I do like the Obama decision to try the 9/11 suspects in U.S. courts vice military tribunals. It was a criminal act committed on our soil, whatever the larger "war" intentions, so I prefer seeing our justice system work it out without fear of "revelations" or ideological grandstanding. As for being afraid that such an act will elicit attacks against Americans at home, I say, please, must we be such wimps that we're afraid to offend our terrorist enemies by putting their compadres publicly on trial ("Ooh! Let's not piss off the terrorists!"). Please, a little more courage. Again, when we talk about acts on American soil, let's not slip into militarizing either the environment nor the solution, for that gives it up to our enemies in a highly inappropriate, symmetricizing way--as in, allowing them to declare America to be their battlefield and operate within it as such. No thank you.
When we persist in the war analogy and demand the right to apply our own military law, then we run into the overlap with the International Criminal Court, which aspires to try terrorists who commit crimes against humanity, which 9/11 was as well, so if we want to keep them within our system exclusively (ours functions quite nicely, so no expressed need for ICC intervention), I'm more comfortable going this route--even with the attached risks (which strike me as minimal given the evidence). It's different when you're talking suspects whom we've acquired overseas and who cannot be linked to actual acts here in the States (like those up for the USS Cole bombing). There, if the crimes are recognizable and yet don't rise to the level of the ICC and cannot be reasonably handled by the local judicial system, I'm more partial to letting military justice do its thing, because it's highly respected.
So yeah, jurisdiction matters, just like it always does, meaning, as Solomonic as Obama's hair-splitting decision was (some here, some there), it strikes me as sensible.
The "sacred soil" argument (we dare not try these bastards on sacred NY soil) is a complete loser, in my mind. I have never preferred soil be recognized as being "consecrated" by murder, no matter how foul or how magnificent in scope. Frankly, if we did that throughout NYC, it would become one giant memorial. Again, since when do we give the terrorists the right to determine what gets consecrated and where we're allowed to seek our justice?
In the end, a good call even as it will elicit all manner of hysterical condemnation from the wing-nut Right.
As I get deeper into Conrad Black's excellent FDR bio (maybe Mr. Black should have spent more time on his business ethics), I've come to realize that Obama will be beset by such extremities throughout his administration. The key, as with FDR, is to claim the middle ground effectively, banishing the extremists on both sides to the margins. So far, Obama has done this well, which only makes these people nuttier, which is why the Secret Service better remain ultra-sharp, because--as always--we face more dangers from our home-grown nuts than the foreign ones.
| Permalink |
Comments (10)
Dr. Barnett: I have read and profited from all of your books. I read your blog regularly for your big-picture view of foreign policy. I am also a member of the wing-nut Right. I would appreciate your comments on today's blog/talk radio circuit that this trial is intended primarily to further criticize the Bush administrations policies to pay off the far-left and that it presents serious exposure to our intelligence/security operations.
Posted by Richard Heyne | November 13, 2009 4:39 PM
I don't think I'm splitting hairs here to say that the decision on where to try the suspects was made by the Attorney General, not President Obama. Likewise, it is the AG who decides whether or not to try Bush Administration officials for the interrogation techniques used on suspected terrorists. I'd like to think that the AG has some measure of independence from the president.
Posted by George | November 14, 2009 1:33 AM
George, you are correct. I should have said, Team Obama or the Obama administration.
Richard: I don't see how the trial hurts Bush particularly, unless there's something there that's never come out, which I doubt after all the books, reports, commissions, etc. And even if it does, then it should come out in the light of day. We don't conduct trials secretly in this country to protect politicians, and never should.
The revelation of sources and methods notion, I find, is grossly overblown. Sources tend to be one-timers, if their identity is discovered, and it's typically acceptable to use suitable covers (Government witness #1). Methods can be exploited (various taps) without making clear the particulars. In short, there is nothing here that greatly distinguishes this from any undercover police operation, and we try these all the time.
But again, the big thing is, we're not afraid of transparency in this system. Indeed, it's what we're all about. As soon as we deny that privilege to ourselves, we wrongly symmetricize the conflict and play the game according to the terrorists' preferred rules.
Unless you believe that the truth hurts us more than it hurts the terrorists . . ..
Posted by Tom Barnett | November 14, 2009 8:30 AM
Tom,
I hope they allows TV cameras in the courtroom. This is going to be a circus and bad news for the Obama administration.
