A story in this morning's Washington Post saying that Obama administration officials are close to announcing that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 conspirators won't be charged in civilian court after all set off a firestorm of angry reaction from civil liberties groups. The White House later announced that it's still weeks before such a decision will be announced, though even that should unsettle those who favor civilian trials for KSM -- after all, the decision theoretically was already made in November by Attorney General Eric Holder. The rethinking comes after opposition from Republicans and New York business leaders who worry that a 9/11 trial will hurt property values.
Weighing political considerations in deciding how to administer justice strikes many people as simply beyond the pale -- haven't we always been taught that we are a country of laws and we base our legal decisions on what the law requires, not what is expedient or politically acceptable? I'd be willing to bet that's what every high school American history and government course still teaches. Maybe it's just a quaint notion now.
But there are also some very good, practical reasons for civilian trials, most of which were spelled out today in a conference call with three retired flag officers hosted by Human Rights First.
-- A military trial supports the al Qaida narrative that their fighters are warriors fighting in a grand cause against the United States, instead of the thugs and criminals they are.
Our indecision gives the enemy comfort by showing how divided and fearful we are.
--Military commissions are untested and likely to lead to still more legal appeals, while the civilian court system has successfully put away 200 terrorists with no problem.
And, finally, that we are asking our soldiers in Afghanistan to face down the enemy to defend our system. We at home need to be strong and defend the system as well.
The conference call was a lengthy one, even with some of the pauses cut out, but worth the time to listen.
In, "Famous First Facts" (Kane:1973) it states that on 2/3/1949 on Governors Island, NYC was the firsst court martial trial enlisted men were allowed to sit as members of the court. What I can't understand, is how the "enemy combatants" could in any way be considered within the scope of a "civil" case, when calling them "thugs" or "gangsters" only self-references US history, not theirs. It seems illogical to discribe "The Base" (al Qaida) without a hierarchy, without described leaders and without military training. Some gangsters, yes, in the US, served and are serving allegedly in the our armed forces. I can't see the comparison, otherwise why do we need and our allies need thousands of troops? To fight gangsters?
Posted by: George Myers | March 07, 2010 at 03:58 PM