Terrorism and Due Process

When I recently read an article about the opposition by Republicans to trials of terrorist suspects in the states (New York City, and Charleston, S.C.), I did a double take. The GOP was opposing trials of terrorism suspects from 9-11? It made no sense. Isn't the GOP the party of law and order? And a naive piece of me also was wondering if the GOP was about to challenge the trials altogether because they are a judicial farce.

But then I read the article closely and realize, it was, yet again, political madness.

The GOP oppose the trials because they want to score political points. They are making the same argument as before that the suspects should never be brought to the mainland U.S. because their presence endangers lives. Their other argument is the fact that the suspects don't deserve a civilian trial.

Of course, this is hogwash.

Bringing the suspects to the U.S. makes us all no less safe than incarcerating them at the inhumane Gitmo prison in Cuba. I am sure their comrades would love to liberate them. Moving them to New York City doesn't make the hatred many have for the U.S. rise any higher; their opposition to the U.S. is fairly consistent.

However, here is the point that was totally missed in all of this: how can the terrorist suspects, many of whom were tortured into confessions, and who were probably tortured after others were tortured, who did not have lawyers present, or their rights read to them; how can they get fair trials anywhere? Will any evidence obtained through torture be used to convict them? President Obama also asked for the death penalty; how can he, a lawyer, justify the use of illegally obtained evidence to sentence someone to death? If so, this could be a new low for our President on the rule of law front?

In all honesty, it would be better to simply say that these individuals will never be released but they will not be tried for 9-11 crimes either. The easy justification is national security. We have to hold them for the sake of national security. Even that is odd but it is better than seeking the death penalty using confessions obtained by torture. While many believe the evidence obtained through torture will be excluded, no one believes that. It will create an epic appeal process that might be impossible to sort out in the end.

Fact is, the Bush administration got it wrong from the start by suspending the rule of law. If the rule of law was suspended, you can't suddenly declare it back in effect. The process is tainted. Let it go, and simply declare that a fair trial is impossible, and these suspects, for the sake of national security, cannot ever be released or tried in court.

The GOP, with its very backward reason for opposing the trials, missed a chance to stand for the rule of law. As expected, they didn't. In fact, it is rare they are on the right side of the law.