US Anti-Terrorism tribunals would be pitifully hypocritical

Great Debates
1

Does the U.S. government’s approach to dealing with terrorists within it’s own borders put it on the same level as some repressive states that it has criticized?
When asked about military tribunals for accused terrorists, Ari Fleischer insisted that there was a precedent in WWII:

It seems to me that a more accurate comparison would be Peru’s adoption of military tribunals for terrorists. (Peru’s anti-terrorism legislation has been severely criticized by Amnesty International.

As recently as last year, the U.S. State department itself has complained about Peru’s use of military tribunals to try terrorists:

Does President Bush expect the world blithely accept that Peruvian military tribunals for terrorists are a Human Rights Violation, but American military tribunals for terrorists are Necessary to Preserve Freedom & Democracy? Or are there significant qualititave differences between the two?

Is the most important distinction the one made by Mr. Fleischer, that “these are not American citizens”? Because the State Dept. didn’t seem overly concerned by Peru’s tribunals until it involved an American citizen.

2

But we’re America! Those damn ferriners deserve it!

:rolleyes:

3

Don’t tell me, let me guess. You guys voted for Gore, didn’t you?

4

Not me. (I’m Canadian.)
[sup]I was rooting for him, though.[/sup]

5

The part that will almost guarantee to get in many people’s craw is that, in such a tribunal, the defendant has no choice who the lawyer would be.

6

No choice in the appointment of attorney? And this would be different from our criminal justice system providing a court appointed attorney for those unable to afford one, how, exactly? Somehow I doubt this is the sticking point.

I’m not thrilled with the idea of a separate justice system for terrorists, except for that odd little problem which is, what the heck do you do with foreign nationals in foreign nations who’ve committed crimes against us? Throw in the government’s active protection of said individuals, and then what?

How do you handle sensitive/classified evidence against a terrorist in open criminal court? Why should they be allowed the many benefits of our criminal justice system? Essentially unlimited funds for defense counsel, time consuming appeals, evidence restrictions which aren’t meant to apply to terrorist actions, etc.? Why are terrorists who kill, not automatically at risk of death upon conviction? Why should a jury be required to unanimously vote for conviction? How many appeals are sufficient?

I’d say there’s a lot to question, and some of it isn’t to counter the proposal for military tribunals, but to counsel that military tribunals might be just the thing.

7

Purely a hypothetical subject, I expect. Will any of the prospective defendants really be taken alive anyway?

That said, war justifies almost anything the victors can do to the defeated. War is the breakdown of civilized methods of dispute resolution and the establishment of justice, by definition. It’s too late to protest their loss after the war has started.

8

Well, I pretty much said all I have to say about this topic in this thread. yes, the miliatry tribunal are a bad idea.

9

In answer to the first question, trials can and sometimes are sealed from the press for, for instance, fears of biasing the jury of a related trial (which happened in the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka trial in Canada).

Um, because the idea of a trial is innocent until proven guilty. This might surprise you, but not everyone who’s arrested is guilty, especially in an country that practices “profiling.” And not everyone suspected of the bombing attacks will necessary prove to have been involved.

Appeals are the recognition that courts make mistakes. Evidence restrictions are the understanding that law enforcement sometimes makes mistakes, or oversteps its bounds.

Without these restrictions, governments could round up and summarily execute anyone suspected of involvement. They aren’t perks given to proven criminals, you know. In Canada, and I suspect in the US, there have been several high-profile cases in which new DNA testing set convicted murderers free.

The justice system makes mistakes. These rights exist to keep mistakes to a minimum. Do you really want to send someone innocent to their death?

Many of your allies in the “War on Terror,” not to mention many americans and several states, consider the death penalty barbaric. It’s frankly something the Taliban does on a regular basis, and it’s not something the US should stoop to. Besides, it has the practical complication that it tends to produce martyrs far more efficiently than a lifetime in jail would.

I agree with the OP. Civil courts exist for a reason. In this day, when the media convicts everyone arrested regardless of evidence, it might be hard to appreciate this. But if you’re ever wrongfully accused, someday, NuSultainne, I’m sure you’ll come to appreciate these rights rather quickly.

10

Why stop with tribunals?

Click here for a funny cartoon.

11

Hamish, for starters, if you’re coming from a Canadian point of view, well and good. Let’s keep this argument consistent with U.S. laws, shall we, as we’re the injured party in the actions of September 11, and we have the right to proceed against those responsible accordingly.

