Why not a trial for terrorists?
I've read through a lot of the give and take over the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City and I have to admit, I'm still baffled.
Why is it even a question whether or not terrorists should be brought to trial? And why is Rudy Giuliani, a former Federal prosecutor, opposed to the idea?
America's criminal justice system represents one of the highest and strongest ideals of our democracy.
Even the worst of the worst are granted their day in court.
As a society, we share the facts of the case. We educate ourselves about the motives and the horror behind the crime; and we collaborate in the punishment meted out.
Some critics have suggested that in this case justice should be handled in a military court setting. I couldn't disagree more.
The US military is already bearing a large enough burden in the post 9/11 world. Frankly, we have too often taken the easy way out since that terrible day.
Rather than think and deliberate and search for the most effective strategy for protecting America's people, we have simply handed over task after task to our service men and women.
This represents a failure of our civilian leadership and of our collective courage as a people. A potentially dangerous one.
The truth is that it's time for a collective re-examination of many of the concepts that shaped the current 'war on terror.'
It's time to rethink what has been primarily a military strategy for combating terrorism.
Some will argue that thinking, re-evaluating, debating is unacceptable -- a sign of weakness, un-American.
But that old dodge is wearing thin. In fact, the US military has already begun its own internal review of the mistakes made over the last eight years.
Hopefully this trial will be a first sign that America's civil institutions are also regaining confidence.
At our best, we are a society of laws and institutions. We are a culture where the "hang 'em high" mentality expressed this week by former governor Sara Palin is tempered by respect for such principles as habeas corpus and due process.
In the end, I have little doubt but that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be found guilty and condemned to die.
How we reach that goal will say as much about us as it says about him.
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/15/2009 09:59:00 AM
15 Comments
15 Comments:
Yes. An additional curiosity: More commonly, the defense tries its best to move a trial away from the location of the crime, while local citizens demand the right to attend and participate in the judicial process. What better redress could we have than to see the citizens of New York sworn in as the jury to judge these people?
Well at least NYS will benefit from all the commerce that this trial will bring to New York. Let's make sure we increase all fees and maybe even invent some new ones for everyone that wants to attend the circus.
The orderly, dispassionate application of justice and the rule of law is the most fundamental difference between civilized societies and the terrorist and religious fanatic organizations we like to vilify. Either we're better than the terrorists or we're not.
If our justice system can try Timothy McVeigh and Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the Unabomber without the sky falling, then why are we afraid of this Khalid Sheikh Mohammed guy?
First off Brian, he won't die if tried under NYS law, that's a given. Under Federal Law, perhaps.
My issue is this- These people are taken as combatants in a war zone. They were fighting the military, under their quasi military orders. Why does that make them "criminals"? I don't see that it does. They're terrorists or military criminals, they didn't break the laws as criminals, they broke them as terrorists. Giving them criminal status in a civilian court is giving them rights they don't deserve. We don't try our own military people in criminal court, why should we try these people there?
They should have all been tried several years back in a Military Court. This would have been done and over. THis will not end well.
I've been thinking about this and would like to expand a little more. We CAN'T fairly try them! They were not taken into custody under criminal law rules, their admissions are all void, the case is corrupted from the get go because the rules of evidence differ between the two types of law in play. I don't see how we can try them in a civilian court.
There's no way we can do this and have anything like a good outcome. There's got to be some political maneuvering behind this that is being concealed. This makes no sense from a law enforcement point of view.
John Adams represented the British soldiers involved in the Boston massacre to affirm the fact that this is America and every one gets a fair trial. Obama should state that he stands with John Adams and affirm the principle that this is America and everybody, even an alleged terrorist, gets a fair trial. What better way to show the world the greatness of American than giving these alleged terrorists a fair trial.
John Adams represented them before the US was formed under British law. Yes, he stood by his principles but that doesn't answer the question as to how you give a fair trial to someone arrested under military law and who was never expected to go before a civilian jury. Look up "fruit of the poison tree" to see why nothing previously discovered can be used against them. The case shouldn't be able to proceed past the Discovery point.
Bret said: Look up "fruit of the poison tree" to see why nothing previously discovered can be used against them.
This begs the question of why as savvy a lawyer as Eric Holder would bring cases he thought he couldn't win. Do you think he wants KSM and friends to go free? Do you think they haven't already run mock trial on this to project what the defense might bring up and what the judge may disallow?
