EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Detainees to Get 'The-State-Always-Wins' System of 'Justice'
Obama's announcement to try 9/11 defendants would be commendable if it applied to all, rather than some, detainees.
According to The Associated Press, Eric Holder will announce later today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 defendants will be brought from Guantanamo to New York to stand trial, in a real criminal court, for the crimes they are accused of committing. This is a decision I really wish I could praise, as it's clearly both politically risky and the right thing to do.
An open criminal trial under our standard system of justice, accompanied by basic precepts of due process, is exactly the just and smart means for punishing those responsible for terrorist attacks. It announces to the world, including the Muslim world, that we have enough faith in our rules of justice to apply them equally to everyone, including to Muslim radicals accused of one of the worst crimes in American history. Numerous family members of the 9/11 victims have long argued that real trials for the accused perpetrators are vital to providing real justice for what was done -- I expect to have an interview later today with one of those family members -- and holding the trial in New York, the place where 3,000 Americans died, provides particularly compelling symbolism. So this component of the Obama administration's decision, standing alone, is praiseworthy indeed.
The problem is that this decision does not stand alone. Instead, it is accompanied by this:
Holder will also announce that a major suspect in the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will face justice before a military commission, as will a handful of other detainees to be identified at the same announcement, the official said.
It was not immediately clear where commission-bound detainees like al-Nashiri might be sent, but a military brig in South Carolina has been high on the list of considered sites.
So what we have here is not an announcement that all terrorism suspects are entitled to real trials in a real American court. Instead, what we have is a multi-tiered justice system, where only certain individuals are entitled to real trials: namely, those whom the Government is convinced ahead of time it can convict. Others for whom conviction is less certain will be accorded lesser due process: put in military commissions, to which most leading Democrats vehemently objected when created under Bush. Presumably, others still -- those who the Government believes cannot be convicted in either forum, will simply be held indefinitely with no charges, a power the administration recently announced it intends to preserve based on the same theories used by Bush/Cheney to claim that power.
A system of justice which accords you varying levels of due process based on the certainty that you'll get just enough to be convicted isn't a justice system at all. It's a rigged game of show trials. This is a point I've been emphasizing since May, when Obama gave his speech in front of the Constitution at the National Archives and explained how there were five different "categories" of terrorism suspects who would be treated differently based on the category into which they fell:
If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).
Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that you'll get convictions is not due process. Those are called "show trials." In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict. The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or acquittals).
Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that is constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped "system of justice" is hard to imagine.
That the Obama DOJ is now explicitly picking and choosing different levels of due process in the very same announcement -- we can give that defendant a trial because we know we'll win, but that one over there needs to go to a military commission because we're less sure -- highlights how manipulative this "justice system" is.
Former Air Force lawyer Morris Davis was the Chief Prosecutor of the Guantanamo Military Commissions system during the Bush years and resigned in 2008 to become one of its leading critics. Although he still believes that military commissions are a viable option for detainees captured on an actual battlefield -- and even believes the President has the right to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely with no trial -- he made the same point last week in a Wall St. Journal Op-Ed about the practice of picking and choosing the system of justice one receives based on how likely the state is to win:
In a preliminary report submitted to Mr. Obama in July, the Detention Policy Task Force recommended the approval of evaluation criteria developed by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. The task force stated its preference for trials in the federal courts, but added the decision would be based in part on "evidentiary issues" and "the extent to which the forum would permit a full presentation of the accused's wrongful conduct." A Washington Post editorial endorsed the proposal, arguing that there should be an alternative forum when a trial in federal court is "not an option because the evidence against the accused is strong but not admissible."
Stop and think about that for a moment. In effect, it means that the standard of justice for each detainee will depend in large part upon the government's assessment of how high the prosecution's evidence can jump and which evidentiary bar it can clear.
The evidence likely to clear the high bar gets gold medal justice: a traditional trial in our federal courts. The evidence unable to clear the federal court standard is forced to settle for a military commission trial, a specially created forum that has faltered repeatedly for more than seven years. That is a double standard I suspect we would condemn if it was applied to us. . . .
The problem is trying to have it both ways: the credibility that comes from using federal courts with admissible evidence under the very strict rules of civilian tribunals, and military commissions for cases that are often comparable except for the fact that they depend on evidence (such as hearsay testimony) that is not normally admissible in civilian courts. What if Iran proposed the same for the three American hikers it is currently holding? We would surely condemn what we now stand ready to condone. . . .
