Why the NY trials are wrong
Wednesday, 18. November 2009, 16:27:55
source"We know that we can prosecute terrorists in our federal courts safely and securely because we have been doing it for years," he said. "And at the end of the day, it was clear to me that the venue in which we are most likely to obtain justice for the American people is in federal court."
I disagree with that analysis. The Geneva Convention defines an prisoner of war. In my opinion they fall under Article 4 part 2:
Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
This unclassified document details the evidence against Khalid Shaykh Muhammad. It further supports my belief that he meets the requirement for a prisoner of war. Of course many say that the whole detainment at Guantanamo Bay has been against the Geneva Convention. The irony is that had they been declared prisoners of war, they would now be facing military tribunals. But instead they are considered "unlawful combatants" and the convention rules did not apply to them. Lew Rockwell outlines many of these alleged violations. He sums up his contentions bluntly:
Unlawful combatants don't deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so. It doesn't matter that every other nation calls a POW a POW, the USA is above other nations, it is above the law, it is above its own citizens and it is above even reality. US President Bush loves pointing out that, "America is liberating Iraqis from human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein." However America abuses the rights of anyone it so chooses by just by giving them a different label.
Of course that was before 2008. The administration has changed as well as the ideology. But that still does not change the rules. The public outrage is illustrated in this article about mothers of 9/11 victims.
In this article, Andrew Cohen,CBS opines about what could go wrong."It's frightening and upsetting and it's like putting the whole thing right back in our faces again," said Reiss. "These are very dangerous people and I think they are making New York City a target again by bringing them up here. I'm a Democrat and worked for and voted for President Obama, but now I feel like a woman without a party. The Democrats have fallen down on keeping us secure and the Republicans don't want to give us health care."
The controversy will just grow. The trials in New York will take time and during that time millions will be spent. I respectively disagree with Attorney General Holder. This is not in the best interest of the people, this is not the best venue for justice. In 2001 we declared a war on terror. These are not enemy combatants, they are prisoners of war. They should be tried in military tribunals as such. To do any less betrays the painful losses of that fateful day.No matter how the lawyers act, and no matter what inclinations Mohammed may have, the trial will be controlled by a federal judge. The nation cannot afford to have this jurist be anything but tough as nails on everyone, including prosecutors.
(80%)
WIDGETIZE