The Al-Marri case was supposed to be a demonstration that the courts and prosecutors could handle terrorism cases, even the big ones. Al-Marri was indicted after years in the brig under the Bush Administration's enemy combatant program, instituted because that administration didn't think the justice system could handle these terrorism cases effectively.
Now the first results are in. And they aren't good. The Justice Department has been forced to let al-Marri plead to a single count of material support for terrorism, presumably because they weren't sure they could get a conviction on anything worse. And the judge has given him credit for all the time he spent (cue violins) in "a dark and chilly cell without a blanket, a mattress and his prescription glasses." Al-Marri, who came to the US on September 10, 2001, with personal instructions from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, will walk free in a little over eight years.
His lawyer thinks that's just dandy. It "shows our system can handle [terrorism cases] in an evenhanded way, consistent with our ideals of justice." And the administration? It wants to change the subject:
Is that how we show the effectiveness of the justice system in international terrorism cases? Because some of the terrorists could get long prison terms -- if they're convicted?
Now the first results are in. And they aren't good. The Justice Department has been forced to let al-Marri plead to a single count of material support for terrorism, presumably because they weren't sure they could get a conviction on anything worse. And the judge has given him credit for all the time he spent (cue violins) in "a dark and chilly cell without a blanket, a mattress and his prescription glasses." Al-Marri, who came to the US on September 10, 2001, with personal instructions from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, will walk free in a little over eight years.
His lawyer thinks that's just dandy. It "shows our system can handle [terrorism cases] in an evenhanded way, consistent with our ideals of justice." And the administration? It wants to change the subject:
An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity
because a government task force is still reviewing the cases of
Guantanamo detainees, said possible criminal charges against them could
be far more serious and could carry much longer prison terms than Marri
received.
Is that how we show the effectiveness of the justice system in international terrorism cases? Because some of the terrorists could get long prison terms -- if they're convicted?
Yes, who needs convictions in a fair court? Indeed, why have trials -- we've done fine without them in Guantanamo for years. And should the government only charge people with crimes it can prove the person committed -- it is not fair to hold the government to its burden of proof; that's so 20th Century.
No, the true measure of the success of our fight against terrorism is the number of people we incarcerate. We should not let our principles stand in the way. We should not let the possibility of their innocence stand in the way. We should not let our scruples stand in the way. If it requires torture to get them to confess, so be it. It works for the Japanese in WW2, the North Vietnamese in the recent unpleasantness, and in China today. It can work for us.
Remember - the trial system only works if it gets life convictions or death penalties for the defendants our government says are terrorists. Anything less is a sign of failure.
It is good to know that former government officials feel this way.
It is especially good that they are FORMER government officials.
Posted by: For Effectiveness | Oct 30, 2009 at 08:29 AM