I'm not sure if home-grown is code for anything other then Jihadist's plots, I wonder?
Obama taking the middle ground? Middle ground between radical left and the left maybe.
Posted by joe | November 14, 2009 9:39 AM
Dunno whether this makes me a "Wing-Nut' or what, but . . These guys aren't "Criminals" . . they're "Terrorists". . Soldiers that have engaged in a war declared upon this (and other western) country by (as you, Tom, refer to them) "Trans National Terrorists" who use the ideaology of fundamental and radical islam as their cause . .
U.S. Constitutional Law serves American Citizens and the criminal acts within . . The acts Osama and his crew have committed are international in scope and are either under Military auspice or International Law . .
ButwotthehelldoIknow?
I'm certainly not a Lawyer (He sez proudly)
Posted by large | November 14, 2009 10:20 AM
“But again, the big thing is, we're not afraid of transparency in this system. Indeed, it's what we're all about. As soon as we deny that privilege to ourselves, we wrongly symmetricize the conflict and play the game according to the terrorists' preferred rules.”
Of course we should not match (or set) lower levels of legality humanity and morality with those acting against us. Still, we should be hesitant to rush into a place and manner of transparency in a prosecution and trial of a crime (act of terror) that provides the accused (vocal representatives of groups intent on terrorizing us) a grand forum and occasion for them to disturb and verbally terrorize and propagandize us and the world further with scripted and unscripted displays of angry defiance, hatred, threats, clamor, incivility, all in attempts at defense, argument, rhetoric, and logic—all of which unfortunately may not be seen as apparently (and transparently) false unjust and unjustified.
Posted by Gilbert Garza | November 14, 2009 2:14 PM
Sir,
These terrorists will have a platoon of lawyers who will challenge everything. It took four years for the first World Trade Center bombing which was handled as a criminal case. This will take most likely longer and provide a soapbox for them to inspire others. I am a half full glass kind of guy, however, I see little benefit for doing it this way. Time will tell.
Posted by J. R. Lemon | November 15, 2009 12:45 AM
It's about time we got this ball rolling. I don't think there is any way to avoid the grandstanding or media adulation that this, or any other, detainee trial will bring. It's no secret how "they" feel about us, and I'm not really sympathetic to the whole question of why (If the media wants to follow that route, then they do so at their own peril. Any readership that buys into that nonsense that we are the problem, is a lost cause). Nor am I interested in international law solving this problem: this act was committed on American soil. Let the military house and interogate these guys, then try them in a civil court and execute them. Our indecision up to this point has been our greatest detrement. The longer we wait to start trials or tribunals or whatever the more we turn these a**holes into celebrities.
Posted by John | November 15, 2009 10:16 AM
Tom,
At first I was not pleased with having a trial in NYC for terrorists that should have already been tried, released or whatever.
Kudos to the President (or his team) for making a decision.
Now we know this administration is going to treat the terrorist threat as a strictly law enforcement problem...or so it seems.
Don't agree with the call (for many reasons) but do agree with the fact its DECIDED.
Now if if Obama can get a grip on Afghanistan in the same way.
Posted by Mark
|
November 15, 2009 11:11 AM
Thanks Tom! I see no coherent reason not to try KSM where his crime occurred, just as we would with any criminal. The sacred soil, retraumatizing victims, security, and grandstanding arguments could apply to many crimes, and are no reason to abrogate our justice system. Courts and juries involved in mafia trials are in at least as much danger as those in terrorism trials. Any politically-motivated criminal - environmentalist arsonists, abortion clinic bombers, anti-war vandals, SLAers - can grandstand in court. I personally do not care to see KSM's courtroom antics, so I will refrain from watching or reading about them.
Rather than a reason to flee Art. III jurisdiction, the torture of KSM makes it absolutely imperative to try him in regular courts. First, passing him to a military commission would cement the image of those institutions as the place we revert to in order to cover up torture. It would completely demolish their credibility. Second, it will demonstrate that we actually know - from untainted evidence - that KSM is guilty. He won't be an innocent martyr.
Additionally, it will force the litigation of the torture used to interrogate KSM, as his attorneys seek evidence suppression. Behold part I of the "truth commission" - except through the rule of law rather than inventing some silly, unnecessary commission like they do in third world countries that do not HAVE the rule of law.
Posted by Lauren | November 16, 2009 6:11 PM