The Obama Administration has announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the man who admitted to being behind the September 11 terrorist attacks, will stand before a federal court in Manhattan. Supporters see this as a step towards address the “Gitmo Question” while opponents on both sides of the spectrum question the wisdom and legality of such a decision.
Patrick Buchanan, conservative writer and commentator, wrote an article on November 16th, raising the question of whether the United States was at war or not. The issue of placing an alleged terrorist, in US custody since 2003 following a joint Pakistani-CIA operation, before a civilian court does question the nature of the so-called “war” on terrorism itself.
But the undeclared war is just as dangerous as the declared one, and brings with it unnecessary legal vagaries. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, the current Iraq war, and the longest campaign in American history since the Revolution, Afghanistan, have totaled approximately 346,500 US casualties. That is 100,000 fewer than the US military deaths in the Second World War, the last declared war fought by America in 1941. In WWII, enemies captured who had committed atrocities were tried and executed by military courts according to the Geneva Convention. US military Lieber Code, 1863, further defines this in Section I, Article 12. In 2009, the US government wishes to put an “enemy combatant” (not a “prisoner of war”) before a civilian court in the city where he had allegedly committed the greatest atrocity of the present generation.
The United States’ legal system is based on Common Law. The judiciary bedrock of criminal Common Law is “innocent until proven guilty.” Is it wise, then, to presume Khalid Mohammed, a captor of the last six years, is innocent and must be proven guilty by a jury? Is the assumption of innocence towards Gitmo prisoners good politics? Why should the jurors be potentially placed at personal risk while deciding the burden of proof against the man called the “Mastermind Behind 9/11”? Will all “enemy combatants” now be able to use this legal precedent to gain access to our courts as presumed to be innocent convicts?
If Khalid Mohammed is brought before a civilian court in New York City, one could further question the integrity of the nature of the case. Can such a person seriously expect an unbiased trial by his peers? If not, then what is to say that the trial is anything less than a kangaroo court which could discredit the American legal system and possibly imperil American lives and interests by emboldening al-Qaeda henchmen?
President Bush ought not to have taken the vague and dangerous route of labeling his war a broad and ill-defined “War on Terrorism.” Presidents Madison, Polk, McKinley, Wilson, and Roosevelt drew their war authority from the Constitution and gained full legal legitimacy and clarity in so doing. But they fought against countries, not groups.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced a bill on October 11, 2001, to address the nature of the new conflict. “The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy,” his press released announced. The bill, however, was not passed as Congressmen shrugged off their war responsibilities as obsolete, preferring to give such power to the president--as they had done with Truman and LBJ--and absolve themselves should it not turn out well.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states Congress shall have power “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” Intended to allow the military to operate against non-state actors such as pirates, letters of marque and reprisal would define the rules of warfare, avoiding the hand-wringing of what to do with military vs. civilian courts. They would provide legitimate authority to American forces operating against terrorists in the Middle East, drug lords across the world, the increasingly powerful pirates of Africa, and so on.
Congress, ranked more unpopular than the most unpopular Republican president in recent memory, cannot now absolve itself of the legal questions now arising in New York, in part because of their abdication of their Constitutional responsibilities.
A rally took place today outside the gilt-domed Statehouse in Trenton today in support of homosexual marriage. Same-sex marriage supporters are hoping …
RSS
Home
Khalid Mohammed Trial Brings Controversy Which Need Not Have Been
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
