An open and impartial judicial system is a cornerstone of any democracy. No one is guaranteed a perfect trial, but as much transparency as possible in the courtroom is necessary for building trust in the system, especially for a nation that likes to hold itself up as an example to the world as often as does the United States.
That’s why it is confusing and confounding to see any disagreement about whether Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should be tried in federal court, or by special tribunal. Abdulmutallab, who tried to blow up an Amsterdam-to-Detroit plane on Christmas Day, is a criminal. He was caught in the act with multiple witnesses. Super-secret intelligence gathering techniques will not be exposed by his public trial. (Why we’d be worried about exposing these super-secret intelligence gathering techniques in this case is questionable, since they had nothing to do with stopping him.) Try him in open court. A conviction is likely; I doubt a jury made up of the twelve primary contributors to DailyKos would exonerate this guy. This is how to show the rest of the world our open system not only functions as well or better than anything they could come up with, and we are not afraid to trust it.
Dick Cheney et al want Abdulmutallab tried by tribunal and, presumably, tortured to get whatever information he has, even though he is said to be cooperating fully. Is Cheney afraid? Need we even ask that question, as familiar as we all are with the former Secretary of Defense’s Vietnam-era military record?
A free society is not without risk. The framers of the Constitution were well aware of that, yet they still insisted on the Bill of Rights. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are clear: everyone is entitled to protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the right not to give self-incriminating testimony, a speedy and public trial, and cannot be subjected to excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment. Hair-splitting about whether someone should get a public trial is anti-Constitutional on its face.
A quote I’ve borrowed for my e-mail signature reads, “I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.” The second man is a hypocrite and a coward. If anyone is not worthy of Constitutional protection, it is he.
5 comments:
An open and impartial judicial system is a cornerstone of any democracy. No one is guaranteed a perfect trial, but as much transparency as possible in the courtroom is necessary for building trust in the system, especially for a nation that likes to hold itself up as an example to the world as often as does the United States.
I’m not so sure all of America is so anxious to do so anymore, but will concede the point on its face. I do not agree, however, that those seeking our destruction care very much about how we are perceived by the rest of the world and that might have to count for something too.
… should be tried in federal court, or by special tribunal.
I don’t mind if it is a federal court, but couldn’t that federal court be someplace much less densely populated than our bigger cities (i.e., Monroe, MI rather than Detroit MI)? Why not a federal court temporarily located on an Army base? I doubt it would stop lunatics from trying to make their point, but it seems like we’re tempting them holding such trials where the most damage can be done.
I do have a question. If he is found to be a member of Al Qaeda and we are supposedly at war with Al Qaeda (even though there is no Al Qaedastan—or does it need to be a declared war?), shouldn’t he be tried by a military tribunal? Trust me, I’m no defender of Dick Cheney (he’s a war criminal and should’ve been tried as such), but I don’t like the idea of these cases becoming political fiascos and that’s all they are already. It’s a tough call, I know, but this rule of law thing … have you seen what our great Justice Department has done recently for admitted murderers of more than 20 people—given them new names and addresses at our expense. It’s called the new law enforcement; bag one guy and let him fink on the rest (although it really isn’t very new—the sweetheart deals are mind numbing). Not such a big deal when you’re talking about a non-violent crime maybe, but murder? If the 9-11 “19” were criminals and murderers, how would you feel knowing one of those behind them got a deal and walked?
The framers of the Constitution were well aware of that …
I always get nervous when the founding fathers and or constitution framers are mentioned … usually I have issues with right wing bloggers about this stuff. They were surviving, is my guess, as best they could. A lot of what “they thought” or “were thinking” etc., is nothing more than our speculation. While the Bill of Rights is clear, I doubt they were thinking about a world such as ours. Tough call.
“I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.” The second man is a hypocrite and a coward. If anyone is not worthy of Constitutional protection, it is he.
It’s a good quote, but I wouldn’t jump in with both feet. Lincoln had to suspend Habeas Corpus for good reason. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to survive. General Patton (who hated Sicilians, by the way), probably wasn’t too concerned about procedure or constitutional guidelines when he was in command of an angry army. I’m not saying it (suspending constitutional rights when deemed necessary) should be a way of life, but shutting the door on it blindly seems to me a rash move.
