rssWhat’s the Point of Those Military Commissions Again?
Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm
- 26 Comments
Yesterday’s announcement that the Obama administration will try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 suspects in federal court has been hailed as everything from “an important step forward for justice” by Human Rights Watch to “a step backwards for the security of our country [that] puts Americans unnecessarily at risk” by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Glenn Greenwald has pointed out the irony of Republicans now raising fears of another terror attack simply because the president has decided to prosecute terror suspects in a way that’s consistent with American values.
But some important points are being drowned out by the hysteria. Retired Adm. John Hutson, now the dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center, yesterday observed that “there’s no particular reason to believe that if terrorists are going to take vengeance on the US for prosecuting these people, that that’s going to happen at the location or at a hard target.” A federal supermax prison or high-security New York City jail is actually “the least likely place for vengeance to be taken,” given the obstacles presented by all the security, he said on a conference call organized by Human Rights First. “The logical consequence of that stream of logic is that we not prosecute them at all to avoid some form of retribution.”
The other point largely overlooked is that while Attorney General Eric Holder announced plans to try the alleged 9/11 plotters in federal court, he also announced that the suspected USS Cole bomber, among others who’ve attacked U.S. soldiers or military targets, would be tried in the newly reconstituted military commissions. So are they getting a lesser trial?
“Despite the changes enacted by Congress this year, that untested system does not have the track record of fairness and justice that our criminal justice system has,” said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) yesterday, after praising the decision to try KSM and his alleged co-conspirators in federal court.
Col. Morris Davis, the former chief military prosecutor for the commissions, made this important point Sunday in The Wall Street Journal: having two different justice systems “establish[es] a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive.”
Another former military prosecutor, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who resigned his post in protest last September, echoed that yesterday. “To say that you’ve achieved the gold standard for certain defendants by holding their trials in federal courts, and the rest can go to Gtmo, doesn’t necessarily resurrect the image of Gtmo or the military commissions as beacons of fairness. And if one of the stated goals in closing Gtmo is to restore America’s moral position in the world, the decision taken today won’t get us closer to accomplishing that.”
Holder’s justification for trying the Cole bomber and others by military commission is that in each case, their targets were a U.S. soldier or military installation. But isn’t that what we use our regularly constituted military courts for? Isn’t that why Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who last week apparently shot up 13 soldiers at the Fort Hood military base, is being tried by court martial? The only difference would appear to be that the suspects headed for military commissions are not American citizens. So that’s why they get an inferior justice system?
That decision combined with the implicit acknowledgment in Holder’s announcement yesterday that U.S. federal courts a superior form of justice to the military commissions just highlights a question that’s becoming increasingly difficult to answer: Just what is the purpose of those new military commissions?
26 Comments
Trackback posted November 14, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: What’s the Point of Those Military Commissions Again? http://bit.ly/4Et3EF...
Pingback posted November 14, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
[...] in Bush Administration, Government, Law, Obama administration, Terrorism at 12:43 pm by LeisureGuy Daphne Eviatar in the Washington Independent: Yesterday’s announcement that the Obama administration will try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the [...]
Comment posted November 14, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
RE: Eric “Holder’s justification for trying the Cole bomber and others by military commission is that in each case, their targets were a U.S. soldier or military installation. But isn’t that what we use our regularly constituted military courts for?”
No, our regular military courts are for trying people in the US military. It's the equivalent of a company looking into possible wrongdoing by an employee of that company.
Anyone else tried by the US should be tried in our normal federal court system.
The military commissions established by the 2006 bill should have never have been established, and should be discarded.
Comment posted November 14, 2009 @ 7:44 pm
Also a slap in the face to our public & private prison industry—for years they've supported Repub politicians, only to hear now that America isn't safe with terrorists in their high security facilities.
LOL
Comment posted November 15, 2009 @ 7:06 am
I'm surprised Cheney hasn't been on Fox to claim the Ft. Hood attack was a result of stopping torture. He's slippiing.
Comment posted November 15, 2009 @ 11:24 am
“…unnecessarily at risk”? If we are indeed at war, as the Honorable Senator McConnell has insisted, then the risk is necessary. If we are not at war, then the risk is debatable, but Constitutionally mandated.
Can someone explain how the federal court system is a threat to my safety?
