The Obama administration recently announced that it would try Khalid Shaikh Mohammmed (and four others) in federal court for plotting the 911 attacks. I think this is a mistake. In my view there is no reason to grant these people the legal protections we give American citizens accused of ordinary crimes.
I see this as a political decision and would have Obama personally ultimately decide the fate of these prisoners. If he doesn't want all the responsibility let Congress ratify his decisions. Of course this is unlikely as politicians hate taking responsibility and routinely let the courts take the heat. But in my view this is no more the proper domain of the civilian courts than was the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We don't live in a dictatorship where the head of state decides which individuals are guilty of capital crimes and deserve the death penalty –- all without a trial –- and then gets the parliamentary body to support his decision. Fortunately we live in a country of laws and legal protections for those accused of such crimes.
ReplyDeleteArticle 111, Section 2, of the Constitution states, “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; . . .”. Amendment VI (1791) goes on to state, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, . . .”. This appears to be why the trial will be held in New York City.
We would hope that our citizens arrested for alleged crimes in other countries would be granted a speedy and public trial. It's hard to argue for this, if our country doesn't follow such a policy itself.
When I voted for Obama, my intention was not to elect him dictator; so I am appalled at the suggestion that he be given dictatorial power, either alone or in concert with Congress. I am further appalled by the implication that any person under the complete control of the United States government is not entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights. If anyone doubts that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens and non-citizens alike, then he must explain why it speaks of "persons", never of "citizens".
ReplyDeleteOne also should give some thought to the Golden Rule, to Jefferson's phrase, "all men are created equal, ... endowed ... with certain unalienable rights," and to the notion of being innocent until proven guilty. Inherent in these are moral precepts that should apply to all human beings. The fact that, for whatever reason (poor judgment, exigencies of war, etc.), these precepts sometimes have not been followed is no excuse for gratuitously abandoning them at other times.
I am always skeptical when people suppose that they have legal and/or moral rights that others do not.
How does the Golden Rule tell us what to do with KSM? Why is is relevant to ask ourselves how we'd hope that KSM would treat us if we were to orchestrate the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians?
ReplyDeleteThese individuals are not US citizens. They, most likely, according to international law, would be tried in their own countries if the Bush administration hadn't stolen a march on the legal responsibilities of other nations. By placing these individuals under the aegis of US jurisdiction, we are presented with a legal quandry. It's a rather touchy situation.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing touchy. You are made feel "touchy" by (truly) degenerate liberal interpretations like the above. There is nothing touchy. Provided you have the guts to admit, from the bottom of your heart, you know an elaborate lengthy circus swarmed by armies of lawyers defending and explaining the motives of these insane murderers who already confessed to the plot is the greatest insult to all who died.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean touchy in that sense, I meant that it is difficult to determine who has jurisdiction in this case. Whether it should be a military tribunal or civilian case, one tried in the native country, (Nazi war criminals for example, in the Nurenberg trials were convicted in Germany.) I do believe that we do not need to expose our civil courts to danger with possibly more terrorism, so we are in accord on that one.
ReplyDeleteJonathan: In deciding how we should treat KSM, the Golden Rule specifies that we consider how we would want to be treated if, like him, we were to be accused of orchestrating the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians (guilt or innocence not yet having been established). How KSM himself would treat us is irrelevant, since the Rule refers to what we want others to do, not to what they would do.
ReplyDeleteoTU...: The greatest insult to all who died would be use their deaths as an excuse to follow the (truly) degenerate course of abandoning the Constitutional principles on which our nation was founded (and which, from the bottom of your heart, you so greatly disdain). The validity of any confessions is yet to be determined.
How is water boarding following the Golden Rule?
ReplyDeleteI've always admired the Golden Rule (still do), but it occurs to me that some tweaking is in order. For example: If I were accused of orchestrating the slaughter, I would be freaked out and selfishly want to be released by unanimous popular consent and given a Presidential apology and $10M to salve my hurt pride. But I don't think that my likely selfishness under pressure should guide KSM's treatment or how we treat people in his situation generally.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous has an interesting point. We usually think that the way to correct a violation of the Golden Rule is to raise our treatment of others up to the level that we want for ourselves. In this case, however, Anonymous should lower his wants down to a level that he is willing to apply to others. If he does not do so, then indeed the Golden Rule specifies that he grant his selfish wishes to others, and we can be thankful that he does not have the last word in regard to the treatment of KSM.
ReplyDeleteMary's question, "How is water boarding following the Golden Rule?" seems to be directed toward someone who believes that water boarding does follow the Rule. Since I had not noticed that that outrageous view was among those suggested in the current discussion, I wonder who (if anyone) can answer.
The same country that tries to follow the Golden Rule is also allowing waterboarding. How do we reconcile this?
ReplyDeleteThere are situations, such as that of a ticking time bomb, in which the Golden Rule might have to be violated in regard to one person in order to avoid a more serious violation in regard to another. However, I am unaware of any such situation lying within the scope of our discussion here. So my answer to Mary's question is that the waterboardings occurred when our country was being represented by an administration that, despite its religious rhetoric, had no intention of following the Golden Rule.
ReplyDeleteNice example of "confirmation bias." Since the symbol "bomb" is subjective, and whether it's "ticking" is subjective, how can you come to a conclusion that the administration had no intention to follow that rule (without absence of logic).
ReplyDeletePlease be specific: Just what evidence did I overweight or underweight so as to exemplify confirmation bias? Like all the views expressed in this forum, mine are of course subjective. In particular, based on eight years of watching Bush the younger, I think it unlikely that the Golden Rule is one of his guiding principles. If indeed his subjective opinion was that a ticking bomb situation obtained, I am (as I said) unaware of what that situation was, but I would be happy to learn of it, so that I could reconsider my opinion in the light of the new information.
ReplyDelete