The Obama administration has announced that it is going to put the five terrorists which it believes were responsible for helping plan and execute the 9/11 attacks, and which are being held in Gitmo, on trial in New York.
Now to be sure this is a difficult matter. Obama campaigned on a promise to close Gitmo because it was outside the judicial processes of American civilian courts. He clearly regards it as a suppurating wound which was and is harming the public image of the United States. But he has since found that closing down Guantanamo Bay prison is fraught with intractable problems.
But the decision to try the 9/11 conspirators in US criminal courts is a high risk manoeuvre. (We are dropping the "alleged" tag, since all five have already admitted in military courts that they were involved in the plot. They proudly proclaim it as a badge of honour.) Since there appears to be no doubt about their guilt, and normal military courts would have sufficed, why should the Obama Administration take this risky step?
The reason that has been given is that it would be useful for the US to showcase its "fair and balanced" judicial system to the rest of the world (that is, primarily the Muslim world.) The Obama Administration wants to show the world that this is how an enlightened, modern, western nation does things--or how western liberal elites do things. But the "piousness" risks rapidly degenerating into impiousness. One of the most odious perversions of judicial practice in recent history was the Soviet Union show trials where that evil empire sought to put its judicial integrity on display, only to have it convince all and sundry that it was truly a terrorist regime. The confessions of the accused were always fulsome: one simply could not resist the endless torture. One either died or confessed. There was no other outcome.
Thus, the first and most fundamental question Obama is facing is whether the trials and verdicts will be genuine or staged. Remember, the appearance is everything, since the driving motivation appears to be the propaganda value of the trials. This is a legitimate question, but the ducking and diving of the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs on the issue risks the integrity of the trials from the "get-go" as the Americans would say. He is a transcript of a recent press conference, courtesy of Patterico:
TAPPER: Two questions about developments today. One regarding the Ghailani trial — him being flown to the United States — if any of the detainees who are brought to trial through the U.S. criminal courts, or even through military commissions — if any of them are found not guilty, will the administration let them free?
GIBBS: Well, I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about…
TAPPER: Forget the military commissions.
GIBBS: I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about the court cases either.
TAPPER: Well, this is an important part of — you’re talking about a credible justice system; bringing these people to justice. You’ve spoken at great length about this — the president has. If they are found not guilty, will they be found…
GIBBS: Well, let’s discuss that if it ever comes to fruition.
TAPPER: But isn’t that what is underlying a credible justice system? The idea that if you’re found not guilty, you’ll be free?
GIBBS: Sure.
TAPPER: So…
GIBBS: But I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about how certain cases may or may not play out.
TAPPER: So you’re not willing to commit to freeing people if they’re found not guilty?
GIBBS: I’m not willing to get into playing hypothetical games.
TAPPER: It’s not a game, Robert. It’s a question about the credibility of a justice system.
MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS: Just the principle of it.
GIBBS: No, it’s — I’m not debating legal principles. I’m just not getting into the hypothetical back and forth of what happens on a case.
TAPPER: OK. So the Obama administration is refusing to say that if someone is found not guilty, they will be set free?
GIBBS: Jake, I am not going to get into the hypotheticals about specific outcomes of cases.
TAPPER: I’m not asking you to talk about a specific case. I’m talking about in general.
GARRETT: For all the detainees brought to the system — into this system of justice, which this administration said can and has in the past handled adequately — more than adequately, according to your talking points this morning, the terrorism cases brought before it in whatever venue — if that justice system, which the administration says should be trusted, renders a verdict of not guilty, is that person released?
GIBBS: We will talk about what happens about a verdict when a verdict comes.
TAPPER: Well, then how is the world supposed to have any confidence that this new system of justice that you guys are ensuring is going to be the case with detainees, is actually credible?
GIBBS: We think the Southern District of New York has a very good record, as it relates to trying and convicting terror suspects.
TAPPER: I believe what your — the facts sheet said this morning — was that it has a 90 percent success rate.
GIBBS: I think 90 is pretty good.
TAPPER: I’m not questioning whether 90’s pretty good. I’m asking you about the 10 percent.
GIBBS: And I’m, in this specific case, not going to get into those hypotheticals.
Because Obama' Press Secretary will not give a straight answer to the question of releasing any acquitted accused, it calls into question the very integrity of the trials from the outset.
Secondly, the propaganda value of any trial cuts two ways. The trials will provide a world stage for the accused to showcase their valiant, faithful, courageous martyrdom. In fact, it would be hard to conceive of a bigger stage for them. This can easily happen, if any of the defendants decide to represent themselves--which gives them the right to make opening statements to the court. Imagine the following opening statement from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM") before the world media:
With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride . . . . In fact, it was you who had wiped out two entire cities off the face of the earth and killed roughly half a million people in a few minutes and caused grave bodily harm by nuclear radiation? Did you forget about your nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
You are the last nation that has the right to speak about civilians and killing civilians. You are professional criminals, with all the meaning the words carry. Therefore, we kill treat you the same. We will attack you, just like you have attacked us, and whomever initiated the attacks is the guilty party.
Far-fetched? Hardly. It's precisely the statement already made by KSM and his co-accused to the Military Commission at Gitmo.
Thirdly, it is almost certain that a lot of the evidence to be presented at the trial will have come by way of interrogations of the suspects (and now accused) at Gitmo. The Obama administration has already gone on record as saying that the interrogation techniques used were torture. No doubt that is going to come out front and centre--and how can the prosecutors disagree: the President and the Attorney General, Eric Holder has already said exactly that. Great propaganda value there.
One way or another it's going to be entertaining. But it is highly likely that these show trials will end up doing far more harm than good. But that has never stopped self-righteous liberals before, so why should it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment