Attorney General Eric Holder has just recently announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed along with four other terror suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be given a federal trial in New York. The location of the court is in close proximity to the WTC site. While some family members of the victims praise the government for their decision, a great number of others consider this decision "insensitive and deplorable." Some New Yorkers feel as if it will re-open wounds that have have no fully healed and that trying these men in NY will give them "a well-publicized platform, blocks from where the towers stood, in which they could espouse their views" (CNN.com).
Now, I have heard the proponents and opponents of this decision and their reasoning. I have heard that "this should be an easy conviction," "this is a military issue and should be dealt with as such," and of course "Why was President Obama overseas when this decision was made? Was it because he did not want to comment on the decision?"
I believe that these terrorist that have already wholeheartedly admitted guilt to these crimes in the presence of military court should resume their trials by military tribunal. It makes no sense to me to split a trial between two different jurisdictions to appease someones agenda. These men are not American citizens like the domestic terrorists we have tried in the U.S. (i.e. D.C. Sniper, Timothy McVeigh, etc). I heard one individual on the news state that "This will give the world a new view on the U.S. since we water boarded these individuals and used other methods of "torture" on them." Comment on the water boarding: If you do not think other countries are using some sort of "enhanced interrogation tactics" to preserve the peace in their respective countries you need to wake up and smell the roses. The difference between them and us is that they choose not the air their dirty laundry to the world because they consider the safety of their nation more important than the feelings of everyone else. (You can choose to agree or disagree with that last statement, but it will not change my view on the topic.)
Back to the topic though. These men have already been tried in the public eight years ago. And since the argument rests that it will be easy to convict them because of the overwhelming evidence, why has it not already been done? What is our government waiting for? What really angers me about this is we have convicted so many of our own military members for doing harm to "enemy combatants and civilians" in Iraq and Afghanistan, quickly I might add. And have gone eight years without convicting and sentencing any of these five TERRORIST! The American government needs to get its head out of its ass and stop caring so deeply about the feeling of other nations and continuously discounting those of their own citizens. We are the ones paying taxes to the government to keep us safe, yet all of that money is going into Middle East economies that have not put half the amount of effort into the betterment of their own country as we have.
I think Eric Holder needs to resend this decision and give them the military trial these men deserve. So what if the public cannot follow the tribunals. GET IT DONE! If they convict and sentence these guys as fast as they have convicted and sentenced our own military servicemen then there should not be an issue.
Now I know not everyone reading this post will agree with what I am saying. I would like you all to consider the facts though. Eight years held by the military, admissions of guilt, no remorse, would do it again if they had the chance, and not an American citizen. I think we really need to stop discounting the effects these sloppy government decisions are having on our nation. Grow a backbone. Not every nation will agree with what we do or what we stand for. We can't make everyone happy, but we can take care of our business and make our nation safer. I believe our government needs to worry about what it CAN control instead of what it CANNOT.
So, let me know what your feelings are. I can't control them and don't intend to. But I will listen and take them into consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see what you're saying to an extent, but let's be honest here: This isn't just a US citizens vs. other countries matter. There are plenty of people IN THIS COUNTRY who would greatly prefer a proper, non-military trial. I don't doubt that there are plenty of people who prefer your way as well, but one side won the election last year, and the other didn't. As you say, not everyone can be happy, and in this case, your side happens to be the unhappy ones.
ReplyDeleteIf these people are as plainly guilty as you seem so convinced they are, what reason is there to NOT have a civilian trial? Your choice of words represents the best argument FOR a civilian trial: You're already completely convinced they're guilty. You don't want a trial, you want a conviction and punishment. If you can't remain impartial enough to even CONSIDER a fair trial, how could your fellow military folk remain impartial long enough to conduct one? If you're right, then it will be as plain to civilians, and this way, you avoid the political landmines of the military bias against the defendants in the case.
