Breakthrough Institute

Politics Trumps Effectiveness in U.S. Congress
Some policymakers assumptions about terror trials are precisely wrong.

Share

Capitol-Pseudo_Science.jpg

The White House announced today that it will be trying terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo using the Military Commissions created by Obama's predecessor and ratified by Congress in 2005.

The President was not pleased with the move, saying that "he remains committed to closing Guantanamo some day and to charging some terrorist suspects in civilian criminal courts," which have a proven track record compared to the rarely used and institutionally weak military commissions. But his hand was forced by a Congress that refuses to allow any Guantanamo detainee to be tried on U.S. soil.

Mr. Obama has already pointed out the irrationality of any concern that a terrorist might escape one of the U.S.'s maximum security prisons (which have never been breached), but Congress has not budged. He might also have cited the ample evidence suggesting that military trials reinforce terrorists' attempts to paint themselves as heroic global warriors who sit on par with the American military officers comprising the "jury of their peers" in those courts.

He could even have offered examples illustrating how military courts have produced shorter sentences than traditional criminal courts. A driver and weapons transporter for Osama bin Laden (tried in a military commission) is walking free today while the driver of a low-level Pakistanti extremist who transported paintball equipment is still serving a 15 year sentence handed down by a civilian jury. Similarly, David Hicks (sentenced in a Military Commission) walks free today, while John Walker Lindh continues to serve out a 20 year sentence (meted out by a civilian jury) for essentially the same crime.

Obama could debate all day with Congress about these issues, and show all the ways in which our constitutional system of due process rights produces surer and more exacting justice outcomes than military courts. But that would only be worthwhile if the U.S. Congress was interested in evidence. On this issue, for now, the politics of keeping "the bogeymen" off of American soil continues to hold the day.



Share


0 COMMENTS:

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use basic HTML tags for style)
Use the <br> tag for line breaks (returns).

 

'CT Since 9/11' Cited in Reader's Digest

An Outlier, Not a Trend: The Coordinated Attacks in Iraq

The Security Shuffle

Obama/Brennan CT Strategy Memo Underscores Stalled Debate

Did Torture Work? Congress Doesn't Seem to Know

New York Times Op-ed Cites Breakthrough's "CT Since 9/11" Report

Zawahiri Next on Obama's List

Science of Security to Brief Capitol Hill During This Week's NDAA Debate

There They Go Again: Latest Claims about the Effectiveness of Enhanced Interrogation also Proven False

Q&A, with Audrey Kurth Cronin

Al Qaeda and Counterterrorism After Bin Laden

Humanitarian Intervention in Libya - Considering the Endgame

Friends of 'Science of Security' Report from Libya, Afghanistan

Unqualified, Self-appointed CT Experts Training Local Law Enforcement

Politics Trumps Effectiveness in U.S. Congress

Presenting "CT Since 9/11: Evaluating the Efficacy of Controversial Tactics"

Terrorism studies remains an "unruly" academic field, but for how long?

AQ organizationally stronger but strategically/motivationally anemic?

August 2011

July 2011

June 2011

May 2011

April 2011

March 2011