Double standards don't play well in Peoria. They won't play well in Peshawar or Palembang either. We need to work to change the negative perceptions that exist about Guantanamo and our commitment to the law. Formally establishing a legal double standard will only reinforce them.
Obama is certain to be bombarded with all sorts of right-wing idiocy and fear-mongering as a result of his decision to bring 9/11 defendants into the U.S. in order to give them trials. Doing that is clearly the right thing to do: trials and due process is how civilized countries treat people who are accused of engaging in terrorism. Given how Democrats and Republicans will talk about this decision, media coverage will almost certainly fixate on the narrow question of whether (a) 9/11 defendants should be given trials in the U.S. or (b) we're all now Endangered because these Omnipotent Monsters are being brought into our communities (in handcuffs, shackles, and maximum-security prisons). The AP article already includes this preview of the inane attacks on Obama certain to come:
It is also a major legal and political test of Obama's overall approach to terrorism. If the case suffers legal setbacks, the administration will face second-guessing from those who never wanted it in a civilian courtroom. And if lawmakers get upset about notorious terrorists being brought to their home regions, they may fight back against other parts of Obama's agenda.
In a just-posted New York Times article, Charlie Savage also notes that bringing an accused terrorist of Mohammed's notoriety to the U.S. for trial is unprecedented and likely to provoke intense political controversy. In that "debate," I'm squarely on Obama's side, as is any person who believes in the most basic Constitutional precepts.
But the more consequential impact of Obama's decision is likely to be overlooked: we're now formally creating a multi-tiered justice system for accused Muslim terrorists where they only get the level of due process consistent with the State's certainty that it will win. Mohammed gets a real trial because he confessed and we're thus certain we can win in court; since we're less certain about al-Nashiri, he'll be denied a trial and will only get a military commission; others will be denied any process entirely and imprisoned indefinitely. The outcome is pre-determined and the process then shaped to assure it ahead of time, thus perfectly adhering to this exchange from Chapter 12 of Alice in Wonderland:
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
How is that remotely just or fair under any definition of those terms? As Davis wrote: "We need to work to change the negative perceptions that exist about Guantanamo and our commitment to the law. Formally establishing a legal double standard will only reinforce them." There's nothing "pragmatic" or "moderate" about creating a multi-tiered justice system where only some people get trials; it's both counter-productive and profoundly unjust.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show All"Muslim radicals accused of one of the worst crimes in American history"
I think he means the worst crimes committed AGAINST Americans in American history...certainly 9/11 pales against the US genocide of Native Americans, murdering millions, the use of the A-bomb against civilians in Japan, killing hundreds of thousands, slavery of Africans, etc, etc, etc were much worse crimes in scope.
Good comment. You probably included the US slaughter of 3.2 million innocent Vietnamese civilians in the Vietnam War and the UN Charter claims that the US is responsible for ALL innocent Iraqi civilian deaths(80,000, 140,000 or 2 million depending on whose reports you believe) in Iraq due to their illegal invasion in May of 2003 in your etc.
When is the US going to get back into the UN international court where we can be tried for Iraq War Crimes? The 9/11 deaths were insignificant compared to all American induced deaths.
The USA trials of the 9/11 conspirators will never be seen as justice as long as our 'long knives' are still bleeding.
well said.
Kafka lives! The old Soviet Union under Stalin lives!
This morning NPR reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the allegedly self-admitted mastermind of 9-11 and the Cole bombing in Yemen, in league with Osama Bin Laden, was waterboarded 183 times, but admitted all the above first. Oh.
Locally, Buffalo, the third poorest city in the U.S. has a county executive who is closing the two health clinics serving the poorest of the inner city of Buffalo. He said he was just running the budget as a business. Oh.
The Iranian-owned building and land funded, built and bought by the late Shah of Iran, and which housed Iranian charities, seized in Manhattan yesterday, along with the bank accounts of the two major charities frozen or confiscated, all to the tune of approximately 150 million dollars or more are more punishment for a country who, as far as I know, never attacked us. The C.I.A. under Eisenhower overturned their first democratically elected government and put the cruel and imperious Shah of Iran on the throne so we could have oil in an eyeblink. Yes, there was the Ayatollah Khomenei and the hostage crisis, but there were deals and rigging in that situation between the U.S. government and particular Iranians with a pipeline to the Ayatollah, but since then [end of the 1970's], what exactly has Iran done to be cast as such an enemy? ... other than the government of Israel wants to destroy Iran?
