Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wants to know why Republicans are so afraid of open trials for terrorists, especially wanna-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
It's the Abdulmutallab trial the confuses me. (Like spelling his name isn't confusing enough.) It's not like anyone has to worry about any super-secret intelligence and counter-terrorism techniques will be exposed if he's tried. A civilian airline passenger--a foreigner, no less--caught him red-handed. They have everything they need to convict him right there; it's a slam dunk. If they don't introduce evidence obtained in a secret manner--which they shouldn't need to--the defense can't ask for it, as it's not germane.
Really, what are they so afraid of, when our criminal justice system was just the ticket for Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid?
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Convenient Justice is Not Justice
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.
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.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Don't Do the Crime If You Can't Do the Time
A lot of people are upset that New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress got two years for carrying an unlicensed handgun into a New York nightclub and accidentally shooting himself in the leg. More than one site has claimed Burress is being made an example because of his celebrity.
What we don’t know is the average sentence handed out in New York for the same offense. The charge carries a mandatory three-and-a-half years if it goes to a jury that returns a guilty verdict. Burress had no argument to make in his defense—hard to deny anything when the smoking gun is in your pants and your leg’s bleeding—so the prosecution could drive a hard bargain.
Was Burress’s sentence excessive? Let’s say yes, just for the sake of argument. Has he not enjoyed untold benefits from that same celebrity? He’s received perks and privileges beyond what any “normal” person can expect; more than some of them can imagine. He and his apologists have never complained about those excesses. Let’s not put up with too much of it now.
What we don’t know is the average sentence handed out in New York for the same offense. The charge carries a mandatory three-and-a-half years if it goes to a jury that returns a guilty verdict. Burress had no argument to make in his defense—hard to deny anything when the smoking gun is in your pants and your leg’s bleeding—so the prosecution could drive a hard bargain.
Was Burress’s sentence excessive? Let’s say yes, just for the sake of argument. Has he not enjoyed untold benefits from that same celebrity? He’s received perks and privileges beyond what any “normal” person can expect; more than some of them can imagine. He and his apologists have never complained about those excesses. Let’s not put up with too much of it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)