Charlie:
I got your other note. Thanks for these comments. This is the kind of discussion I’d always hoped to provoke on this blog. You’re about the first person to take me up on it. I appreciate it.
Now, on to the arguin’.
I do not agree, however, that those seeking our destruction care very much about how we are perceived by the rest of the world and that might have to count for something too.
You’re right; it’s not them I’m trying to reach. It’s those who are on the fence, and those who might be willing to help us if they saw our actions better matched our lofty rhetoric. Too often this country expects others to adhere to our ideals while we only care about them when it’s convenient to do so.
I don’t mind if it is a federal court, but couldn’t that federal court be someplace much less densely populated than our bigger cities?
I’m good with that. There are federal courts all over the place. It might not matter, though. There are no rules of engagement that say they can’t attack Detroit just because the trial is held in Traverse City. These guys are all about the symbolism.
If he is found to be a member of Al Qaeda and we are supposedly at war with Al Qaeda (even though there is no Al Qaedastan—or does it need to be a declared war?), shouldn’t he be tried by a military tribunal?
This has been a sore spot with me for years, for two reasons. One is that, every time this country declares war on anything other than another country (drugs, poverty, terrorism), all it really means is an open-ended commitment to whatever policies are thought best at the time. If they don’t work, we’ll just do more of them. I’d love to ask administrations of either party how that war on drugs is working out, yet the only things they want to try are essentially more of what we’ve already been doing.
The other sore spot is treating these guys like combatants at all. Much as I dislike the whole concept of war, there’s a certain honor to fighting a standup fight for one’s beliefs. These guys are criminals, plain and simple. Why can’t we use RICO on them? The ongoing criminal enterprise (terrorism) is pretty well-defined. We could seize assets and convict members, even if they hadn’t done anything yet, just for associating with known associates of the enterprise. This has the added benefit of allowing us to use statutes already in place. Any extraordinary acts we take glorifies these guys and add to their perceived martyrdom.
While the Bill of Rights is clear, I doubt they were thinking about a world such as ours. Tough call.
I thought a long time about this part. You’re right: they had no concept of how the 21st Century would turn out. I don’t think we as a nation have tried too hard to stick to the principles we’re supposed to cherish as diligently as we might. It also frosts me that things such as airline security, drunk driving checkpoints, and cameras in public places violate the probable cause concept every time I have to put up with them.
My biggest complaint is that the terrorists aren’t out to kill us all; they just want to destroy our way of life. We can’t stop that by killing them all; we can accomplish it for them by allowing them to dictate how we live.
Polite discourse it is (and should always be).
It might not matter, though. There are no rules of engagement that say they can’t attack Detroit just because the trial is held in Traverse City. These guys are all about the symbolism.
Valid point (about rules of engagement terrorist won’t adhere to). My concern, of course, is New York first (for selfish reasons) and the fact it was such a symbolic place to attack for them. You’re right, we could in fact get faked out and they could attack some mall in some small city and wipe most of it out. On the other hand, I see the larger Muslim populations of bigger cities as an inherent threat (not to profile, but there were those Palestinians in Jersey City dancing in the street while the towers burned across the river). Again, a tough call. Your point is very valid, there is no guarantee having the trial on an army base would prevent another attack on New York.
Regarding War on Drugs, etc.
Another valid point that is hard to argue against. I’d suggest we get the hell out of those two countries already (Iraq and Afghanistan) and unless you’re willing to stay there indefinitely, I’d have to agree with your point (war on drugs—a never ending bad joke—see that Playboy article I referred to on my blog about a dirty DEA agent and the federal prosecutors so willing to use his fugazy testimony/evidence—talk about abusing the constitution).
This is akin to an argument I attempted to make on another blog and was called “dishonest” for; the idea that if you find the policy makers are engaged in an illegal activity, how can you then uphold those who do their job diligently below them? (i.e., if the war is illegal, how can the prosecution of terrorists (to include catching them) be legitimate? I say it isn’t as black and white a picture as my detractor suggested. One could make the argument that if the head is dirty, so “might be” the tail (they sure ignored that idea in Nuremburg or there would have been a lot more executions of Nazi war atrocities, but does anyone doubt there were more guilty parties who were never tried?). Even if the CIA/Army, etc. caught “alleged terrorists” on the field of battle, how can we assume the “catching” was legal if the war wasn’t? Maybe those caught were acting in self defense against an illegal invasion. While that might read absurd, you better believe it is a valid defense in a court of law. Any why shouldn’t one assume that if an invasion was illegal that the method of catching was likewise illegal? Why, the CIA and army, etc., have NEVER engaged in illegal activities? Me thinks the detractors protest too much.
