Some red meat to chew on.
http://www.slate.com/id/2290359/
QuoteCowardly, Stupid, and Tragically Wrong
The Obama administration's appalling decision to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a military trial.
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Monday, April 4, 2011, at 5:42 PM ET
Today, by ordering a military trial at Guantanamo for 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-defendants, Attorney General Eric Holder finally put the Obama administration's stamp on the proposition that some criminals are "too dangerous to have fair trials."
In reversing one of its last principled positions—that American courts are sufficiently nimble, fair, and transparent to try Mohammed and his confederates—the administration surrendered to the bullying, fear-mongering, and demagoguery of those seeking to create two separate kinds of American law. This isn't just about the administration allowing itself to be bullied out of its commitment to the rule of law. It's about the president and his Justice Department conceding that the system of justice in the United States will have multiple tiers—first-class law for some and junk law for others.
Every argument advanced to scuttle the Manhattan trial for KSM was false or feeble: Open trials are too dangerous; major trials are too expensive; too many secrets will be spilled; public trials will radicalize the enemy; the public doesn't want it.
PRINTDISCUSSE-MAILRSSRECOMMEND...REPRINTSSINGLE PAGE
Of course, exactly the same unpersuasive claims could have been made about every major criminal trial in Western history, from the first World Trade Center prosecution to the Rosenberg trial to the Scopes Monkey trial to Nuremburg. Each of those trials could have been moved to some dark cave for everyone's comfort and well-being. Each of those defendants could have been tried using some handy choose-your-own-ending legal system to ensure a conviction. But the principle that you don't tailor justice to the accused won out, and, time after time, the world benefited.
Now the Obama administration—having loudly and proudly made every possible argument against a two-tier justice system—is capitulating to it.
Advertisement
But make no mistake about it: It won't stop here. Putting the administration's imprimatur on the idea that some defendants are more worthy of real justice than others legitimates the whole creeping, toxic American system of providing one class of legal protections for some but not others: special laws for children of immigrants, special laws for people who might look like immigrants, different jails for those who seem too dangerous, special laws for people worthy of wiretapping, and special laws for corporations. After today it will be easier than ever to use words and slogans to invent classes of people who are too scary to try in regular proceedings.
Say what you want about how Congress forced Obama's hand today by making it all but impossible to try the 9/11 conspirators in regular Article II courts. The only lesson learned is that Obama's hand can be forced. That there is no principle he can't be bullied into abandoning. In the future, when seeking to pass laws that treat different people differently for purely political reasons, Congress need only fear-monger and fabricate to get the president to cave. Nobody claims that this was a legal decision. It was a political triumph or loss, depending on your viewpoint. The rule of law is an afterthought, either way.
It may not matter to you today that the U.S. government has invented a new class of criminals fit for a new class of trials. It may bother you a lot more when special rules are created for unions, or corporations, or the poor, or the children of illegal immigrants, or eco-terrorists. Today's capitulation will just embolden Congress to do all that and more.
A year ago, Holder told the New Yorker's Jane Mayer that the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would serve as "the defining event of my time as attorney general." Sadly, he's probably right. He will be remembered for having sacrificed what he knew to be right for some payoff to be named later. We will, all of us, in the long run bear the costs of that choice.
I'm not chewing on your meat.
Nice article. :mellow:
Sounds silly to expect new laws for new special classes of citizens. Although I have been hearing about the "curtailing" of certain people's rights in my Psyche class. Maybe we (Americans) are headed into an era of new limitations.
Quote from: Zeus on April 05, 2011, 07:30:04 AM
Sounds silly to expect new laws for new special classes of citizens. Although I have been hearing about the "curtailing" of certain people's rights in my Psyche class. Maybe we (Americans) are headed into an era of new limitations.
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a US citizen?
No but the article said things (I can point them
out when I'm not in class) that concern American citizens.
Quote from: Zeus on April 05, 2011, 08:07:03 AM
No but the article said things (I can point them
out when I'm not in class) that concern American citizens.
It looked to me to be a slippery slope argument.
