Al Davis Conservatives

One of the news items of the day was Al Qaida biggie Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and three assistants are going to be put on trial in New York in civilian court; KSM is deemed to be the mastermind behind 9/11.

A military tribunal would be a bit cleaner, as things could be done a notch more secretly and possibly include waterboard-induced testimony that would likely not pass constitutional muster in a civilian court. However, we're a country that likes to have the moral high ground where possible, and using legal short-cuts to get these people locked up for good will be detrimental in the long term.

I got this e-mail from Red State's Erick Erickson earlier today; he don't like the idea. He posted on it earlier but his e-mail was more vitriolic

In that trial, the terrorist will get all the rights afforded an American citizen in a criminal trial, including the right to a fair trial, the right to a taxpayer funded attorney, the right to review all the evidence against him, potentially including classified intelligence matters, the right to exclude evidence against him including, potentially, any confession obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques, etc.

OK. Most of those aren't bugs, those are features. You want an unfair trial where he has to defend himself, can't question his accusers and can't call BS on torture?

Yes, we may have have to bring some classified material to the party, stuff that we might not want publicly seen. However, we've busted spies in the past and had to get sanitized versions of our intel into the public record in those cases.

At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime.

Them's fighting words, sir; it borders on false witness. I'm reminded of that one photo from the Vietnam War where a suspected Viet Cong was summarily executed by an officer with a bullet to the head on the street. That's efficient, but it isn't how we do things.

Doing away with those legal niceties is the mark of a banana republic, not abiding by them. We have something called the rule of law in the United States of America. Even if you are dead set on destroying the country, you still get your day in court where the prosecution has to prove its case and have its allegations double-checked by the defense. Even Mr. Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, will get better treatment than he deserves, but that's how the system works; even the nasty guys have to have the proscecution prove their guilt.

What you're proposing is Al Davis geopolitics, "Just win, baby." Torture and constitutional shortcuts are just fine as long as it gets you a victory in the War on Terror. However, that attitude can come back to bite you in the long run; check out how Davis' Raders have done lately.

We can do better.

Comments

[Alan K. Henderson]

How do they intend to protect the jury from al-Qaeda?

[DMD]

100 percent spot on, Mark

[DMD]

"At best, this will be a show trial fit not for the American Republic, but a third world kleptocratic totalitarian regime."

Eric has it precisely backwards. Give the defendants their full constitutional rights, and you've got the American Republic. Hide them in a military tribunal where they can't see the evidence against them, some of it obtained by torture, and you've got a third world gov't.

[Mark Byron]

Alan asks "How do they intend to protect the jury from al-Qaeda?"

Good question. I don't see them wasting their resources by trying to kill individual jurors; it isn't their style. I don't even recall the mob doing that to jurors; snitches, yes, but not jurors.