Why the 9/11 trials probably won’t be an issue in the NY 2010 elections

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several of his alleged terror collaborators are coming to the Big Apple for what’s certain to be the trial of the decade. The forces in our government pushing for civilian prosecutions have triumphed over the voices who have screamed that we should effectively take these guys out behind the Guantanamo Bay guardhouse and shoot them. But just because they face the prospect of execution after a jury trial doesn’t mean that a political stink isn’t going to be made about this issue by those who could have the most to gain from it: New York’s Republicans.

Moving prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay has certainly been used as a political tool by Republicans in recent Congressional campaigns. Nancy Boyda, a one-term Democrat in Kansas, experienced the rocky shoals of the issue when it seemed possible that Gitmo detainees could be transferred into her district’s Fort Leavenworth military prison. And with major political contests up for grabs in New York in 2010, particularly for the state’s junior senate and governor, it would seem logical that New York’s GOP might seize on the issue.

Rep. Michael McMahon, the Democrat who grabbed Staten Island’s seat from disgraced Republican Vito Fossella, seemed aware of the political risks of the trials. He gave a statement on the decision to try the terror suspects in New York that seemed built to hedge. He noted he prefers military trials, spoke out strongly in favor of seeking the death penalty against the defendants, and hoped that families of victims in his district would find closure in the trials.

And in the case of Rep. Peter King, he tossed out a criticism that was more ‘not in there backyard’ than ‘not in my backyard’ given that the alleged terrorists on trial in the Southern District of New York are unlikely to spend any time in the Long Island Republican’s congressional district. King alleged that the trials are “an insult to the memory of those killed on 9/11.”

But if Rep. King can only focus on speaking for the families who oppose the trials, it shows that Republicans may not be able to take the issue very far.

First, once they’ve argued that the trials are a mistake, what else can they do? If the trials proceed relatively quickly, and reach the capital phase by November 3, 2010, it will be difficult for anyone to argue against the wisdom of moving them to New York City.

But even if the trials move slowly, it’s not like Republican challengers in the Senate and governor’s races will be able to say they can do anything about the ongoing trials. They will be a fact that can’t be argued with.

More than that, if Republican hopefuls attempt to campaign on the issue, they are likely to be accused of politicizing justice, as Senator Gillibrand implied in her statement on the subject.

More than that, arguably the state’s most successful Republican (at least he ran on their line on Election Day), Mayor Michael Bloomberg, appears to have given Democrats and the Obama administration ample political cover for the decision to move the trials to New York City:

“I support the Obama administration’s decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists here in New York. It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” he said.

via Feds to seek death penalty for Sept. 11 suspects in Manhattan trial.

I guess that’s the first bit of quid pro quo we’re seeing for the President not backing up Bill Thompson’s mayoral campaign. And it will allow any Democrat criticized by a Republican in 2010 to say, “Hey, your guy Michael Bloomberg agrees it was the right thing to do.”

So while there are plenty of problems in New York that the state’s Republicans can try to exploit to take back the governor’s mansion and a Senate seat, don’t expect the terrorism trials to be one of them.

P.S. – If the trials actually do become a terrorist target, it could be something of a game changer. But blaming a terrorist attack on Democrats out loud is a dicey proposition, and creates risks for the party that does it.