There is no question
that the decision to try the five terrorists (excuse me, alleged terrorists) in
New York City has produced a heated and important debate. Everyone and their
brother is weighing in on this one.
The questions raised
are almost as interesting as the answers: Is this better or worse for the U.S.
and the world than a military trial? Is this, as many believe, a slam-dunk
case, with the death penalty the result? Does a trial at the “scene of the
crime,” on U.S. soil, result in a “Nuremberg” effect? Do these five become
martyrs, or does this show the world the horrendous acts of extremists, pushing
Muslims away from violence and terrorism? What happens if they were to get off
on some sort of “technicality”? Does a trial in New York invite another
terrorist attack, or would a military tribunal at Gitmo be more likely to
produce such an attack? Is this a potential political disaster for President
Barack Obama and the Democrats, or will this further Obama’s efforts to truly
get a handle on the problem of international terrorism?
This is clearly not
without risk — but if military trials were easy, we wouldn’t have had the
Supreme Court decisions and the George W. Bush administration would have been
trying cases left and right. The fact is that only three people have been
convicted in military trials, less that one-half of 1 percent of those held. Contrast
that with the 92 percent conviction rate of terrorists who have been tried in
U.S. Courts.
The case against these
five is clearly unbelievably strong — it is hard to get much better that
confessions on al Jazeera television and even bragging to the world, taking
credit for these heinous acts.
In addition, the decision to try the perpetrators of the USS
Cole, which took place on foreign soil, in a military court makes sense. Obviously,
the key here is to move forward, sort through the legal and logistical morass
left by the Bush-Cheney administration and see to it that justice is done. This
is the right call.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