Another problem, according to our constitution, presents itself as regards a fair trial. Where in the United States could any alleged terrorist (who has had his name splashed all over the newspaper and who has been wished “tried, convicted and hung” by liberals find a fair trial)? Are we going to talk the talk or walk the walk?
Part II (I'm a long winded type):
The other sore spot is treating these guys like combatants at all. Why can’t we use RICO on them?
This I don’t agree with. Hitler’s army swore they had God on their side and while Pol Pot might not have believed in a God, he acted as if Mao’s teachings about Cultural Revolution were God-like. The point being, I’m sure they believed what they were doing was honorable. Just because a cause doesn’t have a country doesn’t make the cause any less honorable (I don’t think). I wholeheartedly support Israel’s right to protect itself yet, if I were born a Palestinian, I’m sure I’d be a terrorist (but consider myself a martyr). I might feel the same way if I were born in Tunisia and fell under the sway of Islamic Fundamentalism.
I do love how RICO was used against the Catholic Church in Boston to bring weight against the protection of pedophile in the church, but how RICO cases are prosecuted often makes my stomach turn. Prosecutors see a big prize in certain “alleged defendants” and seem too willing to give the store away (as well as use tainted evidence—again, see DEA article) to highlight their own cause (whether it be political or otherwise). Would we give the #2 guy in Al Qaeda a pass if we could get #1? I’m not so sure we wouldn’t. Letting murderers walk free for testimony is appalling to my sense of justice.
My biggest complaint is that the terrorists aren’t out to kill us all; they just want to destroy our way of life.
Here’s the rub … sometimes one needs to play what we consider a little dirty (regarding suspending constitutional rights) to accomplish a bigger goal (ridding society of threats/harm). I looked up the Habeas Corpus mention I used earlier and saw that Grant used it also against the KKK (surely a terrorist organization if ever there was one). I have no problem with that (none whatsoever). What is going on in Mexico (in Mexico) along the border regarding the drug wars between gangs there baffles me. Why not institute martial law and clean the place out? That is obviously easier said than done. There are so many variables to that mess (economy, poverty, law enforcement faced with Taliban/Mafia-like options—be dirty or be dead), etc. there is no easy answer. But they can’t just let it go on forever. At some point, they’re going to have to round up people and toss them in jail and constitutional rights be damned for however long it takes to keep the violence under control.
We’ll probably have to deal with this crap forever (terrorism in the several forms it may take). I’m still for military tribunals (and would use a “suspension of some constitutional rights” argument in those cases I deemed particularly dangersous—terrorism for one). I guess when it comes to this stuff, I just don’t mind very much what the rest of the world thinks (mostly because I believe in my heart that every nation state, when push comes to shove, is going to act in its own best interest and the world at large be damned). While it is a nice concept to think we’re the beacon of light for the world, the truth is we’re not going to affect the rest of the world in any significant way so long as other nations deem the opposite (or another way of acting) is beneficial to their self interest. I’d love to see us clean up our act at home first, but for our own purposes, not for the rest of the world. They can figure it out as they go. We sure haven’t yet.
Good stuff, brother.
You got me on RICO. What I'm thinking now is too long for a comment, so maybe I'll do another post once I've thought it through a little, but my problem is, once I see something done right and it works, I want to do it again. I tend to forget all the times someone trusted to do the right thing cuts corners, or just abuses the privilege.
I still think RICO, applied as written (and, unfortunately in a vacuum), would work. We don;t live in a vacuum, though (except maybe inside the heads of Limbaugh, Beck, Cheney, et al), and the application of RICO in practice would become a political football, argued about in the news endlessly, and, yes, sooner or later someone is going to get cut loose to get an alleged higher-up and/or make a career.
This is why rights are so fragile. I feel the frustration of having to jump through hoops to get on an airplane, or do certain other everyday things, even though I am no risk, and I'd like to see those more likely to cause harm singled out for special attention. I also know the singling out processes are badly, possibly fatally, flawed, and I'd just be opening up a different can of worms.
Post a Comment