My e-mails are filled with such insanities, including the mistreatment of the newly homeless in the U.S.A. who don't know where to go for help because in so many instances, there is no help, and they get arrested for loitering or sleeping in places they are not supposed to sleep.
Just about everything I read about the policies and activities of the United States' government here and abroad bespeaks a monstrous shift downward to a heartless, even evil, hypocritical, ugly, unjust, coldly insane government.
Not new on so many issues, but currently I can't seem to find even one issue important to The People that is being addressed humanely with qualities of intelligent compassion and reaonableness that suggests genuine caring and more than the marked indifference that is projected now.
A dehumanizing infection seems to have spread over our land, but there aren't any vaccines for this.
/cm
The rather unexplained seizure of the Iranian charity's cash and property reminded me of the - and I hate to say it - unjustified Nazi seizures of Jewish property that surrounded Kristallnacht. It exposed the naked predatory intent that often lies behind demonization of a people.
If I don't see a good explanation of this action, and some evidence of due process, this seizure is extremely chilling.
Joe
"a good explanation of this action"
the property seized was funded by the puppet shah.
so I guess they figured it was theirs anyway.
The explanation would be the standard one,terrorist breeding ground, four mosques ,an apartment complex.It's all covered in the patriot act( all 27 pounds of it.)That would be five+ bags of potatoes
On multiple television stations this morning, I heard that "the 9-11 mastermind is going to be put on trial... in New York City." This bit was accompanied by the picture that we've all seen a thousand times - the picture of a terrorist, one who just happens to have been waterboarded many, many times.
So what's wrong with this picture? The verdict is already announced. That dehumanizing image was, in and of itself, a violation of the Geneva Convention that we skirted, and I thought trials were generally moved from locations where a jury might not be able to be found that would be fair and impartial. This trial shows how weakened the rule of law has been by the war on terror, and will serve more as another propaganda opportunity to flog support for the endless war on terror. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more to the point (of what we have become) to simply stone him to death?
Tried in New York can't be a fair trial.
Excellent analysis by Glenn Greenwald.
There is certain to be hysterical zenophobic demagoguery galore over the decision to try KSM and other GWOT detainees in federal court in New York City. Eric Holder's decision is an important step forward. Too bad it's accompanied by another step back, implicly endorsing institutionalization of a two-tiered justice system with military commissions as the perpetual fallback option.
That said, I think the point that needs emphasis is that any military commission trial be conducted in accordance with the standards of the Uniform Code of Military Justice - with the accused enjoying the same rights (and the same disadvantages) that active duty American soldiers facing criminal court martials deal with. It also seems to me that, rather than simply engaging in forum shopping for the benefit of the prosecution, there is a valid conceptual difference to be drawn between an attack on a military target like the USS Cole, and an attack upon a civilian target like the World Trade Center, a US embassy, a commercial airliner, a nightclub, or a pizza parlor.
Wannabe soldiers get military justice. Criminals get criminal justice. That's the distinction that should be staked out in my opinion, if military commissions are to be even utilized at all.
Lurking in the background, but sure to move to the front burner in a federal criminal trial, is the bizarre background of Khalid Sheik Mohammed himself.
By all accounts, KSM is unquestionably a waterboarding torture victim, with his various admissions and confessions deeply and inherently tainted. It also appears very likely that, whatever KSM's mental makeup was back in 2001, the man is mad as an outhouse rat today. As the 911 mastermind poster boy of the Bush/Cheney enhanced interrogation regimen, Khalid Sheik Mohammed has at some point or another confessed to involvement in every nefarious plot and high profile conspiracy short of being the second gunman on that grassy knoll in Dallas.
How ironic it is to recognize, then, that the fact findings and narrative conclusions reached by the official 911 Commission Report rely so heavily upon the credibility and reliability of this particular, particularly weird, criminal defendant. Who knows. Maybe something genuinely enlightening may emerge from the spectacle of KSM's trial.
Bill from Saginaw
Bill asks: "How ironic it is to recognize, then, that the fact findings and narrative conclusions reached by the official 911 Commission Report rely so heavily upon the credibility and reliability of this particular, particularly weird, criminal defendant."
It is very ironic that Mayor Bloomberg does not want another investigation into 9-11, even in light of the fact that the Commission relied heavily on "evidence" elicited from this man by torture.