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2011, 08:01:48 AM
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a US citizen?
QuoteNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I don't see any reference at all to 'citizen' unless you think non-citizens are not persons. Canadians = subhuman scum?
Refusing due process to people for being non-citizens is against US law.
Quote from: Zeus on April 05, 2011, 08:07:03 AM
No but the article said things (I can point them
out when I'm not in class) that concern American citizens.
who the fuck are you, btw?
Quote from: Tamas on April 05, 2011, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: Zeus on April 05, 2011, 08:07:03 AM
No but the article said things (I can point them
out when I'm not in class) that concern American citizens.
who the fuck are you, btw?
Ah, the standard Languish greeting. ;)
But yes, I agree that this is not a good development. What exactly has Obama done to roll back the legal legacy of the Bush years?
I thought this was going to be about me. :(
This is worthy of debate, but the starting place for a rational debate is never an op-ed piece from Slate. The article in the OP is simply too illogical and full of ideological cant to be worth reading, let alone discussing.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 09:22:09 AM
I thought this was going to be about me. :(
I don't think you are stupid. You fixate on political ideology way too much however.
QuoteOf course, exactly the same unpersuasive claims could have been made about every major criminal trial in Western history, from the first World Trade Center prosecution to the Rosenberg trial to the Scopes Monkey trial
The Scopes Monkey Trial (a misdemeanor trial) was one of the major criminal trials in Western history? :wacko:
Quoteto Nuremburg. Each of those trials could have been moved to some dark cave for everyone's comfort and well-being. Each of those defendants could have been tried using some handy choose-your-own-ending legal system to ensure a conviction. But the principle that you don't tailor justice to the accused won out, and, time after time, the world benefited.
Arn't the Nuremburg trials just about the epitome of tailored justice?
Also, what's an Article II court?
The article only very briefly mentions that Congress made it impossible for the Administration to try KSM in the US. It doesn't even seem to argue that Obama should try to get this overturned. I'm assuming the author wants Obama to try KSM in the US illegally?
LOL. I suspect the article is some kind of false flag operation. Something that stupid and tragically wrong could not possibly be meant to actually convince anyone of anything.
Military trials are "junk law"? How interesting...
Did the author really, I mean really, use the Nuremberg War Crimes trials as an example of non-military tribunals and how much better off the world is because they refused to use such things?
Serisously? Nobody is really THAT stupid...are they?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 05, 2011, 09:58:26 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 09:22:09 AM
I thought this was going to be about me. :(
I don't think you are stupid. You fixate on political ideology way too much however.
I come from a family of politicians. Most of them were also Cowardly, and Tragically wrong as well.
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2011, 10:02:21 AM
The Scopes Monkey Trial (a misdemeanor trial) was one of the major criminal trials in Western history? :wacko:
One of the most important, at any rate. Most only affect the people involved.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2011, 10:02:21 AM
The Scopes Monkey Trial (a misdemeanor trial) was one of the major criminal trials in Western history? :wacko:
One of the most important, at any rate. Most only affect the people involved.
Not really, it was simply the prosecution of a State law.
Exterminate all the brutes.
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2011, 08:35:38 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2011, 08:01:48 AM
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a US citizen?
QuoteNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I don't see any reference at all to 'citizen' unless you think non-citizens are not persons. Canadians = subhuman scum?
Refusing due process to people for being non-citizens is against US law.
Quotenew classes of citizen
This is what I was quoting, not some obscure passage from some backwards legal tome. Quit trying to Martinus.
Besides, military trials aren't 'refusing due process'.
There is no such thing as an Article II court. I assume the writer meant Article III. Non article III courts such as administrative tribunals or military courts are sometimes referred as Article I courts (because established by Congress under Article I powers) but not Article II.
Overall, I am pretty impressed on the ability of the OP writer to cram so much faulty information and poor reasoning in such a short presentation.
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2011, 10:07:33 AM
Military trials are "junk law"? How interesting...
I read the article in the US News and World Report some years back which basically made military tribunals look like kangaroo courts, so there may be something there. Of course, the fact that people are comfortable with American soldiers being subjected to kangaroo courts, but not suspected terrorists, is a bit puzzling.
