Trial and Terror
November 16th, 2009 | Editorial Cartoons | 12 Comments
Tweet
Finally, the 9/11 conspirators are going to have their day in court. What an uproar has been unleashed by Attorney general Eric Holder’s decision to allow Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his followers to be tried in a civilian court in the United States. The very idea that we at long last are returning to a bedrock American tradition–a trial by jury–in the prosecution of the alleged criminals who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has Obama’s critics foaming at the mouth. It will endanger the citizens of New York, it will be a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, these guys are warriors who don’t deserve a civilian trial, what if they’re acquitted?–and on and on.
I’d like to believe that most of these arguments are purely political, that if the Democrats were arguing against giving these men a fair trial, they would be accused of not having faith in the American system of justice. I’d like to believe that, and not that the Republicans have lost their moorings in the war on terror and their relentless campaign of fear-mongering. One thing is certain: torture will come up in these trials, and the Bush administration and their Congressional enablers will be embarrassed once again. In the end, though, most of the world will admire an America that has regained the courage to live up to its principles. The ones who hate us and our way of life will be unmoved, no matter what we do. Let the trials begin.
Topics: 9/11 conspirators, Eric Holder, GOP, guantanamo, Justice department, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Obama, Republicans, terrorism, trial
E-mail
Facebook
RSS
Twitter
You alluded to the fundamental issue here, Ed, that must be answered – whether or not these men committed acts of war, or whether these were simply criminal acts that merit a trial by jury. I don’t believe that it must be a government or nation violating the laws of war – a group of individuals can do as much. So if these terrorist acts are indeed acts of war, why should military tribunals not apply? And why are civilian trials preferable? I think the same case could have been made for Ramzi Yousef.
While there is politicizing going on in the attacks against this movement by the Attorney General, I am not convinced that the Obama administration has no ulterior motives such as trying to placate their base and stir resentment against the Bush administration for the controvery surrounding treatment of these prisoners.
BG
What is the difference between what these men are accused of doing and what Timothy Mcveigh/Terry Nichols did? The 1993 World Trade Center bombing (I guess you think this was an act of war too)? The Wall St bombings of 1920? Heck what about all the Anti-abortion bombings/killings in the last 20 years? How is 911 an act of war and not a crime like the rest of the terrorist acts that have hit us over the years? What distinguishes war from crime?
Bear in mind that the wacky right is still angry that Janet Napolitano identified rightwing types as potential threats — there was a cartoon this past week criticizing her once again for picking on god loving Americans and ignoring Muslims. In their world, McVeigh and Nichols were just a couple of good ol’ boys who went bad, while the Fort Hood shooter was part of a massive conspiracy.
Don’t look to loonies for consistent political theory.
There really is no difference. I would not have had a problem with the Oklahoma City bombers being tried by tribunals. Same with the 1993 WTC bombing (I said as much in my first statement about Yousef.) Anti-abortion bombings / killings? Those acts seem to be more specific to individual institutions, not against an entire government/people. Eric Rudolpf may be an exception to that, though.
Military tribunals are not some new fad that was propogated by President Bush & company. They go (literally) all the way back through our history. One of the critical advantages is that it can help keep sensitive information, especially that realted to national security, confidential.
You are right, we have had military tribunals since the first GW (George Washington). They were used on native americans during the Indian Wars and even the Lincoln conspirators. however, in 1866, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled it was unconstitutional to try civilians by military tribunal. So, it’s down to the definitian of a “civilian”. “Unlawful enemy combatant” is by its definition a “civilian who engages in armed conflict”.
In any case, I don’t see the problem with using the court system. I’m not sure what confidential national security issues there could be and even so, there is such an opening to abuse (as we have seen) to the use of “national security” to keep “secrets” that have nothing to really do with national security.
The definition of civilian is a non-military citizen. I don’t think that label applies to the parties in question as Al Qaeda is a somewhat-formal organization bent on waging Jihad. So should the Supreme Court’s decision be applicable in their case?