I have seen that photo of KSM for years, over and over. I suspect that showing that humiliating picture on television was likely part of his torture. I think the government is obligated now to show a picture of the man wearing a suit, smiling, with maybe his wife and children by his side for 8 years to remind us that we tortured a human being.
"Khalid Sheik Mohammed has at some point or another confessed to involvement in every nefarious plot and high profile conspiracy short of being the second gunman on that grassy knoll in Dallas."
LOL.
Waterboard the man again!
re: 911 Commission Report.
The original draft placed Lee Oswald in every cockpit.
Alone.
Fair trial in New York?
Today, accompanying the article about the New York trial, Yahoo posted a 2004 photo of banner in New York stating "We will never forget". Not to mention a photo of the defendent that makes it look like he just got out of bed with a hangover.
The article starts out with: "Self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed" and doesn't mention torture used against him; rather in the last paragraph mentions harsh interrogation techniques (MSM refusing to call anything the US does as torture). Will the court throw out evidence that was extracted by torture? The fact that the US tortured damages its own case. Apparently there wasn't enough evidence to convict without the use of torture.
And by the way, I thought it was Osama Bin Laden that was responsible; or maybe it was all those people in the country that we have killed in Afghanistan since 9/11. Maybe Afghanistan is filled with hundreds of thousands of mini-masterminds, since we can't seem to find an end to our killing spree over there. The truth is, the idea of box cutters and hijacking wasn't novel and didn't take a mastermind.
I am not worried about the location of the trials so much as about the structure of the trails. New York was less jingoistic in its reactions to 911 than many places. Before we got tired, we had big demonstrations against invasions. We have large Muslim communities here and many good relationships - and I see them even between Muslims and Jews. There are a lot of good people in New York who can listen, evaluate fairly and serve well on juries. Plus we have a heck of a lot of ACLU and Lawyers' Guild lawyers to help even the playing field for the defense.
Joe
One of those who will be tried in New York is Canadian Omar Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15, and has been held in torturous conditions ever since.
He had NOTHING to do with the events of 9/11, yet he will be going to a predetermined trial for those events.
The US is a corrupt nation of bullies and thugs, Obama or no.
Actually, according to the CBC, Khadr is one of those set to go the the 'military tribunal', not the NYC dog-and-pony show.
By extreme coincidence, the Canadian Supreme Court was just taking up the issue of his repatriation when this announcement came down - and the Harpo government was instantly prepared with a statement that the Khadr matter must follow the process determined by "elected" officials and NOT the Canadian court.
The empire rolls on ...
Good article by Mr. Greenwald. What more can you add except that this whole Guantamo fiasco is nothing but a kangaroo court, because if it was honest, Bush and Cheney and many more would be incarcerated there. And by the way, Obomba should be put on trial for allowing these real terrorists to get away with the murder of several thousand of our military people and who knows how many foreigners for a pack of lies.
How Harvardy of him. To slice justice into five tranches based on risk of non-conviction. How did that work out for finance?
Why complicate it? A fair trial is a fair trial. You either have to have evidence to convict or let the person go.
There has to be evidence. Otherwise you will have law officials picking up random people to say they have closed a case. There have been years to collect evidence. There have been unlimited funds to investigate and even to pay people for information.
Innocent unless proven guilty. Public trial. Clear definition of the charges. Presentation of evidence. Fair chance to present a defense. That is the m*****f******g definition of justice.
Joe
Joe, you are correct about your definition of justice, but you forgot one thing: how can you expect justice, when you have to go before the unjust?
There is a better chance of justice in front of an open civil or criminal court than in a secret or military court.
Joe
Can't wait to see what thuggish judge is "randomly" selected to try this case. Surely "they" won't risk an unbiased judge with real defense lawyers. Can you imagine? "Your Honor, as you know, the defendant's theory of the case is that the actual perpetrators of this despicable crime were the members of the Neo-Con caball that unlawfully controlled the United States government. Our first witness will be Richard Cheney...Mr. Cheney, have you brought the items we subpoenaed relating to your energy task force?"
I absolutely admire Glenn Greenwald and his writings. It will be interesting to see if he applies his excellent analytical skills to the sure-to-be-bizarre evidentiary rulings that will come from this hand-picked judge (assuming the defense lawyers aren't in on the fix).
"There have been years to collect evidence."
and the same to bury it!
Wonder what happens when, during said terrorist criminal trials, said terrorists explain all about the Saudi connection...?
Oh, I know - it'll be simultaneously denied and ignored.
