.

Past Columns: 1, 2, 3