Yesterday, President Bush made a major speech in which he requested that Congress authorize rules for the trial of suspected terrorists in military tribunals (as well as revealed the existence of secret CIA prisons using aggressive interrogation techniques). The request for Congressional authorization of the military tribunals is in response to the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision, which said that the tribunal system previously set up without Congressional sanction was illegal.
One Congressman noted:
What I do not understand is why the terrorism suspects – particularly those involved in the plot leading to the September 11, 2001 attacks – cannot or should not be tried in the ordinary U.S. civilian criminal justice system. They could be convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, among other charges, and we have rather successfully prosecuted the conspirators of the first World Trade Center bombing.
To me, one of the greatest American strengths is its Bill of Rights, and the Constitutional protections it gives to criminal defendants. The administration’s proposal would seem to weaken or abandon many of those important Constitutional principals.
So, my question is whether there is something so fundamentally different about terrorists that we require an entirely separate criminal justice system for their trial, and in particular why it apparently must contain much weaker procedural protections for the defendants?
I believe that in a lot of cases the alleged terrorists would not be convicted, mostly do to the laws governing the evidence gathering. Can you imagine the outrage among the people if legitimate, honest to God terrorists were set free because the evidence was thrown out? The downside to that is that innocent people might be put away for a long time.
I am of the mind that they should be charged in civilian courts, but I am also willing to recognize that if we do that some of the big fish might get away. Are you?
Well, I do think that there are legitimate concerns about some of the evidence against some of them being prudent to keep secret for national security reasons, etc, and while I’m no lawyer it seems to me that domestic civilian courts might not have jurisdiction over a guy who’s never been to the US and whose alleged crimes did not occur in or against the US.
That said, I can’t see any reason not to use military court martials with full legal protections for the accused. “Military tribunals” in and of themselves would be fine, except that Bush apparently wants to strip all kinds of really basic protections away from the people being tried. That’s the step that gets my back up.
Would it be illegal if the agent or witness came in disguised or was seated behind a screen to protect their identity? I thought the right to “confront one’s acccusers” meant that you could challenge what they were* saying,* not that you had to be able to look at them.
If such a thing is unconstitutional, I wonder if some sort of special exemption could be set up for trials involving international secrets and the like, where agents’ identities need to be protected. Seems like even an exemption like that would protect their rights more than a military tribunal.
I’m in agreement with Gorsnak. Though a lot of folks appearently think that military tribunal=kangaroo court, in the US at least this isn’t so…unless of course Bush et al monkey with the current process. THAT I would have a problem with.
Why not try terrorists under a civilian court? Because the civilian process rightfully has numerous checks to alleviate miscarrages of justice. The automatic appeals process for instance. It would literally take years to successfully bring, say, one of the folks instrumental to the 9/11 plot, to justice…and it would cost untold millions. AND it would be a media circus.
I think that military courts with proper due process would be a much better way to try these people. Its a bit more of a streamlined process, while still having full due process, appeals, etc. But IMHO things would QUITE be as much of a circus, the process itself would be a bit more efficient…and IMHO anyway, people who commit direct attacks against the US using paramilitary terrorist tactics and weapons should bt put on trial by our military.
You know, the Bill of Rights came out of a time of armed insurrection against an established government. And the insurrectionists had complained (in their “Declaration of Independence”) about abuses by the established government, including “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury”. So the writers of the Bill of Rights did contemplate that they would protect people accused of revolutionary activities – at least if they were Americans in the British penal system.
So, why shouldn’t the boot be on the other foot? Especially since the Fifth Amendment talks about “person”, not about “citizen”. They should be given all the constitutional protections that anyone else accused of breaking US law is given – and that the writers of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence believed that the American colonists should have been given by the British.
Because it would be embarassing for it to come out that most of the “terrorists” we have in custody are random innocent people, and we don’t want them testifying in open court about how we tortured them, raped them, molested their children, etc in order to get them to confess.