Here's the answer I wanna hear, though: "Mr. Terrorist, where did you receive your training, and from whom?"
"I train with CIA in Afghanistan to stop Russian occupation! Then USA say screw off! And we say, "Screw off to you too! Infidel!"
Exactly - yet another reason for open and public trials.
Joe
Anything that can tarnish the image of the USA will probably be deemed inadmissable evidence, eg. torture or the US's complicity. The use of another Guantanamo prisoner's testimony will also probably be inadmissable. The fact that he has been imprisoned so long, and for so many years without proper legal defense, means any evidence from 2001 that the defendent could have gotten to defend himself is probably lost or killed. Assuming the defendent is still sane, after having been locked up so many years, he will probably have very little to defend himself, and the US will have very little also, except for evidence obtained by torture. I am sure MSM will make lots of $$$ on this circus.
Can't wait to see how the trial judge defends his/her ruling denying the Defendant's Motion for Aquittal based on the obvious violation of his right to a speedy trial.
"As we learned in Bush v. Gore, some cases are too important to actually follow precedent."
"a power the administration recently announced it intends to preserve based on the same theories used by Bush/Cheney to claim that power."
are we to be ruled by theories?
from twats such as yoo and gonzo?
This is not good.
It looks like the fair trial given to KSM is being used to stealthily cement a system of unfair trials for everyone else.
A shi*tstorn of outrage is already being unleashed by the right.
I think their anger is less than genuine.
Obama is doing the dirty work, constructing the bogus Military Commissions. He's the perfect man for the job being a former Constitutional Professor. Nobody will suspect him unlike the smirking dimwitted Bush. The fascist right knows this. And they're more than happy to let Obama do the heavy lifting.
When Jeb or Sarah takes the Presidency in 2012 they'll have Obama to thank for a justice system that allows them to achieve a pre-determined outcome of guilt or imprisonment in ANY CASE they desire.
KSM is merely the distracting headline act. His guilt is all but certain anyway.
The real prize is a beautiful new justice system that always works in favor of the king!
The USA should be honest and just take them out behind the shed and cap them in the head...that will be the end result of any trial of commission anyways.
Pitch Fork, I posted this at Glenn's site:
BTW, I may be the only Amerikan who feels this way, but I find it repugnant, and not mere happenstance, that the "mug shot" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in captivity now heading Glenn's article on SalonFugly's main page is apparently the one and only photo available to the corporate media.
Not only "corporate"; Amy Goodman used it today on "Democracy Now".
It's very reminiscent of the photos of the captured Saddam Hussein having his teeth checked by US military forces-- which, IIRC, arguably violated those quaint Geneva Conventions.
This KSM image may make a dandy T-shirt to fill the niche left when sales of "Ayatollah Assahola" shirts dried up, but IMO it's clearly propaganda.
One look at that unshaven, unkempt scowling mug is all it takes for primitive life-forms like [the comments trolls] to "know" the guy is guilty as sin.
_____________________________
Another commenter pointed out, correctly, that the mere fact of KSM being an Arab and a Muslim-- the Islamofascist Enemy-- is sufficient to trigger the hysterical knee-jerk rage.
About two minutes later, a wingnut troll sneered at the image, which it took to be an attempt by libtard Greewald (or Salon) to try and "make us feel sorry for him".
· Yr Obd't Servant
My guess is that is the photo the US Military released and it won't allow any further photos to be taken nor released. I'll repeat what I said earlier: Along with the article, Yahoo posted a 2004 NYC banner across a building stating: "We will never forget". This is going to be a media circus.
All of Rubin's cards were marked in advance
The trial was a pig-circus, he never had a chance.
The judge made Rubin's witnesses drunkards from the slums
To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum
And to the black folks he was just a crazy nigger.
No one doubted that he pulled the trigger.
And though they could not produce the gun,
The D.A. said he was the one who did the deed
And the all-white jury agreed.
-- Bob Dylan/Jacques Levy, "Hurricane"
· Yr Obd't Servant
I've always felt
"he was the one who DONE the deed"
would have been better.
but what do I know?
"when you think you've lost everything,
you find you can always lose a little more."
YOS:
Interesting that you commented on the picture. I spotted this comment on TNY today:
"Steve Westchester November 13th, 20098:54 am - I would convict him just for making us look at this picture over and over. That is not pretty."
Funny comment but tragic. Every time I look at that pic, I think to myself "no woonder he looks like that, they've just tortured the crap out of him." Angelina Jolie would look like that too if she was put thru only half of what has been done to these guys.
