Local criminal attorney, Gene Hart, will join us for a Q&A on the trial of all those nice innocent terrorists that the Obama administration is bringing to New York.
1. Obama has publicly said that “waterboarding” is torture. How does this affect any statements made by the defendants?
2. Obviously, these defendents are not covered by the Geneva Convention because they are not signatories, not part of a standing army, and operate out of the civilian population. By what standard do we treat them since they are not citizens? Please watch this before answering.
3. Do you think the concern is legitimate that there may be sensitive information divulged during a public trial?
4. In your opinion, does this set bad legal precedence?
5. What would be the fallout if some of them were acquitted?
Feel free to ask your own questions in the comments…..
I’d like to hear YOUR answer to question 2, Myron. If not the Constitution, and not the Geneva Conventions, under what authority and by what rules do we try KSM for his involvement in the 9/11 attacks? Do you think the US military should just be a rogue band of fighters making up the rules as they go along?
I’m not an attorney….that’s why I have him coming to answer such questions.
Well I’m not a roofing salesman, but I know that a house with no cover isn’t much of a house.
I would treat these people within the framework of the military. Just because they primarily killed civilians on American soil doesn’t nullify the fact that it was an act of war which they have declared.
Disclaimer: I don’t practice the super-high-end federal criminal law these issues involve. I can answer some of this but not nearly all. That said, I told Myron I would take a shot because there has been so much pure disinformation surrounding this issue that I believe the discussion is advanced more when someone is willing to say “I don’t know.”
That said, let’s go in reverse order:
5. People will complain, the Obama administration will be excoriated, the prosecution team will never work in that town again and the defense team will be in great demand. More seriously and more generally, I am certain we and our system survive because it really is true that it is better for 999 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be convicted. In reality, any of these detainees that is found “not guilty” probably goes back to their home country or the country where they were captured and they get killed by that government rather than by our government.
4. Not in the least! In the eight years since 9/11 there have been hundreds of terrorists fairly tried in our federal courts with most if not all convicted. THAT is a testiment to the greatness of America and THAT is the precedent that we should proudly follow.
That said, I believe it would have been fine to try these detainees in a timely manner in properly constituted military proceedings. But, for many of them that could have and should have happened in the 7 or so years since their capture but it didn’t. My sense of fair play and reason leads me to feel that the longer the delay the less I think it proper to treat these detainees as “war criminals” since the war itself is not still so hot. 2010 isn’t 2001, 2002, 2003, etc. We can do this in the civilian courts now quite well (though I admit I am not sure we could have or should have tried to do so in earlier years).
3. This concern is real but overstated. There are statutes, rules and procedures that are in place to prevent the disclosure of legitimate secrets in open court. These procedures have worked quite well in all of the terrorism trials held since 9/11 and in the many “regular” espionage trials held over many decades. I can assure you that the lawyers involved in these proceedings (on both sides) will be the best around and so will the judges. This won’t be an OJ moment and, if you watch the proceedings, you will be proud that your nation affords even the worst amongst us such great advocates, that our victims are represented by great public servants and that the judges ruling on what our laws mean, require and allow are so very capable. Watch, learn and understand.
2. I don’t know enough about this issue to hazard an answer. I will try to learn more and get back to it later if possible.
1. John McCain (who knows a little something about the subject) has been the most famous proponent of “waterboarding is torture” that I am aware of but I do not know what position the Obama administration will take on the issue in the courts. I do know that if I were a waterboarded detainee’s counsel I would argue with great passion that it is torture and that any statements illicited during it should be supressed. I hope I would win that motion. But, remember that waterboarding was (as I understand it) used in an effort to obtain actionable intelligence relevant to FUTURE terrorist activities. We already knew about what the detainees DID, we used enhanced interrogation techniques to try to disrupt what they PLANNED to do in the future. Therefore, I doubt any supressed statements would have the prosecution in any meaningful manner.
More problematic may be statements made without proper Miranda warnings. However, my expectation is that any statement these detainees have made were made both to military or CIA interrogators (maybe without Miranda) and also to FBI agents (likely with Miranda given) so some but not all statements may be lost. But, again, I doubt we will suffer from lack of evidence against these selected detainees even if we can’t use all their statements. Heck, KSM confessed to involvement in 9/11 before he was captured, after he was captured and will likely do so again when he hits the federal court in New York.
Gene, where are you getting your numbers on all these terrorists that have been convicted?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381.html
I’m having trouble understanding your idea that as time goes on that these peoples’ actions should go from military to criminal. They have declared war on our nation. Their acts of terrorism is an act of war, regardless of whether they happened 5, 10, or 20 years ago.
Gene Hart do you think now that just maybe you should have put some distance between yourself and the far left wing party hacks like Lowell Fulk and Bubby ?
Both president obama and his AG have made statements that KSM is guilty. How does this square with the issue of fairness that a civil court is supposed to solve and what about the fallout on the arab street from the sham outcome of such a trail where it has been made clear that KSM won’t be exeronated no matter the outcome?
Hi Danny: Do feelings of resentment and victim-hood sweep you when reflecting upon your enslavement to rightwing ideology and a resulting inability to vote for the best candidate? …or does anger just gnaw at your sad self all day long?
The “best candidate” does not matter. What matters is the political power behind him. A person elected can only join his side in govt and “go along.” That’s why it matters what political philosophy a candidate has. EXAMPLES:
Leiberman was “the best candidate” but he was outlawed by the libdems because he didn’t toe the mark. ANOTHER EXAMPLE: Wm Jefferson, dem, La. was not the “best candidate,” but a proven crook — he stayed in because the libdems needed his vote. When they were done with him, he was gone. (He did not resign, the HONORABLE THING, as repubs under scandal do. HE WAS CONTROLLED BY THE LIBDEM PARTY BOSSES. These Sir, are facts.
Hey Bob,
Google Sen. John Ensign, Sen. David Vitter, Gov. Mark Sanford…and get back to me as to why these criminals are still taking a paycheck from the United States taxpayer. You are a few opinions short of the facts.