So, miscarriages of justice are perfectly fine if you’ve been accused of terrorism? Why are we in a hurry? If they’re safely sitting in prison awaiting trial or appeal, who cares how long it takes to make sure they’re guilty, media circus or no? What if you were accused of terrorism, would you be happy with this kind of treatment? Military tribunal sounds to me like “we don’t trust the American judges and juries to come to the right conclusion, so we’ll put on a show that eventually arrives at the conclusion we want.” Remember, due process doesn’t just protect the accused. What if we got the wrong guy, and the real terrorists are getting off scott free while we pat ourselves on the back about how we stopped the terrorist?
It would only take as long as the first trial takes to bring someone to justice. People convicted of the most heinous offenses still have to stay in prison while they appeal.
I guess I have to point out the obvious fact that it’s taken up to four years now, and millions and millions of dollars, in some cases to get some of these people their trials, and we’re still waiting. How could turning this over to an actual court system be any worse?
I rarely agree with Der Trihs, but in this case he is 100% spot on: they don’t want this going to real courts because they don’t want the embarassing truth to come out; that a lot of these people are innocent, and in many cases thereof have been terribly mistreated. The Bush administration wants to keep that information as quiet as possible.
The time is only one factor. Putting them in the civilian system has other drawbacks as well. Whats wrong, exactly, with our military justice system for this?
Afaik, we have not tried to put these people through EITHER system. So I don’t think its a reflection on US military justice to condemn it for something that hasn’t been tried as yet.
You REALLY think that most (read over 50%) of the people at Gitmo are completely innocent (thats what he was getting at)?? As for ‘embarrassing truths’, your (and Ders) idea of miitary justice must be super secret courts done in the dead of the night/dark of the moon by hooded judges in a star chamber…or something. Have you noticed that all the details on the recent trial of those folks accused of murder in Iraq have been available?? There have been several debates on this sooper sekrit stuff that the administration probably ALSO doesn’t want out…as well as debates on the sooper sekrit stuff that happened at Abu Ghraib and the like.
Why do you think that Bush would be able to surpress distasteful information (assuming this is in fact the main reason :dubious: ) simply because the trials were handled by the US military?
I’m hoping you haven’t been infected with the Der Trihs paranoia and Over The Top Anti-Bush Reflexive US Is Evil™ bug. Ususally you are a pretty level headed poster.
I don’t see what difference it would make if the detainees testified to abuse. Bush supporters would say they were lying to make the USA look bad; Bush opposers already assume abuse anyway. Testimony wouldn’t change anyone’s mind.
Well over 50%, probably closer to 90%. That’s what happens when you arrest people based on paying bounties for accusations. Or evidence gained by torture, etc.
No, absolutely not. Terrorism is being used as a method of war and I don’t see any reason to grant them special privileges. They’ve earned the right to be treated like we treat **our own soldiers ** and that is in a military court. The evidence gathering standards should not be held higher than our own system.
The politically correct solution to this would be to honor their cultural beliefs and send them to prisons in Afghanistan where they can be tried under Sharia law. But that will never happen. It would be cruel to expose them to their own laws and prisons.
Have you ever been called for Jury duty on a big capital case? I have. They have a questionaire. It asks many many personal questions, inclduing where you live, where you work, and even where your kids go to school. The Defense has full access to this document. By bringing terrorist suspects into the Civilian Justice syetem, we are asking the jury to take a huge risk for themselves and their families (and everyone else’s family that may go to that school) as being targets of suicide bombers and the like. This is not a fair risk to ask of a ordinary citizen @ $25 a day.
I do NOT agree with the Admin’s idea of special Tribunals. I think that the fair way is a Military Court Martial- which has plenty of checks and balances, but does not lead to extreme risks for Civilians.
How do you know they are Muslim, or agree with Sharia law ? And if they are guilty by our laws, you also assume that Sharia law would agree that they need to be punished.
Wouldn’t the risk be even greater when prosecuting organised crime figures? And have there been any cases of prosecution for crimes like terrorism where jury members were subject to particular threats?
While you’re pulling numbers out of who knows where you might consider the fact that 1/3 of the prisoners have already been released to their home countries. And of that there are prisoners who do not wish to return because their own government will torture or kill them.