An attorney general is a political lawyer. If the Justice Dept. thought there was even a remote chance these defendants would walk, they would have stuck with the military tribunals, regardless of the problems they have had.
Bret4207 is correct about these being handled by military courts-martial years ago. Also, Bret4207 shows some legal training by pointing to the "fruit of the poinsonous tree." About which I'd like to expand.
When the U.S. took these human beings and submitted them to repeated sesssions of torture, namely waterboarding, anything that could have possibly been extracted by way of confession from these men is null and void.
As Bret4207 points out, it is difficult to see how the AG can prosecute these cases beyond the stage of discovery.
The government has previously claimed that "sensitive State secrets" will be disclosed that will "aid our enemies" but the real reason is that the treatment of these prisoners was beyond the pale of civilized humanity and is a potential embarrassment to the world.
Perhaps the Obama Administration is encouraging these trials to go forward in order to expose what the Bush Administration was up to regarding torture, without needing to put the Bush Admin. on trial?
That would be pure genius.
I agree with Frank. There seems to be some other plan behind this. Unless there is some Federal Law I'm entirely unfamiliar with then I fail to see how they can be prosecuted successfully in a criminal court. I'm not a lawyer, but my training comes from something other than re-runs of Law and Order. It just doesn't add up for me.
Don;t get all warm and snuggly Frank- I don't buy the torture bit at all. Going after Bush...yeah, that would be just the type of thing I'd expect from this Administration. And it will set a precedent that will spit the country apart, destroy it and give us the workers paradise people like you seem to desire. This is one of the things that just might push a lot of people over the edge.
I disagree with both Frank and Bret. I don't think there has to be some secret agenda behind holding civilian trials for these defendants. The more likely answer is that the prosecution has sufficient evidence from sources untainted by the treatment defendants got in Guantanamo or in secret prisons to carry the trials forward to conviction. I doubt KSM's confession would even be entered into evidence. There will be testimony by other witnesses, phone and email intercepts, etc., sufficient to carry the cases forward. No political advantage in airing unsavory Bush administration anti-terror tactics would outweigh the political risks of acquittal. Holder shows no evidence of being an idiot.
Dale -
Eric Holder is no idiot. Of course he has ample evidence to go forward with prosecutions without having to rely upon any statements obtained through our morally abhorant and humanly repugnant "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
Dale, please don't use euphemisms - "Bush administration anti-terror tactics" were not tactics, they were sheer damned torture, terrorism if you will, plain and simple.
PS. My suggestion that the Obama Admin is holding these trials to expose the Cheney/bush torture regime was tongue in cheek and thrown out as bait for mad dogs and Englishmen.
You're not English are you? :-)
Bret4207 wrote: "Don;t get all warm and snuggly Frank- I don't buy the torture bit at all."
A little off the thread but I'll try -
Bret4207, I doubt you couldn't last for 1 hour being naked and isolated in a cold, dark, cramped cage (can't stand up or lay down), having DMX blasted at ear splitting decibels, let alone go through the procedures of waterboarding. I'd would wager my lottery winnings that you'd chicken out before the water even started pouring down your nostrils.
That's not torture Frank. That's scaring and anonying someone. RIpping off fingernails, drilling through kneecaps, electric shock- that's torture. ANd if it protects my kids, I'd be first in line to endorse it.
And if it were your kids who were going through the very real torture of waterboarding, prolonged stress positions, isolation, ear drum cracking rap music (or classical if you prefer), crouching naked for days in cold, dark cages, enduring beatings, being sodomized by broom handles, piled naked on top of other men, and on occasion, murdered - on then being told that their father and other loved ones will also be tortured...
You have mentioned other forms of torture. These were carried out by non-governmental individuals who did not sign on to treaties and who have no law.
We encouraged and practiced torture from the President on down.
Don't allow your children to become soldiers. Now that we have broken our own laws and international law/treaties to "protect" your children, we have lost our moral and ethical ability to have others not use torture.
And again, if waterboarding is just an annoyance, please encourage NCPR to send a reporter to your demonstration as to how it is not torture. Maybe we could use one of your children as a subject. I'm sure they've been annoyed before.
God, perish the thought!
Post a Comment
<< Home