Friday, June 30, 2006
Hamdan Must Receive a Fair Trial
Responses to the Supreme Court decision regarding the alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan range from relief to consternation. Civil rights advocates are relieved that the Supreme Court, even though packed with appointees generally sympathetic to the Bush Administration, has seen fit to rein in the President’s claim of unlimited power in conducting a “war.” The Bush administration and its sympathizers are concerned that the scheme of military tribunals that have been proposed to deal with the detainees at Guantanimo has been declared illegal by the Court. Perhaps, they say, the situation can be salvaged if Congress will simply enact as law the Presidential executive order that created these special courts.
Civil rights advocates suggest that Mr. Hamdan be tried in a regular military or civil court, following existing law and practice in either case. For some reason, the administration rejects that idea. I don’t know why. One excuse offered is that the rules of evidence in such courts would require that the government give away some of its secret techniques of obtaining information. In a civil trial or in a court martial the defendant has the right to see and challenge the evidence offered against him.
It seems that every generation of Americans has found some group to feel hysterical about. At one time it was Catholics. At another time it was Free Masons. Later it was Socialists, then Communists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have been looking for other groups. Home-grown religious fundamentalist fanatics have found gays who want to marry. Our administration has found Al Qaeda.
What is Al Qaeda anyway and why should we be so terrified of it? Al Qaeda is a group of people, mostly Muslims, mostly men, who conspire to commit major crimes to advance a political agenda. Compare it with the Mafia, which is a group of people, mostly men, mostly Catholics of Italian ancestry or extraction, who conspire to commit major crimes to achieve power and wealth. Both groups kill innocent civilian bystanders. I fear both. I hope they both stay far from me.
Since both Al Qaeda and the Mafia are criminal conspiracies, why should we not deal with members of both organizations the same way? Mr. Bush has declared that he will not let any pent members of Al Qaeda loose to kill again. That absolute position differs from the position of some law enforcement agencies about the Mafia. There have been cases in which individual Mafiosi have been set free in exchange for testimony against a more important (and perhaps more deadly) member of the organization. A few years ago there was a case of an innocent man who had spent years in prison although the FBI knew he was innocent, in exchange for testimony from another man against an important Mafia functionary. Congressman Dan Burton of Ohio expressed his shock that his hero, J. Edgar Hoover, would let such a thing happen.
Members of Al Qaeda, like members of the Mafia, are criminals. When captured, they should be given a fair trial and, if convicted, sentenced to prison or other suitable punishment. If American courts are not able to conduct such trials fairly in accordance with American law, the suspected Al Qaeda members should be tried by an international court.
I distrust the administration’s argument that Salim Ahmed Hamdan and others can’t be tried in regular American courts because the means of getting information about him and others must be kept secret. How can we be sure that those secret means always provide correct information? Why is the administration apparently willing to risk locking up and punishing some innocent persons in an effort to make sure that no guilty one is freed? What has happened to the ideal that it is better to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent? Why are some Americans more terrified of Al Qaeda than of the Mafia?
Maybe I’ve got this all wrong. Perhaps I should recommend a “war against the Mafia.” This war will last indefinitely and give a President all the power he wants. He can charge his political opponents of being secret Mafia supporters and have them put in jail until after the election. That, of course, is the main reason that I, a Democrat, distrust Republican Bush with the “war” powers that he claims for himself. I ask of his supporters, if the President were a Democrat (e.g., Clinton, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry), would they be so willing to grant him the power that they grant to Mr. Bush?
Civil rights advocates suggest that Mr. Hamdan be tried in a regular military or civil court, following existing law and practice in either case. For some reason, the administration rejects that idea. I don’t know why. One excuse offered is that the rules of evidence in such courts would require that the government give away some of its secret techniques of obtaining information. In a civil trial or in a court martial the defendant has the right to see and challenge the evidence offered against him.
It seems that every generation of Americans has found some group to feel hysterical about. At one time it was Catholics. At another time it was Free Masons. Later it was Socialists, then Communists. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have been looking for other groups. Home-grown religious fundamentalist fanatics have found gays who want to marry. Our administration has found Al Qaeda.
What is Al Qaeda anyway and why should we be so terrified of it? Al Qaeda is a group of people, mostly Muslims, mostly men, who conspire to commit major crimes to advance a political agenda. Compare it with the Mafia, which is a group of people, mostly men, mostly Catholics of Italian ancestry or extraction, who conspire to commit major crimes to achieve power and wealth. Both groups kill innocent civilian bystanders. I fear both. I hope they both stay far from me.
Since both Al Qaeda and the Mafia are criminal conspiracies, why should we not deal with members of both organizations the same way? Mr. Bush has declared that he will not let any pent members of Al Qaeda loose to kill again. That absolute position differs from the position of some law enforcement agencies about the Mafia. There have been cases in which individual Mafiosi have been set free in exchange for testimony against a more important (and perhaps more deadly) member of the organization. A few years ago there was a case of an innocent man who had spent years in prison although the FBI knew he was innocent, in exchange for testimony from another man against an important Mafia functionary. Congressman Dan Burton of Ohio expressed his shock that his hero, J. Edgar Hoover, would let such a thing happen.
Members of Al Qaeda, like members of the Mafia, are criminals. When captured, they should be given a fair trial and, if convicted, sentenced to prison or other suitable punishment. If American courts are not able to conduct such trials fairly in accordance with American law, the suspected Al Qaeda members should be tried by an international court.
I distrust the administration’s argument that Salim Ahmed Hamdan and others can’t be tried in regular American courts because the means of getting information about him and others must be kept secret. How can we be sure that those secret means always provide correct information? Why is the administration apparently willing to risk locking up and punishing some innocent persons in an effort to make sure that no guilty one is freed? What has happened to the ideal that it is better to let the guilty go free than to convict the innocent? Why are some Americans more terrified of Al Qaeda than of the Mafia?
Maybe I’ve got this all wrong. Perhaps I should recommend a “war against the Mafia.” This war will last indefinitely and give a President all the power he wants. He can charge his political opponents of being secret Mafia supporters and have them put in jail until after the election. That, of course, is the main reason that I, a Democrat, distrust Republican Bush with the “war” powers that he claims for himself. I ask of his supporters, if the President were a Democrat (e.g., Clinton, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry), would they be so willing to grant him the power that they grant to Mr. Bush?
