A Terrorism Trial in the Federal Courts - By the NYT Editorial Board

[DonViejo]

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

JULY 25, 2017

Republicans raged over what they called the White House’s weak and dangerous decision last week to prosecute in federal court a man suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda, rather than shipping him off to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Sorry, wrong year. That happened back in 2009, when President Barack Obama and his attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., tried to put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, on trial in New York City.

Senior Republicans claimed to be aghast. John Boehner, then the House minority leader, said Mr. Obama was “treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and hoping for the best.” Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, said the attempt to move Mr. Mohammed to federal court showed “fighting global terrorism is not the priority it once was.”

Republicans complained about more than Mr. Mohammed, whose civil trial was called off in early 2010; throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency, they fumed often at the prospect that terrorism suspects would enjoy the constitutional protections of civilian trials.

Yet there was no similar outcry last week at the news that Mr. Sessions, now the attorney general, has agreed to try Ali Charaf Damache in a federal court in Philadelphia. Mr. Damache is believed to be a recruiter for Al Qaeda and is charged with providing material support to the organization. He was extradited from Spain, where he was arrested in 2015, and made his initial appearance before a federal judge on Friday.

more
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/opinion/al-qaeda-trial-federal-court.html?emc=edit_th_20170725&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57435284

[Igel]

1. The NYT is obtuse at times.

It's really stopped being able to report in many ways.

Guantanamo had at least 4 categories of inmates. (You can divide them in different ways. Here's one.)

Those who had evidence against them that would survive evidenciary proceedings and be okay in a public trial, sufficient to produce a guilty verdict. Perhaps that trial could be civilian, perhaps military. Civilian courts had higher standards for evidence.

Those who had evidence against them that would not survive evidenciary proceedings or be okay in a public trial. Even if the evidence had been sufficient, they'd walk because of chain of custody or how the evidence was obtained, or perhaps much of the evidence was classified and too sensitive to share. Civilian courts were less likely to accept classified information, and more likely to leak it.

Those who lacked evidence sufficient for trial. They were picked up in suspicious circumstances, said incriminating things that couldn't be used in court, and were certainly guilty. But couldn't ever go to trial. Civilian courts had higher standards for the amount of evidence required.

Those who lacked evidence sufficient for trial, picked up in suspicious circumstances and probably guilty of something, but the US didn't see a point in holding them. On the other hand, nobody else wanted them, either. Can't release them, didn't want to hold them, but they stayed there anyway.

Sheikh Mohammed's case was vetted long and hard. How much evidence could be submitted? What would be thrown out? How vulnerable was the evidence? It was a case to show that terrorists could be tried in court. It was partly a show trial, to show that we did try terrorists in court. But to generalize and say that's how all the others should have been dealt with is too simplistic for the NYT to believe sincerely and intelligently. (Perhaps sincerely but foolishly, perhaps insincerely. But there's a gap there.) Thing is, the NYT from the git-go wanted all the suspects in Gitmo tried in civilian courts. They knew the issues. They knew most would walk. They were okay with that--they so frowned on how the detainees were picked up and held, they were so concerned that this would be generalized everywhere, they so despised the idea of military courts and Bush II.

Sometimes I thought the "preferred" response would be "We hit terrorism hard and hit it fast with a major -- and I mean major -- leaflet campaign, and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK? Now, if that's not enough, I'm sorry, it's time for the T-shirts: 'Miltants Out' ... 'Islamist Life Rules, No Thanks' ... and if that's not enough, well, I don't know what will be." (Yes, that's paraphrased a bit. Sorry, Arnold.)