Until this point, most of the reasons given for delaying prosecutions (both civilian and military) have been poorly reasoned stories attempting to excuse interrogation methods that until recently were denounced as war crimes by my country.
And when did my country go all wobbly when a vague threat was possible at a time and location undecided by a group that we were unaware of?
Comment posted November 15, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Great Oscar winning Hollywood heartbreaking story performed by Tom Hanks with a rainbow ending written by Stephen Spielberg in which the USA receives a world medal of achieving the goal of restoring America's reputation with the world, having taken a step towards justice, fairness, American values, moral position in the world by the fair, just treatment we show these killers.
Their way of saying thanks to us is by killing us. Does this Hollywood script really have an ending in that us treating them with the same civil rights that we give a US Citizen is going to stop them from killing us again?-What civil rights did these killers show Americans when they crashed the 4 airplanes and killed hundreds of Americans? It didn't stop Hasan an American soldier from killing Americans inside the largest military base in the US.
Why don't we just mail every nation we have ever rescued, helped for the last 60 years an invoice/bill for every bag of rice, oatmeal, dry milk, medicine, blankets, water, beans, flour, tents, etc… we have donated. Oh yes, let's also send them an invoice/bill for every life of a US soldier or US civilian we have ever lost in the process of rescuing, helping them.
Comment posted November 15, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
…and this is where you should then complain about the insufferable tax burden of maintaining US military presence on huge bases all over the world. Except that you don't because you WANT our military everywhere; Republicans demand that BO send more & more troops to Afghanistan. Your Rush Limbaugh script is a little bit contradictory, but it seems to be saying that we should beat some gratitude into “them”—-or am I missing your point altogether?
Comment posted November 15, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Our justice system is what it's all about. Irrespective of what they did, the justice system must take it's course, or this isn't the United States of America.
The entire spirit of what this country represents would be damaged by indefinite detainment of these individuals. It is already tarnished by GITMO.
Or is it that the previous administration's “reputation” will be affected? Pretty lame excuse for the worst administration in American history.
CLOSE GITMO, prosecute the suspects, case closed.
Pingback posted November 15, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
[...] Article: What’s the Point of Those Military Commissions Again? — Washington Independent Related Posts:Gitmo Detainee Claims U.S. Paid Prosecution WitnessesHolder Inching Closer to Torture [...]
Comment posted November 16, 2009 @ 4:13 am
Our justice system is what it's all about. Irrespective of what they did, the justice system must take it's course, or this isn't the United States of America.
The entire spirit of what this country Ugg boots salerepresents would be damaged by indefinite detainment of these individuals. It is already tarnished by GITMO.
Or is it that the previous administration's “reputation” will be sale ugg bootsaffected? Pretty lame excuse for the worst administration in American history.
Comment posted November 17, 2009 @ 10:30 am
As a US Citizen/Latin American, having lived in many countries I definitely want the US military everywhere-protecting & defending those that cannot help themselves. What a joke that the US is being reprimanded by nations whose believe of Human Rights is at the bottom of their list or not on the list at all. Go live outside your comfort/safe/free speech zone and try living (not vacation) in other countries-let's see how you like it after 1 year. GO TRAVEL. Your comments are those of one who has never seen, been to the real world-stop sitting on a cozy couch and travel. As for closing Gitmo to restore our moral position in the world it is just a political gimmick these nations are happy someone fabricated-taking advise from these nations about moral position is like taking advise from a druggy that it is not right to open a rehab center to help local druggies fight their addiction. I love and am very proud of my country and all that we do to insure the safety of others as well as ourselves. I am a very proud US American and am very proud the work our soldiers do everywhere in the world. GO TRAVEL.
Comment posted November 17, 2009 @ 10:44 am
From a US Citizen/Latin American-who has lived in many countries-get out of your comfort/safe zone and go live in a few countries for at least 1 year, go experience the real world where Human Rights is usually not part of their vocabulary. These nations love who ever came up with this political gimmick that our world reputation is being tarnished by Gitmo. Of course they don't like Gitmo, they don't like Human Rights either. Go travel the world and wake up. See it for yourself.
