Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Pulitzer Prize winner Clarence Page began his career in journalism as editor for the Middletown Journal and Cincinnati Inquirer, and received his ...
Read more about By Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services.
Pulitzer Prize winner Clarence Page began his career in journalism as editor for the Middletown Journal and Cincinnati Inquirer, and received his ...
Read more about By Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services.
Civilian Courts Fight Terrorists, Too
By Clarence Page, Tribune Media Services
Terrorists by definition try to frighten you into changing the way you
do things. In the run-up to his trial as alleged mastermind of the
Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed's success as a terrorist is
showing in us. A lot of good patriotic law-'n'-order Americans
suddenly sound frightened by our own civilian judicial system.
Almost two-thirds of Americans would rather see Mohammed tried in a military court instead of a civilian court, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday. Only 34 percent say that he should face trial in civilian court, as the Obama administration plans to do.
If a presidential election were being decided today on this issue alone, President Obama would lose, big time. But if the Bill of Rights were put to a vote, I imagine it would lose, too.
That's why it's encouraging to hear that, if Mohammed is tried in the United States, the same majority of 64 percent thinks he will get a fair trial. Most of us believe our system is fair, yet that seems to be what troubles many of us. We'd rather have Mohammed tried by a system that was a little less fair. We'd like a deck stacked more against him.
I share that sentiment. I don't want just a fair trial for Mohammed. Part of me wants assurances that he's going to hang. But, alas, a trial with an automatically assured outcome is not a trial. Calling it a kangaroo court would be an insult to kangaroos.
Still, tribunals make tantalizing red meat for politicians to dangle in front of disgruntled voters. On Sunday talk shows, perennial political hopeful Rudy Giuliani, New York's mayor during the Sept. 11 attacks, articulated the most-heard attacks against Atty. Gen. Eric Holder's decision to try Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 attacks in civilian court in New York.
"I don't know why you want to give terrorists advantages," he said on
As for any inadequacy of civilian courts, Giuliani's sentiments contrast sharply with the praise he gave the trial of "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui in which he testified. He was "very disappointed" that Moussaoui was not sentenced to death, he told reporters, but "at the same time, I was in awe of our system. It does demonstrate that we can give people a fair trial, that we are exactly what we say we are. We are a nation of law. ... I think he's going to be a symbol of American justice."
Somehow that symbol has faded in Giuliani's mind as he worries today about civilian courts giving an "unnecessary advantage" to terrorists. In fact, our federal courts have waged an admirable war of their own against terrorists, whether the judges call it that or not. Our civilian courts have tried 195 cases of terrorism since 2001, according to Justice Department figures, and 91 percent of them have resulted in convictions.
Since Holder's career may be riding on this trial's outcome, a not-guilty verdict for Mohammed doesn't sound very likely. Holder has said he has enough evidence to win a conviction, even though Mohammed is known to have been waterboarded during interrogations. Experts like Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a former prosecutor who heads the Armed Services Committee, agree that the government had enough evidence to prosecute Mohammed before waterboarding took place.
In the meantime, Obama is receiving support from unusual sources. Three prominent conservatives issued a statement this weekend supporting the Obama administration's decisions to transfer terrorism detainees to federal prisons and to try them in federal court. Other conservatives have since joined the statement by David Keene of the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Bob Barr, a former George Republican congressman and Libertarian Party presidential candidate, all in the name of the Constitution.
"Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards," their statement reads in part. "The scaremongering about these issues should stop." Amen.
We Americans should turn to military tribunals only as a last resort, not because we "refuse to recognize that we are at war against terrorism" as President Obama's critics charge him, but because we need to minimize that war's collateral damage to our rule of law.
========
E-mail Clarence Page at cpage(at)tribune.com, or write to him c/o Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY 14207.
(c) 2008 CLARENCE PAGE DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
This news arrived on: 11/18/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
11-20-2009 09:43
DJP wrote:
Should read "not read his miranda rights"
11-20-2009 09:41
DJP wrote:
How will the prosecution get around the fact that he was read his miranda rights? How do you get around the fact that he was waterboarded to gain information? How do you get around not being able to have a fair and impartial trial in NY? All of these are grounds for appeal. I think it is going to be a circus.
11-20-2009 08:21
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
Off topic
Yesterday on the Houston Chronicles there was a story concerning Muslim nations putting forth an anti Blasphemy bill to the UN General Assembly in Geneva . What that bill basically says is that you can not criticize their faith . Yet it did not work both ways they could still be as intolerant as they wanted towards other faiths .
One poster to that article said he was so glad they have caught up to the European Christians of the 1650's . (The Catholic Church had such measure in place then .)
The article went on to say that it stands a good chance of passing even though it would infringe on most European and Western nations constitutional freedom of speech rights .
My comment was this;
If the UN Generally Assembly passes this which will be in direct conflict with most European and Western nations constitutions of free speech . What will happen is these countries will not change their most basic Constitutional rights , they will simply pull out of the UN . So the UN general Assembly is placing its very existence at risk and agenda at risk to pander to a special interest group .
One poster to that article said he was so glad they have caught up to the European Christians of the 1650's . (The Catholic Church had such measure in place then .)
The article went on to say that it stands a good chance of passing even though it would infringe on most European and Western nations constitutional freedom of speech rights .
My comment was this;
If the UN Generally Assembly passes this which will be in direct conflict with most European and Western nations constitutions of free speech . What will happen is these countries will not change their most basic Constitutional rights , they will simply pull out of the UN . So the UN general Assembly is placing its very existence at risk and agenda at risk to pander to a special interest group .
11-20-2009 08:06
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
To Tim great post :)
11-19-2009 20:36
Tim Driscoll wrote:
Military Tribunals
The S.O.B. already admitted he's guilty and wants to be executed as a "martyr." So why waste any more money or manpower on this stupid "trial"??
Just give him over to the military and have him shot...And for good measure, rub pork grease all over his body right before he's executed. That'll really scare him out of his wits!
Just give him over to the military and have him shot...And for good measure, rub pork grease all over his body right before he's executed. That'll really scare him out of his wits!
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Clarence Page ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
VideoSquares.com
