I have been reading several conservative columnists arguing against trying the 9/11 terrorist suspects in New York federal court. One of their major points seems to be that, by introducing evidence in open court that might compromise our allies’ intelligence sources, we will alienate our allies who are helping us fight terrorism.
Leaving aside the question of whether we Americans should allow our allies to dictate our judicial processes, or what protections our courts may be able to offer to foreign intelligence sources, I would like to know, have our allies in fact urged us not to try the 9/11 conspirators in civilian courts? What has their reaction to the announced trials been? The columns I have read (mainly Thomas Sowell and Paul Greenberg) have been conspicuously vague on the subject.
And by the way, have our allies generally tried captured terrorist suspects in civilian courts, or military ones? Britain last year convicted four terrorist suspects in civilian court; is that typical of our allies’ policy? If actions speak louder than words, those actions should say something about whether our allies consider military trials essential for terror suspects.
Terrorist is a broad word. It can mean a lot of things to different people.
Israel, a US ally, tries Palestinian “terrorists” in Israeli military courts. It would depend if you considered Palestinians who attack Israelis’ terrorists or combatants.
The US had not tried a “terrorist” in a military commission, until 2008. Salim Hamdan was the first and was convicted of the crime material support to a terrorist organization. On the hand, the US has tried many “terrorists” in civilian courts after 9/11 and will continue to do so.
Thanks for the lead. I really am quite surprised that Israel normally tries Palestinian terrorists in military courts. Is that only for Palestinians in the territories, or are Israeli citizens of Palestinian ethnicity also tried by military courts in terrorism cases? This Israeli seems to think that terrorists in Israel get “civilian due process,” although his ranting style doesn’t inspire confidence in his accuracy.
I found a Glenn Greenwald article pointing out two other examples of American allies trying terrorists in civilian courts: Britain tried the London Underground terrorists in civilian court, and Spain did the same with the Madrid bombers. Some of his other examples don’t qualify for the purposes I was talking about; Israel’s trial of Eichmann wasn’t exactly for “terrorism,” and I don’t think Indonesia and India are U.S. allies.
Are they allies in the same since that the NATO countries are allies? No.
However, in 2005, the US and India signed the “New Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship” treaty. The treaty is a 10-year pact for stronger military ties.
Additionally, while Obama was in Singapore earlier this month, he met with Indonesia officials to discuss a “strategic partnership”. The partnership discussion would strengthen both economic and military ties. One of the main reasons that Indonesia is seeking military ties with the US is to stabilize the region since Indonesia opposes the Burmese junta.