If Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his cronies wanted to undermine America’s democratic faith, they couldn’t have found a better plan than to get themselves arrested and force us to figure out what to do with them. Where to put these guys is one of those questions, like the ancient riddle of the Sphinx, that has no answer and exists only to drive us mad. And it will if we let it.
Two administrations have now struggled with the puzzle. Each has devised a solution that it deemed effective and morally sound. Both solutions reflect nothing so much as the ideological predilections of their sponsors. And neither solution holds water.
The Bush administration chose to treat the detainees as enemy combatants, albeit illegal ones, and to try them under a jury-rigged system of military commissions. The system was designed to ignore elementary rules of due process and rush the captives to the justice they deserve, assuming we’ve got the right guys. After the Supreme Court ruled it illegal, Congress concocted a new system, adapting the same model with better protections.
The thinking was that the captives weren’t common criminals answerable to civilian justice, but military enemies fighting against America and subject to battlefield justice. Lacking the uniform of a sovereign state, however, their war was inherently illegal and put them beyond the ordinary protections of military justice or the laws of war. Hence, illegal enemy combatants.
The Obama administration wants to try the suspects in recognized courts. It seeks to end the Bush system’s illegalities and restore the rule of law. Those who fought American troops in battle will face military tribunals, with better due process to approximate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Those who conspired behind closed doors to plan the attacks will be treated as criminals and tried in civilian courts.
This administration aims to restore America’s reputation as a democracy governed by the rule of law, not the caprice of its rulers. It wants to show the world that our democracy is fair and just, even to our enemies. It wants to show doubters at home that our constitutional system is capable of defending us without vigilante tactics.
The discussion so far has broken down along predictably partisan lines. This is too bad, because both sides are partly right. Each side gets something that the other side misses.
Liberals are right that we can’t defend democracy by dismantling it. Yes, America’s wars have nearly always been accompanied by some government intrusion on civil liberties in the name of security. Perhaps that tension is inevitable. But past wars always ended at some point. The campaign against Al Qaeda and its kin is likely to continue for a long time. Any rights suspended now are probably lost.
On the other hand, conservatives are right that trying Al Qaeda leaders in criminal court in New York right now is an invitation to disaster. For months every building, monument, bus and subway station in the region will be a potential target. Anti-American protesters will rally globally, and their noise will drown out whatever propaganda benefit our democratic display was to provide. Indeed, the display itself will be tarnished by the defendants’ prior treatment in detention. Either the case is thrown out on procedural grounds, which would be a terrible setback, or the court will suspend so many rules that the democratic display will be hollow.
On a deeper level, though, both sides are missing a crucial question that doesn’t yet have an answer. Neither of the existing systems of justice, military or criminal, applies to those taken prisoner in an international war against terrorists. The military code and the broader laws of war cover soldiers fighting under the command of a state waging a legitimate war. Wars eventually end and the soldiers go home. The Geneva Conventions don’t mention a life sentence for serving one’s flag. Nor do they envision an enemy who has no intention of honoring the conventions.
But the criminal justice system is designed to punish individuals who knowingly break the law. It can’t stop an army of warriors fighting under the banner of an organized cause. The fighting gets ugly. The methods of interdiction usually aren’t the sort that would hold up in an American court. And the warriors just keep coming, because they believe they’re in the right.
Democratic courts of law hardly have a record of stopping large-scale insurgencies. Domestic insurgencies tend to either succumb to brutal repression — think of Argentina or Chechnya — or end when the insurgents become the government, like Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Menachem Begin and George Washington. As for a transnational terrorist insurgency with millennial goals like Al Qaeda — well, there’s been nothing quite like it. Some theorists compare it to piracy. But pirates roam the sea for personal gain. They can be eliminated or deterred. They’re not ready to die for a cause.
There is no model for fighting international terrorism, because it’s something new under the sun. Our leaders have been making strategy on the fly, stretching existing laws beyond recognition or simply ignoring them. We’re now running up against the limits of that legal vacuum. If this is the new world we’re going to be living in — as it seems — then we’d better start thinking together about how we want to live in it.
Someday, we might want to try people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in The Hague. In the meantime, how about Montana?
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The "civilian trial" of Khalid is not to try Khalid, but to try the Bush administration. The results of this "trial" is that KSM will be acquitted by a jury from Greenwich Village or the Upper West Side and members of the FBI and CIA will go to prison under the direct orders of Eric Holder. Likely, the FBI and CIA members will themselves be sent to Guantanamo, while KSM joins the faculty of Columbia and gets to party with the anti-American faculty of Columbia
A STRICTLY POLITICAL MOVE, BUT A VERY RISKY ONE.
Events wherein people using powerful weapons, funded with hundreds of millions of dollars, launch attacks against a country, its people, its embassies and other outposts, are not just “criminal acts,” they are Wars.
http://pacificgatepost.com/2009/11/show-trial-goes-to-new-york.html
Here in London there is limit on how long a person can be held without charge -- and it's a lot less than four years ! When Brits were returned from Gitmo the courts were in a quandary, even aside from how evidence was gained. As Israel's 'Cast Lead' has reminded us, International Law has its roots in Western European concepts of chivalry and fair play, such as avoiding human shields, concepts terrorists are not good at.
I'm just going to take exception to the term "common criminal". The criminal courts handle offenses ranging from shoplifting to the rape, mutilation and murder of multiple victims. Some crimes aren't "common" at all and yet the judicial system in place is able to handle them.
That said, your note about the implausability of New York as locale is well noted. Perhaps there is a way to temporarily assign a remote location as an "outpost" of NY for judicial purposes.
J.J., your last opinion piece in The Forward fell afoul of the old rule about allowing the possible to be held hostage by the perfect.
Of course you are quite correct in the wish that crimes of terrorism be punished by an supra-national tribunal, such as International Criminal Court now established in the Hague for crimes against humanity. But is that at all practical? Four major nations, as you know, are not members of the Court: China, India, Russia and, alas, The United States. Strange bedfellows, but with the exception of the European Union, they constitute the Great Powers of the emerging century.
All four holdouts, ironically, are themselves subject to both foreign and domestic based terrorism, yet local politics and narrow self interest have ruled out cooperation in prosecuting such terrorist as can be brought to justice.
The nations which are subject themselves to terrorist violence will not even join robustly in the effort to control the Taliban by sending troops to Afganistan. Yes, there is token support, but England has committed less than 9,000, and Canada less than 3,000.
We have really no real alternative to doing it ourselves. But that is not nearly as poor a situation as you suggest. Yes, there is a possibility of terrorist activity during such a trial. Of course our domestic securities are not perfect. But there are some risks we all take every day in dealing with organized crime and our home brewed militants - risks we accept because they are the really part of the cost of maintaining and protecting a free society. Yes, the defendants will use every opportunity to "make their statement". Let them say anything they wish, only their choir will pay heed, the rest of the world will hear the truth through the noise.
There is no question but that we have legal jurisdiction. It is quite like the law involving piracy, "you got 'em, you can try 'em."
Finally I firmly believe that it is our duty to the Rule of Law to show the world that American Justice can deal with the most heinous of criminals and the most heinous of crimes in a civilized fashion.
And then, perhaps, we can start on the project of internationalizing the fight against terrorism.