Brilliant and compelling articles have been written explaining why the decision to try the 9/11 terrorist mastermind in a Manhattan civilian courtroom is a bad idea-- and I have highlighted a few on this blog. Here, Stuart Taylor of The National Journal makes the most reasonable case I've seen so far in favor of the civilian court. I'm still not convinced, but he makes some strong points.
But in the 9/11 prosecution -- in which the government's evidence is so strong that the defendants will almost certainly be convicted and sentenced to death or to life in prison without parole -- the advantages of a civilian trial seem to outweigh the risks.
One advantage is that a civilian trial will show Americans and the rest of the world that our government is sure it can prove the 9/11 defendants guilty in the fairest of all courts; is confident that the hate-filled propaganda of the accused will appeal only to barbarians like themselves; and will not let fear of more terrorist attacks drive the trial away from the most logical venue, which is the federal courthouse near the scene of the most horrific crime.
Trying the 9/11 defendants before military commissions, on the other hand, would be widely (if unfairly) denounced as designed to ensure convictions regardless of the evidence. A decision to continue holding the suspects without trial -- after eight years of presidential vows to put them on trial -- would be a damning admission that America is simply not up to the task of bringing war criminals to justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment