Critics: Military trial of terror suspects could open cases to legal uncertainty

[alp227]

Source: The Washington Post

Using a military commission to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his conspirators for their alleged role in the Sept. 11 attacks could open the case to significant legal uncertainty and expose fresh details of detainee abuse in a proceeding that might not get underway for two years or longer, national security experts and plan critics say.

The heated political battle over where Mohammed will face U.S.-style justice continues to simmer as President Obama's legal advisers consider their options. But in the face of resistance from authorities in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania for a civilian trial, a military case looms as the most likely prospect, White House advisers have said.

Lost in the rhetorical firefight have been the drawbacks of such an approach in a military system that resolved only three cases during the Bush years, one with a guilty plea.

For legal and practical reasons, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. still favors a federal trial in civilian courts, aides say. But Senate Republicans are attacking Holder as a symbol of administration missteps on national security, and the attorney general's voice does not carry as loudly in the halls of the White House.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/13/AR2010031302252.html

[Alcibiades]

1. Shame on Lindsay Graham!

"It is inappropriate to give the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks the same constitutional rights as an American citizen,"

Actually, it's perfectly appropriate. Constitutional protections exist to protect everyone: if government could pick and choose to whom they applied, they would be meaningless.

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." Thomas Jefferson, 1807.

Military tribunals are inappropriate because these folks are not a legitimate military enemy: they are terrorists, effectively acting as private citizens. They do not obey the laws of war, which is why they are not subject to their jurisdiction. You cannot have it both ways: either they are legitimate combatants, and therefore to be treated as prisoners of war or war criminals, or they are civilians, and therefore subject to civil authority.

Also, no one seems to be mentioning that military justice is not necessarily a better system. It has its flaws, most notably in obtaining the outcome desired by the chain of command. On the whole, I also doubt that the lawyers in the military are, on average, as good as those at the DoJ (though, of course, thanks to veterans' preference, many of the lawyers at the DoJ are former military lawyers).