That having been said, to my knowledge, here in the U.S., we don’t have the option to order secret court proceedings of a criminal law case and subsequently order media blackouts. If otherwise is true, I’d certainly love to hear it. If memory serves, the reason the DOJ decided to work to accept a plea bargain in the case of accused spy Robert Hanssen is due to the inability to produce secret evidence which would then be open to the public, hence further compromising national security.

Your next argument regarding the protection of innocent until proven guilty has no bearing on my argument at all. Nor does your throwaway smear country that practices profiling and you know it. The absurd argument regarding racial profiling has not been a factor in the identification of the alleged hijackers and their underlying organizations. Until a serious case can be made, leave it alone.

You may disagree with me, and apparently you do, but nowhere in our Constitution does it guarantee the right to the very best defense possible. It merely requires an adequate defense. Not every defendant will, or should at State expense, retain F. Lee Bailey. Your comments regarding DNA testing also don’t apply here, so I’ll ignore those. Regarding restrictions of evidence: if said hijackers planned, coordinated, financed, and organized said event in other countries, shouldn’t evidence obtained in those countries be permitted in court? Shouldn’t rules of evidence gathering in those countries be accepted in our courts? Or would you prefer that criminals take advantage of variations in local law to plan activities which can’t be used against them in the victim country?

Finally, regarding your comments on sending an innocent man/woman to death. No, obviously I don’t. I’m not advocating a swift trial followed by an even swifter hangin’ in the morn. I’m advocating reasonable practices for those accused of the most heinous of crimes. Let me spell them out for you: reasonable defense provided, a majority of jurors determining guilt, and realistic legal review of the case by higher courts. Not years of appeal, not unlimited defense funds, not unreasonable restrictions on evidence gathered, either here or abroad. Knowing that what I would like to see isn’t the situation today, doesn’t change the opinions I hold.

12

Um, NaSultainne, I believe something on the order of 50 Canadians were killed on 9/11, along with representatives of many more countries. The US is not “the” injured party, just one of many including Canada. The only reason to think of this as an American issue is force of numbers. This is an issue for the civilized world, not US law. That makes this a wholly different issue from non-US citizens proclaiming endlessly how the US ought to run its internal affairs, as I’ve discussed with another Canadian here on different subjects. Oh, goodness me, there was a crack earlier about the death penalty and what the US “ought” to do about it. Guess I’ll have to add another Canadian to the list.

Um, Hamish, you might want to clarify the remark about nations using profiling. I believe the list includes your own, does it not? You might also consider the applicability of rules of civilized society to the conduct of war. You might also acknowledge that the “barbarity” of the death penalty is very much subject to debate, and certainly has been, right on this board.

13

Pretty much any time someone uses what we did, domestically, in World War II, including references to placing Japanese citizens and non-citizens in concentration camps (as they did this morning on NPR), to demonstrate their opinion about what we should do now, I will come down on the opposite side.

“Precedent” doesn’t necessaily mean “good idea.” There is a precedent in the country for denying people in this country their basic human rights based on the color of their skin. I don’t think anyone’s going to argue that is what we should do now, just because we did it before.

I don’t care at all whether someone here is or is not a citizen of this country. Regardless, in my view, they are entitled to the protection of the Constitution.

It scares me that 60-some-odd percent of Americans think this is a Good Thing. Scares me to death.

14

Necros- you DO understand, that morally right or no- these Tribunals are perfectly Constitutional?

Larry- you are correct about one thing- under International Law, a foreign national does not have the same rights as a citizen. During time of war (which we have declared) Hostile nationals are generally interned without trial.

What made the Japanese “camps” in California wrong in WWII, is that they were extended to American Citizens, who happened to be of Japanese heritage. As long as we only interned Japanese Nationals, we were OK. We also interned German & Italian Nationals- as did AFAIK, every belligerant nation. SOP.

15

So, because it’s legal it’s okay?

At one time, segregation and slavery were legal. Does that mean they were okay?

16

My intention wasn’t to argue that Canada was better than the US in that respect, simply that since the US does practice it, it’s even more important to ensure a fair trial.

I think I did acknowledge that the death penalty was a subject of debate, at least obliquely, when I said "many of your allies, “many Americans” and “several states.” No, I don’t think everyone agrees. But once you’ve executed someone, you can’t exactly take your decision back. It doesn’t exactly fill those of us who live in countries allied to yours with confidence that such a decision would be made so automatically, as NaSultainne suggests.

17

My remark about racial profiling was simply one example of how law enforcement officials make mistakes. I can furnish others if you like. And I’m no so sure as you seem to be that it hasn’t been a factor, but I’ll wait until I see hard evidence one way or the other.

