Judicial success - at any cost?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

US prosecutor at Guantanamo: 'I must deliver justice’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/9244120/US-prosecutor-at-Guantanamo-I-must-deliver-justice.html

The title of the article speaks a lot. The long expected trial against five suspects for the 9-11 attacks, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, is about to begin. Expectations are very high for a successful outcome. But will the principles of international law be respected, or they will be sacrificed for the sake of said success?

After so many years of preparations, the prosecutors are ready to press charges at long last. The five suspects for the terrorist attacks are going to face the death penalty if they are found guilty. The public opinion has decided a long time ago if this sentence is just. And that is understandable - after all, we are talking about monstrous atrocities with no parallel in modern history.

But what really distinguishes this trial is the high stakes in it. We are not just talking about justice prevailing... we are talking about the question if there will be a trial that corresponds to all international judiciary standards. The judges will have to convince the international public that this military tribunal will respect international justice. Which means that confessions extracted through torture shouldn't be taken in consideration. The same applies to second-hand testimony.

Most suspicions in this case are related to the very place where the detainees were kept during these years. And the very place the trial itself will happen. The Guantanamo detention centre has become a heavy baggage for the US governments, a symbol of extraordinary jurisdiction, a special form of justice, created by George W Bush after the 9-11 attacks - deliberately placed beyond the reach of any judicial system existing in the world. And let us not forget that in the first years after its creation Guantanamo was a place of some serious human rights violations.

It has been found that the primary defendant, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed had been tortured, including water-boarded. This is why the confession that was extracted from him in 2008 that he was among the perpetrators, has no judiciary value if we are to adhere to the principles of justice. What is more, many of the confessions of the other defendants were later withdrawn. And this is one of the reasons why this trial was delayed for years.

Concerns are that because Obama needs something positive to sell to the voters in this election year, he might press for a conclusion of this trial at any cost, despite the complexities of the situation. First he tried very hard to move the trial to a civil court in New York, but the Congress opposed this. So it will have to happen in Guantanamo, which strictly speaking is not US territory. On the other hand, more than 10 years have passed and a trial like this, whatever it is, sounds much better than still no trial at all.

If it is successful and results in sentences, this could mean yet another big victory for Obama and the war on terror, specifically Al Qaeda. First Bin Laden was found and eliminated, something Bush had failed to do during all that time. Politicised or not, this is a fact that no one can deny. And now if the masterminds of the attacks meet justice, this would be a major moment in the fight against terrorism. It would send a signal that no one is untouchable. And if it is done right, the signal would be even stronger: that terrorism hasn't changed us (like the royal "us") and "we" are still capable of doing things in accordance with the principles of the rule of law.

That is all a US president, or any president, could provide. More cannot be required. Create conditions for justice to do its job properly. Meanwhile, 56% of the polled Americans define Obama's anti-terror policies as successful. In any case this is a much more favourable assessment than the one he is getting for his economic policies. Maybe he could emphasise on this and sell it as his strongest trump card on the coming election. And it promises to be tough for him.

As for Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and his gang, I have no doubt they will hang, one way or another. Exactly in what way they will hang, may still be important for some people, myself included - but I am afraid that is irrelevant on a larger scale.

Comments

[vehemencet-t.livejournal.com]

Yes I am with you on the above--the fact that these confessions came amidst, to their perspective, indefinite confinement at a center that practices torture, makes these confessions practically worthless in my eyes.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Even if they don't rely on tortured evidence, they'll almost certainly do ex parte presentations of secret evidence with no right of cross-examination. In an adversarial system like the military commissions, this is fatal to any actual claim that the convictions are just.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

With or without technically viable evidence, they will hang. Probably before the US election has ended.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

It saddens me to no end that the US is now seen like this by foreign observers. It's hard not to become unrelentingly cynical about American politics.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

They most certainly will not hang. If there is any justice, they will receive lethal injections on a far, far distant date. Probably after one, if not two more, presidential election cycles are finished.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I think it would have been better for them to be tried inside the United States, but I think it's unlikely that all portions of the "international public" will be pleased - regardless of the outcome. What matters to me is that they be tried and convicted.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

I don't think people really care enough for any outcome to matter either way.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Of course you don't.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I seriously doubt these people are not guilty but its fairly disgraceful to lock up people for 10 years without trial. I'm glad they are finally going to be tried so we can feel justified in punishing them, but we've already given the legacy of the US a pretty dark mark.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

I doubt they are not guilty, too. That is not the point. The point is your second sentence. =)

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

we are talking about monstrous atrocities with no parallel in modern history

I would like to know more of your conception of 'modern history'. Does it end at the American border?

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

What about the beginning of the century. The 21st century.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Yes, if nothing else we have the various terrorist atrocities in 19th Century Russia as one of the most obvious modern comparisons, and the Comintern that succeeded them as another. Then we have the Dashnaks, PKK, Mumbai, Villa's raid......

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

the only tragedy is that it has taken this long.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

a special form of justice, created by George W Bush after the 9-11 attacks - deliberately placed beyond the reach of any judicial system existing in the world

yeah, its a military justice system designed by the Congress and given a seal of approval by the Supreme Court. why would we bring combatants into a civilian justice system?

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

Since the 9/11 attack was mass murder, and not a military confrontation between warring nations, I see no reason why they couldn't be tried for that. I see no reason to give them the status of 'soldiers'; they don't qualify.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

This is very convenient, isn't it? Indefinite detention on foreign territory, secrecy, no accountability, and extraction of "evidence" through torture. Does that bother you?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Judicial success - at any cost?

If that's what people want, yes.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

I can only hope we're civil about this, for once.

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

Let me get this clear. Are you trying to justify the US actions with the Taliban actions? Or the Karzai actions?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Most likely: no. Most likely they'd be put to kneel down with a bag on their head and beheaded like an animal and recorded on a crappy video.

Then again, the US wouldn't go around and kill thousands of innocent civilians in order to make others fear respect them.

Oh wait.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because we should totally ape people in a society gutted by 30 years of civil war and 20 years of war with superpowers. This is argument from cowardice and the argument of the person who has nothing to be and a very weak sense of what not to be. Sure, we're not Afghanistan. So motherfucking what?

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad made confessions that were not extracted under duress. To some extent they were made in order to exonerate his subordinates for their roles in the crime spree. He also described providing bogus information under torture with a boast that he sent the federal authorities around the globe on wild goose chases for non-existent conspiracies. I recommend Terry McDermott's book (http://books.google.com/books?id=YFsGj7iRPb4C&lpg=PA1&dq=McDermott%20hunt%20ksm&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=McDermott%20hunt%20ksm&f=false) on the topic. It includes a transcript of the proceedings to classify KSM as an enemy combatant.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Soviet Union of Josef Stalin, when confronted with simply shooting Nazis or having trials to convict them opted for trials. We should not be less moral than a state run by an egomaniacal motherfucker who demanded a state treat him as a living god. If Stalin could do this, we should be able to do this and more. If our system of laws cannot prevail in such a case, then we have done wrong even at a military level by holding people on a basis that leads to hatred but hatred with contempt, not fear.