What really bothers me about treating these terrorists as criminals, rather than enemy combatants, is that it debases our legal system and sets us up for ridicule. It is clear to me from comments made by the Attorney General and progressive members of Congress, who prefer the criminal law approach, that this process will be correctly viewed as "show trials" and as such does more harm to our system than dealing with this as war.
When asked about what would happened if Sheik Khalid Muhammad et.al. were found not guilty,or if the case was dismissed because their rights were violated, Eric Holder responded by saying "Don't worry we have lots of other things to charge them with, they'll never be let go". That sounds like this is going to be a show trial to me and does us no honor.
A progressive NYC Congressman said "Let's try them and then we'll kill them". That too sounds like something from what we hoped was the distant past ( or different geographic location) and certainly doesn't uphold our legal principles.
Just recently the conviction of the so called 19th 9/11 hijacker was upheld on appeal. What would have happened if it wasn't upheld? Does anyone think we would have let him go.
Let's do away with this charade ( which actually does hurt us in the short run when they have the right to remain silent, etc) and recognize this for what it is--war. As such we have the Geneva Convention, but I as wrote previously, a third way is needed. I'm not so sure Military Tribunals are the answer either, but the answer sure isn't treating them are ordinary criminals and giving them show trials that the world will readily see through as such.
Also let's remember the basic philosophy of our criminal justice system. We believe that it is worse ( meaning harmful to society) to convict an innocent person than to let a guilty person go free. That's why the standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and we have strict rules regarding admissibility of evidence, impartial jury of one's peers and the right to remain silent.
Does that overriding principle apply to foreign (or domestic) enemy combatants? Sure they need to have the right to counsel and a hearing, but mostly to ascertain that we have captured the right guy and not someone who was mistakenly picked up or was out and out framed. Applying our rules of evidence and other procedures, and our very strict standards for conviction, just doesn't work; unless the trial becomes a "show trial" complete with a "hanging judge and jury".
I'd like to hear your views.
Eric
I know you had a post on the 3rd way, but i'd like to get a better sense of what you mean.
ReplyDeleteTo hear the bush folks on TV lately we should still be using blacksites and enhanced interrogation techniques... and I don't think we want to go back to that.
Colin
The second way is to treat them as prisoners of war and have the Geneva Convention apply. That's ok with me, but see my early post for issues arising from that. The third way is one that needs to be developed and is probably closer to treating them as enemy combatants with the right to a hearing before an impartial jucge to determine whether they in fact are an enemy combatant or whether we "got the wrong guy". The standard should not be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, with full judicial rules of evidence and constitutional safeguards. What happens if we screw up; do we let them go? I think not, and that's why they could end up being considered show trials.
ReplyDelete