Ditto, by the way, with my example of DNA. I brought it up to show that sometimes courts make mistakes, and police lie. DNA proved a few people innocent in this country, which shows that even the systems we have sometimes fail. So restricting that system farther is only inviting trouble.

I’d prefer that the accused receive a fair trial. And you’re right: evidence-gathering methods do vary from country to country. Try reading some of the country profiles at Amnesty International. Are you really comfortable with evidence obtained through methods that would be gross violations of privacy in our countries? How about torture, which is still an accepted method of gathering evidence in many countries, even though someone under torture will admit to anything…

Then I see we have very different views of reasonable.

No, I’m not saying the accused should have whatever lawyer they want, on expense. But why can’t they choose, if they can pay? Why shouldn’t there by appeals, knowing that courts can make mistakes? Why shouldn’t you make sure the evidence is reliable? Doesn’t it condone destructive police practices by accepting evidence gathered in unscrupulous ways? Especially considering that you would bring in the death penalty, and restrict the unanimous jury rule.

You are threatening the accused with death. You are making it easier for that verdict to be reached. And you don’t even want to give them a second chance? What if the person in question is innocent?

As for not having the right to speak about this as a Canadian, I have to say this:

Whatever America does now is going to have repurcussions far beyond it. It will change the geopolitical structure of the world. It will change the security situation in several countries. Whether I like it or not, my country’s Prime Minister has got us involved in this war as an ally. And since your country has decided mine is a haven for terorists, it’s been trying to pressure us to change our immigration policy.

So we’re involved. Very involved. And I have every right to speak on this subject.

18

That remains to be seen.

The trouble with some Americans is this: when it comes to promoting your own right, your own democracy and your own freedoms, then there is no one louder.

When it comes to looking after the rights of foreigners in your own country, exemplified by this abominable Executive order (ie. its not even a law passed by your legislature), then you tolerate tyranny, and make excuses for it, existing on your own damn soil.

This order is designed to rush justice, to extinguish rights of appeal, and to extinguish rules of evidence. Its a disgrace. It is worthy of Burma or Sudan, not a country whose leadership should know better, and whose people should not tolerate this for one iota.

19

DrDeth said:

OK, let’s see. I’m looking through an online copy of the Constitution here.

Whether these protections extend to non-citizens in this particular case is, I believe, a matter to be resolved by the Supreme Court. As is the matter of whether these tribunals are constitutional.

As far as your assertion that this was SOP for all enemy aliens, here’s a cite:

(From http://www.udel.edu/udparallel/barbc/tateishi.htm ) I’d be happy to give you hard-copy cites for this, too, if you’d like.

It’s funny that you say “We also interned German & Italian Nationals- as did AFAIK, every belligerant nation.” Many Latin American countries also “interned” Japanese nationals. Any idea where they interned them?

20

The matter has already been decided by the Supreme Court, back in WWII. It is nice you can quote the Constitution, but this is not a matter of opinion, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter, and thus, by definition, the Tribunals are Constitutional- whether you like them or not.

Oh, and which of those “rights” do you think are denied in a Tribunal? Other than “public Trial”, which can be denied in normal US Criminals cases in extreme instances.

Next you are confusing people of German & Italian heritage, with those still owing allegiance to those nations. People who owed allegiance to thos Axis nations were interned. Americans were interned in Germany, also. As with Japanese permanent legal residents (who were not yet US Citizens), Germans & Italains were asked to sign an Affidavit of Loyalty- and if they were "No-No"s, they were interned.

In answer to your rhetorical query- some Allied South American nations sent their Japanese hostiles to America. So?

I was selected to be part of a Jury pool for a major gang murder case. The jury questionaire- approved by the Judge, and more or less SOP, asked: my home address & phone number, my work location, the names & relationships of all my close family & freinds, etc, etc. This questionaire- which I was required to fill out under penalty of Law- was then “public information”. This is the Law in the US for Criminal cases. Can you tell me why any sane person would be willing give indicted terrorists this kind of info? I would not even want them to know my NAME, let alone my home address- and the names of all my family. Even if someone is brave enough to take that risk for themself- would you risk your entire family also? Unless, of course, you don’t think that the dudes who suicided a plane into the WTC would be capable of killing you & your family in revenge for a guilty verdict.

Next- in std Criminal Law- the defendant’s Attorneys get to see the entire witness list. It is fairly common in gang cases for some or all of those witnesses to be killed or terrorized into silence. How much more so when these dudes will, without a qualm, crash a plane into a hotel- killing everyone- just to get one witness. Would anyone dare to testify?

And you forget the Nuremberg Trials were not held under US laws, but were a “tribunal”- and yet justice was done.