Listening to critics of Obama’s decision to try certain terrorist suspects in civilian courts, one gets the impression that Obama is taking a big risk, and that civilian courts are either ill-equipped to handle such cases, or the rules governing the proceedings in those venues create too big an advantage for defendants. Obama’s critics argue that military commissions should be used instead – presumably because they are better suited for adjudicating such matters.
Here’s the problem, though: civilian courts have a much better track record of convicting terrorists than military commissions – and the sentences tend to be longer when a conviction is handed down. Patrick Barry explains by way of Ken Gude:
Ken Gude, of the Center for American Progress, writes, “The facts are clear: Criminal courts are a far tougher and more reliable forum for prosecuting terrorists than military commissions.”
The record of federal courts for trying terrorists, particularly since 9/11 is formidable. Former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma Mickey Edwards writes: “[Critics] scowl and declare that our American courts will not, or can not, convict terrorists. They seem pretty damned certain of that. Which is weird since nearly 200 terrorists have been convicted in our federal courts in the last nine years (that’s 65 times as many as have been convicted by military commissions).” A 2009 report by Human Rights First written by a team of former federal prosecutors found that terror trials in civilian courts had “a conviction rate of 91.121%.” And for those still think the NYC issue somehow stems from the courts effectiveness at prosecuting extremists, a study by NYU’s center on Law and Security, found that NYC courts have a zero acquittal rate for terrorism cases. [...]
Support for military commissions might make sense, if the commissions themselves weren’t so ineffective and soft. Gude explains, “military commissions have never handled a single case of murder or attempted murder and have doled out shockingly short sentences to terrorists—even to a close associate of Osama bin Laden.” Moreover, “since their formation in November 2001, military commissions have only had one trial, negotiated one plea bargain, and convicted one defendant after he boycotted the proceedings,” while sustaining multiple supreme court challenges. Of the three individuals convicted in military commissions, two received sentences less than a year long.
Meanwhile, Adam Blickstein attempts to shoot down some of the miranda warning/right to counsel/interrogation nonsense flowing from the Obama administration’s handling of the underwear bomber’s arrest and interrogation. First, quoting Spencer Ackerman:
Collins said in a statement that the fact that the FBI read Abdulmutallab his Miranda rights “likely foreclosed the collection of additional intelligence information.” But over the weekend, The Associated Press published the most comprehensive account to date of Abdulmutallab’s interrogation and found no evidence that Mirandization inhibited interrogators’ access to valuable information. FBI interrogators, to the contrary, read him his Miranda rights after they were satisfied that he had no further information about any further attacks.
And, again, quoting Ken Gude:
These conservatives clearly believe that the criminal system impedes intelligence collection because defendants get lawyers in the criminal system who always tell their clients to stop talking to the government. The only problem with this argument is that their recommended solution to this apparent problem—charging detainees in military commissions or holding them without charge in military detention—doesn’t change a defendant’s access to an attorney…Military commissions also have procedures prohibiting self-incrimination and ensuring that statements from the defendant are made voluntarily. There is virtually no difference between military commissions and criminal courts in the provision and availability of defense counsel.
Gude also undercuts Jindal’s argument by describing the litany of valuable and actionable intelligence America has obtained from terrorists with lawyers present. This intelligence gathered in the presence of legal counsel has, in fact, kept America safe…And, my god, all that information without torture!
Right, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good talking point. It would be nice if the Republican Party decided to take a principled stand, embrace the facts and stop demagoguing these issues, which political opportunism serves to erode this nation’s commitment to the rule of law and basic human rights – whether it be increased affinity for torture amongst the population, or willingness to detain suspects indefinitely without recourse. These cheap shots can be quite expensive in the long run.
Related posts:
Whatever the merits of conviction rates in civilian v military courts Obama’s decision to have a MJ/OJ style show trial in the US for KSM, his cohorts and his AlQ sponsors has to go down the most stupid political decision in memory: it being the one circus capable of costing Obama his second term.
The man is a novice.
Why? I don’t see it as so impactful.
Not impactful? It already has impacted – Mayor Bloomberg and the security costs? Admin already looking for other sites?
Wherever it goes in the States, except maybe some remote military base, its going to be the full-on MJ/OJ circus with the addition of endless bomb threats from your nutters.
So, wait, because Obama originally slated lower Manhattan, and now may switch the site for the trial, this is going to tank his presidency?
Because Bloomberg, very respectfully and with much praise, suggested moving it – after Bloomberg originally agreed it was the right thing to do?
Riiight. You’re making far too much of it. Seriously. This is a minor story.
No, my point is that the show trial for KSM et al will be accompanied by so many security threats and drama that it is the one issue capable of denying Obama a second term.
The politics 101 of this is that (a) the show trial and drama will cause Americans on a daily basis, for weeks, to relive 9/11, thus elevating domestical national security to the top of their minds and that (b)this will result in a dedicated Republican turnout in 2012 PLUS a substantial switch in the independent vote from Obama.
However it can be expected that the Dems facing re-election at the end of this year and those in 2012 do understand the politics of this, especially following Mass, even if the president doesn’t, and that is likely to result in congress taking the matter out of his hands.
bb: national security issues merely being in the news do not redound to the benefit of the GOP. Not anymore. Not after Iraq and Afghanistan mismanagement.
FREX: The GOP tried to hammer Obama on the Undie Bomber issue, relentlessly attacking him for weeks. Guess what? His national security approval ratings went up.
Again, I think you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
Like in MA?
Oh well, Obama will always be able to use it as a teaching moment.
We will see if the Dems up for election this year agree with you.
Like in MA?
Um, huh? You’re not actually suggesting that Brown was elected because of this, are you?
It was an issue, was it not? Wasn’t there polling done?
Wasn’t it independents who tipped to Brown? Isn’t it the indies who are giving Obama his present bad polling?
Whatever, the proof will be in the Congress pudding.
It was an issue, was it not?
One of thousands, literally.
Wasn’t there polling done?
Why yes, there was. And that issue did not appear anywhere near the top in terms of importance placed by voters.
Whatever, the proof will be in the Congress pudding.
Really? If the Dems lose seats, that will prove that it was because of the decision to try KSM in a civilian court?
Are you familiar with logical fallacies?
Here’s some polling data and analysis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/01/22/ST2010012203176.html
Thanks for the Wapo link, but if you go into the polling data PDF you will see that the specific issue of the KSM trial in the US was not asked at all.
The “proof of the Congress pudding” was not in reference to how many seats, if any, the Dems might lose in the election, but whether the Dems in Congress will allow the trials to take place in the US at all – long before the election!
OK, but still, that assumes that Dems in Congress are correct in interpreting public attitudes, and the importance of certain issues to their constituents. It also ignores the fact that if the decision is even slightly more unpopular than popular, with no long term political upside, Dems would move to scuttle it. Because even a slight advantage is an advantage if there is no cost.
However, I don’t think that “proves” that this decision was of the epic proportions you claimed, or that it threatens to take down a Presidency.
Fair enough. But I think you are overstating what I said – which was “it is the one issue capable of denying O a second term.” btw I was not saying that the principle behind the issue was the political problem but the circus of the drama that will accompany the show trial.
In saying “one issue” I was assuming that the economy will have improved by 2012.
On the upside, if the Bush/Obama surge and Nato put the Taleban to rout which seems to be increasingly on the cards, and if the Iranian regime falls to the green movement which is not out of the question then O’s national credentials will be considerably enhanced and consequently Americans may feel more sanguine about the trial.
“national security credentials” that is!