Granting these men a civilian trial now gives them them the presumption of innocence, in spite of people like KSM proclaiming his role, and begging for “martyrdom.” If we now must go through the process of proving he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, what justification is there for our initial retaliation to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan? (Note I am speaking ONLY of the early stages of the war in the Middle East.) What is so different from these men than from the Germans who were caught trying to cause sabotage in 1942?
I am no expert on covert military operations and national securtity, but I do know that there will be a serious problem in the courtroom if there is a conflict between the demands of the defendants and the reluctance of the government to reveal people, sources, places, times, etc. And good luck finding a “jury of peers”, people with no bias or minimal 9/11 knowledge.
BG, how can one have a trial without granting the presumption of innocence? It’s not as though the Bush administration and the CIA didn’t make terrible mistakes in identifying terror suspects. We know of at least two cases of mistaken identity in which innocent men were kidnaped, sent to other countries and tortured. We know that a number of detainees were finally released when it was finally discovered they posed no threat at all. A number of the Guantanamo detainees were turned in by neighbors for ransom and had nothing to do with al Qaeda or jihad. Does calling someone a terrorist automatically make him one, or do we apply the American principle of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law to all? The problem with military tribunals is that the rules the Bush administration cooked up on the spur of the moment for them were so prejudicial that every military judge who looked at them rejected them. To date, the entire affair has been a disaster. That leaves the tried-and-true American judicial system.
If the “cooked up” rules were flawed, there is a simple solution – don’t use them. That does not mean you have to throw out the tribunal concept altogether. Regarding the presumption of innocence – I was trying to make a point regarding the apples/oranges circumstances here – and did not put it out there in the best way. When Al Qaeda attacked us, it allowed for retaliation in the form of military response. How things have progressed from that point has been wrong. However, war is not a situation where Miranda rights are read. Things are different. So why are these high-profile militants now receiving the same legal treatment and benefits as someone who steals a pack of gum? KSM has proudly pronounced his master-minding of an act of war which resulted in mass-murder. I find it sad when a previous administration screws something up, or uses something in a wrong way, and the subsequent answer is to go throw everything out, go in a totally different direction, rather than look to make proper use of what is in place.
Jerry – I’m not saying that military tribunals couldn’t apply to the Alaska scenario. There could be a legitimate case made that such parties are no longer “non-military civilians.” Al Qaeda’s attack on us sure seems like a declaration of war, even if it is not as conventional in methodolgy as Germany’s was. Finding a jury for McVeigh was problematic, but at least they tried him in Colorado, instead of OKC. The Gitmo prisoners are being tried where the attacks took place.
Iain and Mike – keep spewing the vitriol.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Even though we have had military tribunals since our founding fathers doesn’t mean that we haven’t over used them through the years. My take on the general jist of the Supreme Court ruling is that tribunals are ok only when there are times when the courts are simply not functioning during a time of war. At least so far, the Supreme Court meant a “declared” war not just a congressional resolution. I agree that it seems they were thinking of “citizens” (and Hamdi but not KSM is a citizen). I think some of the justices used international law as a basis for giving rights (at least habeas corpus) to non-citizens.
I have to admit, though, I am confused as to how some of the detainees get court and some get tribunals.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure how the law applies between citizens and non-citizens but what if a somewhat-formal organization in Alaska started blowing up places because they wanted independence? Military Tribunals?
In terms of the Germans, we were in a declared war with Germany, they sabotuers were brought here by U-boats and the guys wore their uniforms when coming ashore.
How did we find a jury for McVeigh?
Having thought about it, we will likely have a problem with the government explaining how the CIA somehow got KSM in Pakistan and what we have been doing with him all these years at Gitmo. How many times was he waster-boarded? My guess is that anyone would say about anything you wanted to hear after the first 100 or so times. Holder does say, though, that he has plenty of other evidence.
The same “people” who are arguing that these prisons should be denied access to the justice system are raving about Obama being soft on the Chinese over Human Rights. ??? American reason is being reduced to My Pet Goat.
the acts these criminals laid on this country have earned them nothing more than a long overdue firing squad. period.