The larger issue, though, is the undeclared war. I'm sure people would be much more comfortable with enemies being tried in military tribunals, and even executed like many were in WWII, if only the definition of the enemy was much more clearly defined. "War on Terror" is a bit more vague than war against Germany or Japan.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:22:58 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 05, 2011, 10:07:33 AM
Military trials are "junk law"? How interesting...
I read the article in the US News and World Report some years back which basically made military tribunals look like kangaroo courts, so there may be something there. Of course, the fact that people are comfortable with American soldiers being subjected to kangaroo courts, but not suspected terrorists, is a bit puzzling.
:yes:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2011, 10:02:21 AM
The Scopes Monkey Trial (a misdemeanor trial) was one of the major criminal trials in Western history? :wacko:
One of the most important, at any rate. Most only affect the people involved.
The Scopes trial didn't even effect the persons involved. It is interesting as a PR piece, but as a trial it was meaningless.
Quote from: DGuller on April 05, 2011, 11:22:58 AM
I read the article in the US News and World Report some years back which basically made military tribunals look like kangaroo courts, so there may be something there. Of course, the fact that people are comfortable with American soldiers being subjected to kangaroo courts, but not suspected terrorists, is a bit puzzling.
I read something sometime that made all trials in the US look like kangaroo courts. Of course, I wouldn't use that as an argument here, because "I read something, so there may be something there" is an asinine argument.
Objection duly noted.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2011, 11:29:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2011, 10:56:12 AM
Quote from: Kleves on April 05, 2011, 10:02:21 AM
The Scopes Monkey Trial (a misdemeanor trial) was one of the major criminal trials in Western history? :wacko:
One of the most important, at any rate. Most only affect the people involved.
The Scopes trial didn't even effect the persons involved. It is interesting as a PR piece, but as a trial it was meaningless.
Well the townsfolk liked it. It was essentially fabricated to bring business into the town, and everyone fell for it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 05, 2011, 11:21:15 AM
There is no such thing as an Article II court. I assume the writer meant Article III. Non article III courts such as administrative tribunals or military courts are sometimes referred as Article I courts (because established by Congress under Article I powers) but not Article II.
Overall, I am pretty impressed on the ability of the OP writer to cram so much faulty information and poor reasoning in such a short presentation.
Slate again. It's getting predictable.
Here is the piece I referenced earlier regarding military courts. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/021216/16justice.htm Of course, I'm not well-versed in the details of military court system, so maybe what this article talks about doesn't apply to the kind of trials terrorists would be facing. The story focused on the justice, or alleged lack of it, afforded to US soldiers accused of crimes.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 11:33:30 AM
Well the townsfolk liked it. It was essentially fabricated to bring business into the town, and everyone fell for it.
Exactly. The PR element was interesting, but the popular conception of how the trial ended and who one is mostly wrong, from what I have read.
Quote from: frunk on April 05, 2011, 10:03:45 AM
The article only very briefly mentions that Congress made it impossible for the Administration to try KSM in the US. It doesn't even seem to argue that Obama should try to get this overturned. I'm assuming the author wants Obama to try KSM in the US illegally?
How did Congress do this?
By cutting off the purse strings.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/22/us-detainee-transfer-ban-will-hinder-terror-fight (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/22/us-detainee-transfer-ban-will-hinder-terror-fight)
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62389 (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62389)
Huh, never heard about that. Thanks.
Although the first link says the provision expires in September of this year.
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2011, 11:29:26 AM
The Scopes trial didn't even effect the persons involved. It is interesting as a PR piece, but as a trial it was meaningless.
Can we agree that it was more important than OJ Simpson at least?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 05, 2011, 07:03:14 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 05, 2011, 11:29:26 AM
The Scopes trial didn't even effect the persons involved. It is interesting as a PR piece, but as a trial it was meaningless.
Can we agree that it was more important than OJ Simpson at least?
I don't know... The scopes trials inspired A film. The OJ Simpson trial killed the Naked Gun series.