Even before AG Holder announced that KSM and a few other Gitmo terrorists would be held for trial in NY I had thought that if I were a Senator I'd have been on the floor touting our justice system, screaming "Bring em to Supermax - we're not afraid of em ... you think we can't handle a few scheming pilots?". Along with stating the obvious (that our prisons hold way more dangerous prisoners) I think it'd bring attention and commerce to the state and be a source of pride.
Check this Colorado Pols post on the subject ... apparently IL is going to hold them for trial, and they're looking at ADX for long term imprisonment.
As for the argument that they'll get off on a technicality? No chance. Sure, they'll argue waterboarded confessions were coerced - but Holder is a prosecutor, and he must know that there is plenty of other evidence to convict so they won't have to rely on tainted evidence.
As for the argument that it'll be a circus? Sure. So was OJ.
As for the argument that the trial will become a target? Maybe, but again, do we not think the NYPD or the Nat'l Guard, etc. will be able to handle it?
The hypocricy on the right is outstanding - they decry international law, tout our legal and moral superiority, but don't think we can handle a few murderers?
UPDATE: NPR ran a story today and it's spot on.....the GOP "fears" bringing detainees to IL and Democrat Dick Durbin says (in essence) "bring em on!"
My Blog List
-
-
-
Big Weekend15 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
-
-
Right idea, poor execution--Eva13 years ago
-
-
2 comments:
Quick reactions:
- It's not just the right that thinks this is a bad move. Jim Webb said in USA Today that "war criminals don't belong in U.S. courts."
- One interpretation of your post might go something like this: "we know KSM is guilty, so let's legitimize our detainment of him by putting him on trial to be found guilty." Is that right? Are you saying that he will be found guilty with no chance of being found innocent?
- If he is, for some O.J.'esque reason found not guilty, what will Obama do then? Let him go? I doubt that. So, what is really going on here? What message does this send to the international world? One possible message is that the court system is rigged.
- Right. It's not universally the GOP...but this is Obama and the democrats reaction to the GOP's use of Gitmo.
- That's a fair interpretation of what I'm saying. A fair interpretation of the alternative is: we know they're guilty so lets imprison them indefinitely under an inept framework ('war on terrorism') that warps our objectives and constrains our flexibility in responding to terrorism.
- There are plenty of people who are tried when we know they're guilty - Unibomber, Tim McVeigh, etc. There are also plenty of mid-level terrorism cases handled in the US (I heard on the radio that conviction rate is 100% on terrorists w/ in-country victims). What struck me about the Yglesias post was how powerful it can be to frame their acts as criminal ... that they're outsiders, it's demeaning, they're petty scum. Obviously there needs to be hybrid system between the law and the Geneva convention, and we're starting to experiment with what it looks like. But I'm against knee-jerk reactions that our legal system can't handle these guys and that only a wartime framework is appropriate. The "war" on terror is very inadequate label (but that's for a later convo:)
Post a Comment