Welcome to the Untied States of Amerika where you are guilty until proven innocent. And where you're never proven innocent unless you have lots and lots and lots of money or as guilty as sin or a bankster (see the prior two).
Bill from Saginaw introduces some subtleties earlier in this thread:
"[T]here is a valid conceptual difference to be drawn between an attack on a military target like the USS Cole, and an attack upon a civilian target like the World Trade Center, a US embassy, a commercial airliner, a nightclub, or a pizza parlor. . . . Wannabe soldiers get military justice. Criminals get criminal justice. That's the distinction that should be staked out in my opinion, if military commissions are to be even utilized at all."
This strikes me as reasonable and in accord with our traditions. Greenwald notes that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri gets a military trial. That's for the attack on the USS Cole, not a domestic crime. So far so good.
But is Greenwald correct in stating (by quotation) that "the standard of justice for each detainee will depend in large part upon the government's assessment of how high the prosecution's evidence can jump and which evidentiary bar it can clear"? Greenwald bases this argument on Obama's May address. Obama said then (as linked to by Greenwald):
"First, whenever feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts -- courts provided for by the United States Constitution. . . .
"The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. . . .
"The third category of detainees includes those who have been ordered released by the courts. . . . The courts have spoken. . . . [W]e must abide by these rulings.
"The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer. . . .
"[F]inally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. . . .These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. . . . [L]ike other prisoners of war -- [they] must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. . . . If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. And so, going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution."
These don't sound like the gross deviations from traditional American values of Bush/Cheney. The dangers Greenwald sees are, I think, actually implicit, but if we take Obama at his word (I know many of you have a problem with that), the situation is not as clear-cut as Greenwald says. Obama appears to be making an attempt to preserve American ideals as closely as possible, given the unprecedented stress those ideals were subjected to by 9/11.
I also must say that such words would never escape the mouths of Bush or Cheney. Bush wasn't/isn't smart enough to say these things; Cheney lacked, and still lacks, the respect Obama has for core principles of American jurisprudence.
"Obama appears to be making an attempt to preserve American ideals as closely as possible, given the unprecedented stress those ideals were subjected to by 9/11."
with respect, I call BULL.
9/11© changed nothing.
the rule of law must be preserved.
and the laws must be just.
none of this PATRIOT crap.
it wasn't 9/11© that strained these ideals.
it was the overreaction.
The UN really needs to grow a pair, move its HQ out of New York, and sanction the US until it starts behaving according to international treaty. Then it needs to have Bush, Cheney et al and Obama extradicted before the ICC.
How much further down the rabbit hole does Obama want to take us?
An old phrase from my Cold War education keeps echoing ----
show trials . . .
show trials . . .
show trials . . .
show trials . . .
show trials . . .
show trials . . . show trials . . . show trials . . .
I believe we have a lot of distorted views of justice in these situations. The leaders that planned and caused a clearly illegal attack on civilians should be punished. I don't believe in capital punishment but the punishment should be severe. However, we should consider that our people who plan, authorize, and cause to make happen illegal war crimes should also be punished. Torture, planned random killings, planned killing of women and children, indiscriminate bombing, etc. are war crimes and when done intentionally should be punished. That means Cheney should be severely punished as well as others. Not the privates but the leaders and officers. Don't ever believe that the officers don't know what is going on. The privates can't drink a cup of coffee if it isn't authorized by the officers.
Soldiers who follow orders and do not plan the attacks should be treated as any other soldier. Perhaps held tell the end of the war but then released. If they have followed orders which they can not control they don't deserve severe punishments any more than our soldiers do.
I have no problems with a trial in our normal courts. We either have the evidence or we don't. When we don't we are merely accusing people on hearsay which we should never do. Imprison them if we must until the end of the war. Incidentally "evidence" obtained from torture is worse than hearsay. These people will tell you anything you want or accuse their enemies just as easily as blinking an eye. The fact we believe them is because they say what we want to hear.
We probably have to change the laws to hold people until the war is over (or in this case until a reasonable time has elapsed). Our laws should reflect the way we want our people prosecuted. If we are unwilling to have the same things done to our guys we shouldn't be doing it to them.
While I believe in swift justice I never think we should reduce our level of justice merely to assure swift justice. If we are going to execute people or put them in prison for life is the most important thing that we do it quickly. I don't think so.
Deleted