Much of the debate over how to prosecute terrorists hinges upon whether or not we believe our military commissions afford these terrorists with enough rights as defendants. Way back when Boumediene was handed down from the Supreme Court, we were just starting this blog. I noted at the time the curious comments made by Obama in praise of the Boumediene decision, in which he highlighted the Nuremberg trials as an example of good principle in line with the ruling.
Scott Johnson at Power Line is examining those comments again, and he debunks the premise that the Nuremberg trials afforded more protections to defendants than our military commissions. Here is Obama’s statement again:
I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday.
Read the rest of Scott Johnson’s post. The point is that our military commissions offer more protections than the Nuremberg trials did, so pointing to those trials as a model for our commissions hurts the argument that the commissions are insufficient. As Scott asks in the title of the post, why are we trying KSM in federal court?
For more detailed debate over the prosecution of terrorists, I’ll post again the transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s interview with Andy McCarthy and Katherine Darmer from this past March.
UPDATE: Military commissions must not be completely unacceptable, as they will be used on five other Guantanamo detainees, including the accused orchestrator of the attack on the USS Cole. This further calls into question any reason for bringing 9/11 terrorists to federal court.
0 Responses to “What Is Wrong With Military Commissions?”