As a final note, you may well be right about other countries torturing, but "They do it too!" shouldn't be used as a defense by anyone past age 7.
Last time I checked the United States does not hand out U.S. citizen rights to enemy combatants. This has nothing to do with which side won the election. (I voted for Obama!) It is a rights issue. I don't have a side. And quite frankly to assume so is ignorant in itself. I don't have to be convinced they are guilty, they out of their own mouths said they did it. How more impartial can I be when someone confesses to murder and said I don't care if I die or go to jail forever. Maybe you should take the time to read a couple of military court transcripts or their confession for that matter. And on your last point about the "They do it too" excuse, (this is G-14 Classified): THAT'S THE WAY IT IS! Whether the excuse should or should not be used because as you say it should only be used for people under age 7, I would like you to take time to join the real world because the utopia that you seem to be living in is only sold in book stores. Thanks for your comment though. Happy Turkey Day when it comes.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I apologize for the assumption as to your voting record. My reasoning was as follows: 1. You seem politically aware, so I assumed you would be familiar with the candidate's stances and platforms. 2: Obama ran on a platform of governmental transparency, among other things. 3: You are currently opposed to a measure aimed at increasing that transparency. Therefore, I assumed you wouldn't have supported it at the time, either. Again, I apologize for my misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteSecond, as to the "they do it too" issue, my point was that I don't doubt for a second that's the case, probably many countries go much farther then we do, but that IN AND OF ITSELF isn't enough to justify our doing it. As you said in your initial post, "I believe our government needs to worry about what it CAN control instead of what it CANNOT." In this case, we cannot control the actions of other governments, but we can control our own. Now if your point is that other governments do it because it provides accurate information, that's another matter, but you'll need to provide proof of that, as "they wouldn't do it if it didn't work" is, again, fallacious IN AND OF ITSELF. It seems to me that if someone's being tortured, they'll tell the torturer anything they want to hear, whether it's actually true or not, as long as the torture stops.
Lastly, as to your comment on my blog, I don't at all deny that I'm biased, nor do I have any problem at all with your own bias. My only point was that, being biased, I wouldn't want to put other biased people into a situation where their views would decide the life or death of someone they're biased against. A jury shouldn't decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant before the trial has even begun.
I believe the difference between us and other countries is that most countries don't submerse themselves into other countries as much as we do. This submersion makes us feel like we should be held accountable for our actions while in said countries. I do agree that we should quit trying to play authoritative father but I don't agree that we should forgo a criminal trial for terrorists. If we don't believe in our justice system enough to try these people, then what good is it? I think that if we don't give these terrorists a trial it will make them look even more like martyrs. Just imagine the people who were burned at the stake because of their religious views. What greater advertisement for their faith than that? The Holy Inquisition used torture methods, too...
ReplyDeleteMCunningham, nowhere in my blog did it say not to give these men a criminal trial. They are already in the military's jurisdiction. It makes no sense to move an accused individual from one jurisdiction to another after procedures have already started. We don't do it with American why should we start with foreign nationals? I think we should have the trial where they are. If you have seen the news recently these men have decided to plead "not guilty" not because they believe they are truly not guilty but because they want to voice their views about America and its government. My opinion is that this situation will backfire and cause additional emotion stress on the people and the state of New York.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Corrected]
ReplyDeleteThis is a messy constitutional issue bound to provoke strong emotions given the gravity of the crimes committed.
I don't really have an answer that can satisfy everyone, because there is none. I dislike all of the options for some reason or another.
Although I will say that even the worst of the worst in terms of being human wreckage, such as the Nazi government and Wehrmacht leadership at the Nuremburg trials, received a fair investigation and trial from the United States with a fair degree of civilian standards of court procedure.
And those who were guilty were punished accordingly.
The trials were a fair blend of military tribunal and civilian court, which was my preferred option.
I believe the method of dispatching the guilty in that case was death by hanging.
I have no desire to see this tradition broken.