Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell is in the news, today. According to CNN...
“The only time [the Obama] administration ever cites the previous administration for a precedent is to mention that there were some terrorists tried in U.S. courts,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said Sunday on State of the Union.
“We now know that was a mistake,” declared McConnell. “That was a mistake by the previous administration. The other mistake they made that shouldn’t be replicated by this administration is letting too many people go from Guantanamo.”
Instead of giving alleged terrorists civilian trials in federal court, McConnell said the administration should use the system of military commissions set up by Congress “for the specific purpose of trying foreigners captured on the battlefield.”
“They ought to be tried in these military commissions. They also ought to be detained at Guantanamo,” the Senate Minority Leader said.
The Obama administration has missed its own self-imposed one-year deadline for closing the U.S. military detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba were a number of suspected terrorists have been held after being captured. Last week, the White House also began to signal that it was rethinking its plans to hold a high-profile trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks, in Manhattan federal court not far from Ground Zero. The turnabout on the Obama administration’s part regarding the trial came after elected officials and business people in New York City raised concerns about security and the high costs of protecting the city during such a large-scale event.
“What we need to do is to deny these people a show trial,” McConnell also said Sunday in a reference to what some observers believe would be a media circus if Mohammed is tried in an open civilian court. “We need to proceed to interrogate them,” McConnell added.
“This is really dangerous nonsense,” McConnell said of the Obama administration’s policies regarding treatment of alleged terrorists. “We have a way to do it, John,” McConnell told CNN’s John King. “Interrogate them. Detain them and try them in military commissions offshore at Guantanamo from which no one has ever escaped.”
My question for McConnell and anyone who agrees with him is, why? He has an awful lot of "ought" statements in his argument. We ought to interrogate them. We ought to try them in a military court. Why? Says who?
If a person from another country were to steal something, I imagine we would try them for the crime of theft. If a person from another country killed someone, we would try them for the crime of murder.
Why are these attempts by individuals (or even groups of individuals) different? Who says we ought not just treat their crimes as the crimes they are? Attempted terrorism. Murder.
The only reason McConnell cites is that it makes it (in his opinion) a "show trial." What does that mean? I think SHOWING the world that the US is a nation of laws and that we abide by laws would be a good thing to show.
I don't think I've ever heard of any good reason why terrorism ought not be treated as any other crime, just that it "ought" to be. Says who?
The only reason I can think of would be in relation to possible "military secrets" (whatever that may mean) that we don't want released to the world at large. But, if I'm not mistaken, that kind of information - if it exists - can be kept from public airing, even in a civilian trial.
I'm sorry, but McConnell simply saying it "ought" to be done a certain way is not enough for me. Does anyone know of any real reasons?
5 comments:
In a country that puts kids and the mentally incapable to death, do you really have to ask if his comments make sense?
"... and justice for all" doesn't actually mean what you think it means, according to Republicans. And conservatism no longer means actually standing up for our country's values.
Or perhaps they're just recognizing that the overrated ambulance chasers that they appointed to the federal bench over the last 8 years aren't up to the complexities of a real trial.
So then, would an appropriate response to the 12/7/41 attacks have been to indict Isoroku Yamamoto rather than, as we did, hunt him down and kill him?
The difference is that was a nation declaring war against us, not individuals committing crimes. We have different rules of engagement for nations than we do for individuals. Treating terrorists as if they deserve the treatment of nations is giving them too much credibility and weight.
You commit a crime, you get arrested and are tried, that's what I'm saying.
Why would we do anything else? That's what I'm asking.
The difference is that was a nation declaring war against us, not individuals committing crimes. We have different rules of engagement for nations than we do for individuals. Treating terrorists as if they deserve the treatment of nations is giving them too much credibility and weight.
Would this not give an advantage to non-state actors or enemies who decide to otherwise not obey the rules of war? If it's okay to kill people without a criminal trial who go through the niceties of organized warfare, but not acceptable for people who do not follow the rules of war, does this not encourage people to not follow the rules of war?
You commit a crime, you get arrested and are tried, that's what I'm saying.
Why would we do anything else? That's what I'm asking.
An excellent question. I posit that, because of the moral hazard that I write above, terrorism should occupy a middle ground between war and criminality -- at least, that's how we should treat it in order to avoid said moral hazard.
Because it's a middle ground, it's really messy. A crazy American who decides to blow up a plane for the fun of it gets a criminal trial. Another person affiliated with a major overseas terrorist movement who does the same thing gets a military tribunal.* Now let's make it even messier: let's say that it's an American citizen affiliated with a major overseas terrorist movement who tries to blow up a plane. Does he get a trial or a tribunal? What if it's an American citizen affiliated with a minor domestic terrorist movement, such as the Weather Underground back the 70s. Does he get a trial or tribunal?
Slippery slope arguments can abound, and arguments can be made that we should have criminal trials for terror suspects. Of course, the slippery slope slides both ways: does this standard mean that we can't blow up a terrorist training camp overseas? Can our soldiers shoot first at terrorists, or must they undergo the same restrictions as American police officers on the use of deadly force?
No matter what side you take, I think that it's important to face the consequences of the argument being carried out, and to take some moral responsibility for them. Those who argue for military tribunals should accept some responsibility should they become abusive or tyrannical. And those who argue for criminal trials should likewise accept some responsibility should they imperil this country as a consequence.
*Which is, by the way, the way that unlawful combatants have always been treated. See also the tribunals of German spies captured during WWII for only one example. You're not doing it here, but it does irritate me when I read people argue that the military tribunal system is somehow new and unprecedented in American history.
It doesn't matter our genius lawyer President and his genius Attorney General have already guaranteed a conviction. Of course under our legal system such a guarantee is grounds for a miss-trial.
A prediction of how the first 10 minutes of the trial will play out:
The defense will file a pre-trial motion before the judge and say,
'Your Honor, we respectively move to dismiss the charges, The President himself and the attorney general, the top law enforcement official in the United States, have guaranteed conviction. Under these circumstances my client is incapable of receiving a fair trial"
Post a Comment