They could start by having a standard to apply that makes logical sense, so they’re not just obviously immoral.
They really can’t, if they don’t want to commit political suicide.
If they continue to hold them indefinitely, they break a campaign promise, get to hear the necons brag that GWB was right, continue to damage our reputation overseas, anger their core constituency here and so forth.
If they hold open, honest trials, they’ll never get a conviction because almost all evidence would be inadmissible. The very-likely terrorists walk free. The Dems are going to be slaughtered in coming elections for being soft on terrorism. The whole world ends up hating us more for our admission of what we did.
If they just let them go since they know they can’t get convictions, the administration would probably be impeached for some trumped-up charge in under a month. Most of the USA would be calling for Obama’s head and you’d probably shift the country so far right that a Cheney/Palin ticket would win 60% of the vote in 2012.
So, in essence, they’re forced into having a show trial. I hate it, but then again I don’t see any other way out.
Maybe I’m being naive here, but ideally our justice system should take priority over politics.
All “terrorists” captured should either be tried or let go. If there isn’t enough evidence to convict, then let these men go free.
The attorney general disagrees with you.
About one guy.
Blackadar, you think the world will hate us more for restoring credibility to our justice system? Everyone already knows we’ve decided the rule of law is unimportant. When we repudiate that, we can begin to recover our reputation.
I’d typically agree, but by doing that, you run a fair chance of rewarding the same people who created this situation. In other words, it’s likely the neocons - the very same people who created this situation - would be able to gain large electoral support from that decision.
So, do you stick to your principals, which means you’re very likely going to create a situation that harms more people in the future? Or do you try to resolve this quietly - even if it bends the rules - so you remain in office and can try to prevent this from happening in the future. Do you do a little harm now to prevent a greater evil in the future?
In essence, are you a pragmatist? Or an idealist?
You start by not assuming that the PR battle is lost.
I believe that it is. If Ma and Pa Kettle think that Obama & Co. allowed terrorists who planned 9/11 to go free, the entire Democratic Party is down the drain. Game over.
I think that justice should take precedent, and I don’t agree that letting these guys go would automatically ensure they will carry out more terrorist attacks in the future. Morally, there is only one course of action: Bring all detainees to trial, or let them go.
I’m an idealist.
And as John Stewart pointed out, if they do go free on the street of New York, they’re going to have a life span of about 10 minutes.
If Ma and Pa Kettle think that Obama & Co. allowed terrorists who planned 9/11 to go free, the entire Democratic Party is down the drain.
The Democrats would have lost some seats to anti-Japanese panic in the 1940s if they hadn’t chucked the entire Nisei population into concentration camps.
In my little fantasy world, the courts step up, do their jobs, and order these people released.
And in the real world, the neocons who created this situation win in 2012 and do it all over again.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
So you would rather we continue to compromise our entire justice system and constitutional protections today because of fear of a Republican win in 2012?
Of course he would, anything to him is better then letting an evil republican win. Everything else, justice, the constitution all of it is secondary to that.
Last I checked, this was why we strove for an apolitical, independent judiciary in the first place.
Except that KSM has been talking and even bragging about his role in al’Qaeda for years, well after his torture ceased and his interrogators replaced by a ‘clean’ team untainted by forcing someone to drown several times an hour for a year. He was also captured in Pakistan with a laptop full of evidence. Eric Holder is an experienced prosecutor and I really doubt he would have moved this to a civil trial if it was not a slam dunk given the stakes (plenty of Americans would have been happy to see KSM hauled before a military tribunal long enough for him to plead guilty and then shot).
His sentencing will probably be when the torturing is brought out and will probably result in life in prison as opposed to the death penalty. There’s also the possibility his defense could try to plead that KSM was driven insane through the torture and thus unable to stand trial; however given that KSM and others want the full media circus of a real trial (see the Zacarias Mossaoui trial for an example, which by the way managed to be held without everyone tut-tutting about the horrible danger involved) I doubt he would agree to an insanity defense.
We already have compromised our entire justice system and constitutional protections. The damage is already done. At this point it’s just like we’re kicking a dead man. Remember, you’re talking to someone who has often felt like a lone voice in the wilderness decrying the actions of the US over detainees for almost a decade now.
Frankly, I don’t think most of you understand the full ramifications of what you’re asking. If you have open and free disclosure in court, you’re going to find stuff that’s far worse than you can probably imagine. As such, you’ll almost certainly end up with at least some of the following consequences.
We’ll have incredible issues with lawsuits both foreign and domestic over our actions and we’ll have US funds seized overseas. We’ll have massive foreign pressure (and perhaps even foreign action) to put Americans (like GWB, Cheney and US troops) on trial at the Hague and in the US court system. We’ll likely see a huge backlash across the middle east to the point to the point we’ll further radicalize almost every country. We’ll put American soldiers and citizens at major risk from further attacks. We’ll likely alienate our allies since it’ll come out that they helped us, toppling foreign friendly governments. It will create major unrest at home and very radical candidates will use the discord to get into office to do further damage.
Maybe I’m just paranoid. But I think if the full extent of what we did comes out, we’ll see a helluva lot of fallout both foreign and domestic. And frankly, I don’t think we’re in a strong enough position to deal with it right now.
I hate this. I hate this. But sometimes you can’t fix something that is already broken. And as much as I’d like to be an idealist, I just can’t be on this one. As such, I think the best option is the show trial, sweep this under the rug and then put things in place to ensure it never happens again…as much as it disgusts me to say that.
But if you want free and open trials, fine. Just be willing to do two things. One, accept the consequences. Two, be prepared to go ALL the way with these trials, wherever they lead. So if we find out that these guys were tortured, you better damn well be all for putting the torturers on trial, even if they’re US soldiers. And you better be for putting the ones on trial who authorized that torture. And so forth. You can’t ask for Lady Liberty to be active in this case but to turn her head at what caused this whole situation.
Go play in traffic, little boy. The grownups are talking.
Aww, someone wants me to die, how nice.
Not sweeping it under the rug is the only thing that can prevent this from happening again.
I don’t care nearly as much if the Republicans get power again, if the courts are going to hold them to the law.