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 8:51 am
As a US Citizen/Latin American, having lived in many countries I definitely want the US military everywhere-protecting & defending those that cannot help themselves. What a joke that the US is being reprimanded by nations whose believe of Human Rights is at the bottom of their list or not on the list at all. Go live outside your comfort/safe/free speech zone and try living (not vacation) in other countries-let's see how you like it after 1 year. GO TRAVEL. Your comments are those of one who has never seen, been to the real world-stop sitting on a cozy couch and travel. As for closing Gitmo to restore our moral position in the world it is just a political gimmick these nations are happy someone fabricated-taking advise from these nations about moral position is like taking advise from a druggy that it is not right to open a rehab center to help local druggies fight their addiction. I love and am very proud of my country and all that we do to insure the safety of others as well as ourselves. I am a very proud US American and am very proud the work our soldiers do everywhere in the world. GO TRAVEL
Comment posted November 19, 2009 @ 8:55 am
From a US Citizen/Latin American-who has lived in many countries-get out of your comfort/safe zone and go live in a few countries for at least 1 year, go experience the real world where Human Rights is usually not part of their vocabulary. These nations love who ever came up with this political gimmick that our world reputation is being tarnished by Gitmo. Of course they don't like Gitmo, they don't like Human Rights either. Go travel the world and wake up. See it for yourself.-taking advise from these nations about moral position is like taking advise from a druggy that it is not right to open a rehab center to help local druggies fight their addiction.
Comment posted November 21, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
You are very presumptuous to assume I have not spent time in the third world. In addition to spending time in south and central America I have known many people from Latin America: some of whom have WALKED to California from places like Oaxaca and El Salvador.I have been active in Catholic relief programs for many of these families— I am much more informed regarding this region than most Americans that I have met, and certainly more knowledgeable about my country's historical involvement there than most. Your condescension in this regard falls flat before my ears! BTW your “druggie” metaphor makes no sense!!
Comment posted November 22, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
I was referring to Eastern European and Asian countries and their disregard, disrespect for human life, human rights and civil rights and it's not limited to gender or age. And let's not forget Genocide. My relatives and I have lived and live throughout Europe/Eastern Europe and Asia. Central & South America are actually vacationing countries where 100's of Americans have moved to, are moving to or dream of moving there to find tranquility, peace and enjoy “Pura Vida” and these Americans love the beauty, freedom of the Central/South American people. The reputation of these countries is of “take it easy” and usually Americans referred to them as Paradise. Oaxaca is in southern part of Mexico, North America, Mexico is not part of Central & South America.
Comment posted November 30, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
The main reason that Maj Hassan is being tried in a court martial is that he is a member of the Armed Forces and was on active duty, not that his targets were members of the Armed Forces.
Comment posted December 11, 2009 @ 1:24 am
The writer doesn't get the concept of “blowback”. He should talk to Ollie North. The prosecution will give “cause” to muzhahadin to free their wrongly accused brothers.
Comment posted December 13, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
You are kidding I hope.
The purpose of creating a “parallel justice” system is to treat a special class of folks in a different way. In this case it is because they could not be convicted in a real court of law with standard rules of evidence.
Is this the future of American Justice? Do we create a “new justice” system for any group that is a problem, and that we need to find guilty?
No man is above the law. We are a nation of law. In the eyes of the law all men are created equal. Except….
The statue of Justice needs a sister statute next to it. She would be shown to have her thumb on the scales and peeking under he blindfold. Or more accurately in this case the scales would have a weight on one side tipping them and labeled “Obama Parallel Justice”.
Comment posted December 13, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
I am supporting the use of a military tribunal, such as was used by FDR with the germans from “operation pastorius” in WWII. Using the our system is ridiculous.
Comment posted December 13, 2009 @ 6:21 pm
You are kidding I hope.
The purpose of creating a “parallel justice” system is to treat a special class of folks in a different way. In this case it is because they could not be convicted in a real court of law with standard rules of evidence.
Is this the future of American Justice? Do we create a “new justice” system for any group that is a problem, and that we need to find guilty?
No man is above the law. We are a nation of law. In the eyes of the law all men are created equal. Except….
The statue of Justice needs a sister statute next to it. She would be shown to have her thumb on the scales and peeking under he blindfold. Or more accurately in this case the scales would have a weight on one side tipping them and labeled “Obama Parallel Justice”.
Comment posted December 13, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
I am supporting the use of a military tribunal, such as was used by FDR with the germans from “operation pastorius” in WWII. Using the our system is ridiculous.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
