A lot of opinion about Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court seems to turn on what might be called gut level sentiment. The tendency is not to discuss the issue in a measured way but to regard Holder’s decision as idiotic on its face. My own gut level sentiment is that a commitment to the normal American judicial process trumps all other considerations. Consequently I found the article below to be refreshing.
It is disturbing that our basic assumptions that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is entitled to a zealous defense, etc., are being so widely and so readily dismissed. A common assessment of the impact of terrorism is that it has the effect of encouraging societies to set aside or abridge their core values. It seems to me that everyone, to include Holder and Obama, has given short shrift to the overriding value of justice being done and of seeing it being done.
I realize that many insist that military commissions also meet this basic requirement. Yet the emphasis has been on ensuring a conviction and protecting intelligence sources. I can understand why this would be so, and I have respect for some of the rationales being offered. But I simply cannot make myself feel at ease with it. If a normal trial in federal court presents challenges, tough. It reflects the kind of country I want to live in.
Holder’s reasonable decision
By Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith
Washington Post, Friday, November 20, 2009Reasonable minds can disagree about Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 perpetrators in a Manhattan federal court. But some prominent criticisms are exaggerated, and others place undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials.
Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.
A trial in Manhattan will bring enormous media attention and require unprecedented security. But it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed’s nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would — a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden’s driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.
6 Comments
More to the point my friend, doing so reflects the kind of country Americans tell the rest of the world that they *do* live in. Since the beginning of the GWOT, and however uncomfortable it seems – and is – at times, you can’t say or do things as a nation oblivious to the impact on the rest of us, and that especially includes your real friends and close allies.
I generally support this administration, but I have to ask why we just don’t treat these people as POWs—we have said it is a war on terrorism, they have said they are at war with us, so build a POW camp in Arizona, lock them up, let the appropriate watch dog groups check them out occasionally, and be done with it.
“It is disturbing that our basic assumptions that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is entitled to a zealous defense, etc., are being so widely and so readily dismissed.”
These people are not citizens and do not enjoy the fruits of our Constitution or institutions of law, correct?
I guess it comes down to whether or not you think we are at war and if their attack was an act of war on civilians?
If so they are war criminals who attacked Civilians. They should then be tried in a military court, just like the Nazi’s at Nuremberg. Had any other military attacked civilians in such a way, whoever ordered and executed said attack should and would always be tried in a military tribunal.
I fear this trial will become a show trial and there are already rumblings as such just yesterday as their lawyer described how he will defend them, by putting the United States on trial, essentially, from what I gathered. This is an awful decision.
Anyone tried in a civilian court is entitled to the same rights and protections as any other defendant. So no, on the first point you are entirely incorrect.
If we are at war, then the enemy combatants we have captured are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, and until tried and convicted as war criminals, would remain entitled to those protections.
A lot of people share your fears of this becoming a show trial — and no wonder. The blogosphere is filled with pronouncements of this sort, and nearly all of them come from commentators who have opposed the Obama administration from Day One. Consequently I have a healthy skepticism about the degree to which they have weighed the issues dispassionately.
For different perspectives — and I assume you’re interested in gaining different perspectives, even if ultimately you find them unpersuasive, you might take a look at the following:
Trying Question: Why putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial downtown is the right thing for the U.S.—and [New York] City.
A Risk Worth Taking: Civilian Trials for Guantanamo Terror Suspects
Civilians Can Keep Secrets Too: Trying Terror Suspects in Federal Courts
“Anyone tried in a civilian court is entitled to the same rights and protections as any other defendant. So no, on the first point you are entirely incorrect.”
What? They should not be there (U>S> Court). They are war combatants. That was my point. I wrote: “…If so they are war criminals who attacked Civilians.”
How am I wrong again?
Yes, of course, they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention! Where did I say they were not?
And we’ll see how this goes and if in any way it was the right move. If it becomes the show some suspect.
And hey thank you for those links, I will check them out…….
From the first link:
“These guys are war criminals. Their cases belong in front of military commissions.
To me, the most difficult question to resolve definitively. Clearly Al Qaeda is an organized entity with an avowed agenda to destroy the U.S. and establish a primitive theocracy to dominate the world. And there is a long, bloody record of its assaults. Yet for all its potency, and the grandiosity of its aims, Al Qaeda is closer to a gang of thugs than an army.
Read more: Why Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on Trial Downtown Is the Right Thing for the U.S. and the City.”
– New York Magazine http://nymag.com/news/politics/citypolitic/62255/#ixzz0YqtEVlPP
This statement: “Yet for all its potency, and the grandiosity of its aims, Al Qaeda is closer to a gang of thugs than an army”
Is all about personal judgment, which is what I could have sworn was the point of my post but you somehow missed it. I see them as a military organization that is at war with us. You and this writer must not? For as the above author notes, determining if this was an act of war or not is the difficult question.
-C