- checking login information
Loading...Key Ruling in Terror Trial is Key Victory for Justice
Just as a key terrorism trial was about to begin, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan barred prosecutors from using a key witness after the government acknowledged that it had learned about the witness from the defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani while he was being interrogated and held in a secret overseas jail run by the CIA. In light of the decision the trial start was delayed until next Tuesday, allowing the government time to adjust its strategy or to appeal the ruling.
Early press reports on the decision call the ruling a setback for the Obama administration’s goal of trying former detainees in civilian courts. But these reports largely miss the point.
Attorney General Eric Holder was faced with the following decision: further pursue a strategy of trying criminals outside the confines of constitutional Article III courts and in military commissions, or rely on the rule of law and established precedent and try them in federal court. He chose the latter, and it was the right choice to make.
That doesn’t mean the choice is free from political consequence, and indeed, as the early reporting suggests, the narrative will be that this ruling is a failure of the administration’s. It is not. It is a victory for the rule of law and an affirmation that due process and transparency are the driving forces of justice.
Attorney General Holder’s confidence in the ability of the civilian criminal justice system to hold terrorism trials should not be confused with an arrogance that the government will win every case. Indeed, at a conviction rate of 400 to 4, one could even argue that he’d be justified in having a little bit of that arrogance. The overwhelming success of the criminal justice system highlights what has been largely ignored in yesterday’s ruling: when the cases are built on solid investigation techniques the system works and when they are built on torture and secrecy they don’t.
Read more: guantanamo, military commissions, new york, politics, terrorism, trials
photo courtesy of walknboston via Flickr
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may
not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.
Recent Comments from Causes
Bad picture- never give your rabbit cabbage. It has too much gas and rabbits cannot release gas thus…
NO GMO food in our markets and elsewhere!!!
Where is the petition to put these bastards in jail?
meet our writers
10 comments
+ add your ownTo describe people who have not been tried yet as criminals seems a bit... american. And when are the US torturers and international war criminals who deploy DU WMDs and Predator Drones against innocent civilians in other lands?
Nope, America is just wrong and the sooner it's bankrupt economy collapses so it can no longer fund invasions, coups and terrorism the better!
We are talking about the country with the most nukes and the only country to happily use them against anyone they don't like (depleted uranium ordinance ARE nukes and use of them an international crime against humanity).
About time Americans cleaned up their utterly corrupt govt and corporations!
Re the following line from the article: " It is a victory for the rule of law and an affirmation that due process and transparency are the driving forces of justice." ...AMEN!
Its time to start prosecuting for war crimes and crimes against humanity started by the Bush Cheney crowd and continued under the Obama administration.
I definitely agree that using the results of torture as primary evidence is not only morally wrong, but unreliable. Perhaps almost as bad, with the many centuries of history of using coerced statements to convict innocent people, it gives the impression that the trials are just for show.
Still, it should be noted that the law is actually a lot harsher than it sounds. If a suspect can be confirmed as a member of the taliban, al-Qaeda, or any of the Iraqi insurgencies, he actually has no rights whatsoever under international law aside from those which the his captors choose to grant. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Geneva Conventions (verbatim identical for all of them) is pretty clear on the matter. Laws of war developed since then, as I understand, mostly have as these treaties as their legal authority. They were developed to handle crimes committed by individual soldiers or units, of which the entire force and its civilian supporters could not be held accountable. These entire forces, however, systematically forfeit their rights under the Conventions according to Article 2, Paragraph 3 so those laws do not apply.
One other problem here is that I understand it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to try a captured enemy in the standard courts of the capturing state for crimes committed in acts of war. Still, they have no rights so I guess it's okay. However, U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction outside of U.S. sovereign territory so the case is still problematic.
Whatever this case is, it is NOT a failure of Obama's administration. This legal mess was inherited from the horrid Bush administration, with its torture, Abu Ghraib scandal and defiance of the Geneva Convention. Who else should be on trial soon? Bush and his cronies! Indict Bush and VOTE OUT THESE LYING, CORRUPT REPUBLICANS, NOW!
THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!
That's one decent judge on a list that's way too short. And yes federal court was the right choice for proceeding. Transparency is what we have been missing and even though it reveals hard things , its something we badly need.
Those within the government who ordered the torture of prisoners, Bush and Chaney should be on trial for their War Crimes, as torture is against the laws of this country and against the treaty we signed, the Geneva Convention. If this terrorist get off because the Bush administration ordered torture, then it is not the fault of the justice system, it is the fault of war criminals Bush and Chaney.
Thanks for the post.
I keep wondering if Obama's administration is schizophrenic (incorrect phrase I know, but colloquially recognizable by the majority.) On one hand their 70% success rate on their promises is great.
On the other, raiding homes of people who protest policies they think are wrong, the push to expand surveillance on the internet, the sudden agreement that Bush was right and draconian orders must be kept? Who is running the executive? and why don't they think like their other half?
It would make it so much easier to either love or hate this administration.
Glad to see that not all jurists are beholdened to the Rule of Fear and still believe in the Rule of Law.
Well, this deserves a resounding "Heckuva job, Bushie" ... how's that torture thing workin' out for ya?
login to add your comment
use your care2 login
add your comment