Should Suspected Terrorists Get Civilian Trials?

Oct 28, 2011 by James

I think our biggest problem with GTMO and the war on terror is that we will allow our government to deny basic international rights ascertained decades ago for our enemies but expect those rights to be given if an American is captured. We have lowered the standard and the result plays out on Al Jazeera every time an American is captured abroad.

Ever since the expansive war on terror began the United States (and partner nations) have been combing nations for violent extremists. Anyone of value or possible value from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as black sites across the globe were sent to the infamous detention center in Cuba, Guantanamo Bay. Many have sat in their cells and seen the small prison rise to a complex during their indefinite stint while few have been released. When the war on terror started George W. Bush made it clear that terrorists were “enemy combatants” but his definition on paper ensured that they had no legal or international treaty rights (President Obama dropped this definition in 2009). Since then the question has been ‘what do we do with them?’

When President Obama took office in 2008 he was already making plans to close the facility and start trials here in the United States rather than conduct military tribunals. The argument was that it would be un-American to hold people forever without a proper trial and defense. Republicans unanimously called this a national security risk and threatened that it would cost millions or billions in security to protect them here while on trial. The subsequent public fear/outrage forced Obama to shelve his campaign promise for good and let the “detainees” remain in limbo.

Guantanamo had 3 official “camps” that house/detain inmates of which 2 have closed
Camp Delta, the largest and only one still in use, is a 612-unit detention center finished in April 2002 it includes detention camps 1 through 6.
According to an Associated Press report there is also a highly classified “Camp 7″ on the property to house the most dangerous detainees. Its location on the base is unknown and highly classified.

Currently the debate is being used to gain leverage against the President in the upcoming elections however Republicans have always been largely against trying suspected terrorists, even ones caught in the US, on American soil. During the Bush administration both civilian and military law was used with only a few complaints from Republicans but now the situation has exploded. The White House and the Pentagon’s lawyers seem to side with the President. The military should not have the power that is solely reserved for civilian law enforcement.

Pentagon’s general counsel, Jeh C. Johnson, reinforced the warning against “overmilitarizing our approach to Al Qaeda,” saying that it would be dangerous to permit “the U.S. military to extend its powerful reach into areas traditionally reserved for civilian law enforcement in this country.”

The problem with many of the detainees is that they were caputured under the Bush administrations “enemy combatant” era and therefore have no rights at all. Even the Nazi’s were given a defense but if you’re an “enemy combatant” of the United States you better be a lawyer on your own. Stripping them of the rights typically appointed any soldier or war criminal that is captured presents the problem of tossing them before a military tribunal. They’re not soldiers or even part of a military. The U.S. Constitution requires civilian trials in the absence of war and while the war on terror has the word “war” in it there is no declaration of war. If the President holds military trials only it would be an impeachable offense because he is violating the Constitutions peace time guarantees.

An enemy combatant has been defined as “an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.” Navy Memo on Combatant Status Review

That is a very broad definition but in my opinion still doesn’t fall under the military’s jurisdiction for prosecution. The definition above would allow the military tribunals to be judge, jury and executioner when in many cases there would never be enough evidence to convict in a civilian court. The military, and Republicans, want you to be terrified that these still innocent people might be let back into the wild where recapture would be difficult. They don’t want these people to get an actual defense because they could be found not guilty and sent home. Civilian courts also have the ability to be impartial because they’re not several military officers who do exactly as the government tells them. The civilian courts would be able to look at the detention records, interrogations and evidence with open eyes rather than ones who see the suspect as a dirty terrorist.

The propaganda machine would be going full force from Republican controlled parts of the government and parts of the Pentagon trying to immobilize you with fear that if released these men will do harm to you, your family and this country. What should truly terrify you is the loose definition of a “terrorist” or enemy combatant as you could just as easily end up in Guantanamo for whatever reason they decide that day. A trial without a proper defense or impartial jury would be un-American to the extreme. Our Justice system is flawed but at least everyone can be secure in the fact that if they ever needed a lawyer they would get one; unless they’re a terrorist.