If we are a nation of laws, then this is the moment in which we shall prove it.
So we are going to bring five of the suspected AQ conspirators to New York for trial in US courts.
What a sensible thing to do.
If we think back to the dreadful days after 9/11 when we could hardly think at all, did any of us imagine that co-conspirators of the 19 men who flew planes into the WTC would be dealt with in any other way?
Remember, it was a long time ago: before the notion that a few hundred people scattered around the world could declare "war" on an entire nation; before we learned that we would have to take the gloves off against an enemy that would squelch us if we didn't; before "enemy combatants," and the rather shocking news that our captured enemies would be housed in a new, non-nation nation in a near-forgotten corner of, of all places, Cuba. It was before we learned that if we wanted to live in peace and freedom, we would have to be, if not Un-American, then certainly Non-American when it came to our Islamist enemies.
In those simpler days, we figured that if there were co-conspirators, they would be "brought to justice." I for one didn't think we'd establish a whole new offshore entity with the intention of handing out justice like so many fake medical degrees.
Just as word gets around about those fake medical degrees, word has gotten around that our efforts lacked credibility. Trillions of dollars and two nebulous war efforts later, we find our standing seriously compromised, our national rhetoric in shambles, and the enemy combatants we did manage to scoop up still awaiting justice, whatever justice means these days.
It's time to end this. If we are a nation of laws, then this is the moment in which we shall prove it. If we are a nation of liberty, then this is the moment in which we shall put it to the test. If we are a nation
Right, erica. You may have already seen this Isikoff piece in Newsweek about the trial of KSM, and his interview by Rachel Maddow. It puts lie to the Republican scream-fest that he should be tried by military tribunal, not 'treated as a common criminal' in US courts. Isikoff points out that Holder and prosecutors have tried to build a case from interviews untainted by torture confessions ('Clean Teams' in CIA-speak); and that US Justice prosecutions of 'terror' suspects have a higher conviction success rate than tribunals, although he didn't say what the numbers of trials were in each category.
Holder has been iffy about what to do if the defense brings up torture in the proceedings. They really want a conviction.
November 14, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. And I think some of the people who choreographed all of these goings on should be tried under the same laws.
November 14, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get your hopes up too much for a return of the rule of law because a couple of trials will occur. Holder made a big splash by announcing these "in the bag" prosecutions that will rightly take place. What didn't receive much attention was his additional announcement that there are yet many more slated to face the illegal military "tribunals" for Stalinistic show trials where there is no pretense of allowing the accused any effective defense against the charges they will face. There are no plans to discontinue the show trials either.
November 14, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. Well then. Duped again.
November 14, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's just say the Obama White House is not above portraying a small step as something a great deal more than it really is.
November 14, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
All late yesterday I had the images of the show trials in Iraq in my brain; those hastily-constructed seats and rails and whatnot, and the walk-outs...and then the hangings.
November 14, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for those against whom we have little or no evidence or for which all evidence has been tainted by torture and other war crimes we will orchestrate a much more elegant but no less farcical series of show trials. Some will end in execution, but most with life sentences.
There is some reason for a glimmer of hope and that is that with providing for legitimate legal prosecutions of at least some of the detainees the system has been forced to admit the illegitimacy of the show trials called military tribunals. Typical of his wishy washy approach, Obama has tried to have it both ways but that only makes the illegitimate portion of the governments actions more apparent in my opinion.
November 14, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show trials are bad enough. A worse retreat from the rule of law is the decision to keep those whom we can't even convict in the rigged military tribunals locked up forever without a trial. I mean, there are lots of people around the world who would say, "Well, if you don't have any evidence that the guy committed a crime, that must be because he's innocent and should be released." But that won't do. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Addington decreed, "There are no innocent men in Guantanamo. If there's no evidence against them it's just because they are so superior to regular law enforcement and intelligence agents and proves they are too dangerous to be let go." Oh, yeah, and then there was the chief prosecutor at GTMO who said, "Acquittals are not acceptable." Like Omar Khadr, who was 15 years old when he was picked up.
November 15, 2009 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
November 15, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops! This posted before I finished it--but you get the idea.
November 14, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would be most appreciative if you would finish this post. I would like to read/follow through the hows, whats, whys, whens, wheres of your thought process.
Sincerely yours
November 14, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was trying to get at a couple of ideas--working from the idea that justice isn't something automatic but arises from consistent application of agreed upon laws. (and freedom/liberty isn't limitless but is the product of living in the checks and balances that the founders created.) So in that sense, justice outsourced is justice denied.
I also think that bringing these trials home--and I hope it's not just for show--is part of the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan strategy. The whole guantanamo thing has hardened sentiment against the usa and living by our own rules will almost undoubtedly make a difference in the struggle for hearts and minds in those countries. "Ah," they will say, "those Americans are still jackasses, but at least they're back to being Americans."
November 14, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dealt with any other way?? Absolutely. These terrorists did not rob a 7-Eleven. They were behind the massacre of thousands of Americans. They should not be given equal treatment to the crazy lunatic that commits some random act of murder.
Erica - please spare me talk of the "rule of law". If this was the primary consideration, the US already has a judicial process in place. The current special military tribunals were created in 2006 under bipartisan Congressional support after the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision said that the executive and legislative branches must approve a detailed plan to prosecute "enemy combatants" captured since 9/11.
Military tribunals are not a break from the 200+ years of American jurisprudence. Even Eric Holder said that the Guantanamo detainee responsible for the USS Cole would face military tribunals. But for some reason unknown to me, KSM and his colleagues deserve a civilian trial. Why the difference? Do you really think it's for legal reasons and not political motives?
November 14, 2009 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How ridiculous. The reason to try KSM in gitmo is to prevent him from having access to the myriad of legal rights that protect us in the US court system, since as a foreign terrorist he is not entitled to them. Treating him as a criminal will have dire consequences. His confessions will be now inadmissible. As will most of the evidence captured with him (no warrants, no Miranda). I doubt that there is any evidence that would pass the rules required in the US court system, since soldiers are not police and are not trained in the rules of evidence collection and handling. Then there is the issue of secret evidence and collection methods revealed in open court to terrorists. Also the matter of finding an untainted jury in NYC, come on! Not possible. If the rules are followed, he will be released or acquitted. The rules were not designed for this. As a result we will look like impotent scared little helpless cowards. And the enemy will be emboldened.
November 14, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is you and your ilk who look like scared helpless cowards. That is exactly what the Cheney-Bush administration created: Scared helpless cowards. Congratulations - you bit.
Finally we have the courage to be what we profess to be.
"Treating him like a criminal will have dire consequences." Guess what? He is a criminal, because terrorists are criminals.
November 14, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Erica. We aren't a nation of laws. At least not in a way most people think what that means. We are a nation of money and haves and have nots. Most laws are written for and at the request of the haves. Even those that aren't somehow end up favoring the haves. Law in this country any more is mostly what certain people say it is.
November 14, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink