Recently judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Al-Qaeda detainees in Guantanomo are entitled to access to lawyers and the American court system.

It should be noted at the outset that the Ninth Circuit is based in hyper-liberal San Francisco – not far from the old Marin County stomping grounds of Johnny “Jihad” Walker-Lindh. It is renowned as the most liberal and most reversed circuit in the nation.

This decision runs directly counter to Supreme Court rulings from the 40s and the 50s. Supreme Court rulings are supposed to be binding on all courts of the nation, even those from the home of anti-American Americans. But the Ninth Circuit has different ideas.

On first glance it does not seem to be that big a deal to give the detainees attorneys and trials. We give the right to counsel and trial to any number of truly reprehensible people – mass murderers, child rapists, etc. – what harm can this decision do?

As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The right to an attorney means the detainees can communicate privately with an attorney of their choosing. This attorney is then free to travel. It is not unheard of for unscrupulous defense lawyers to serve as messengers for inmates. Imagine the benefit of communication into and out of Guantanomo for Al-Qaeda.

The right to trial is equally problematic. What crime do you charge them with? These people are not detained because they committed any crimes. They are detained because they are active members of a group that seek to slaughter as many Americans as they can.

The Ninth Circuit has, perversely, created a reverse incentive for taking Al-Qaeda members alive. In the future, our military and para-military forces (Delta Force, CIA, etc.) will have to figure that the only way to protect the country is to kill these people on sight. Taking them prisoner could result in infiltration of the United States, better coordination with other terrorists, and ultimately more mass murder. The Ninth Circuit has, in essence, told our troops that there is no point to taking prisoners. The logical conclusion is to just shoot them whenever they surrender.

Who knew the Ninth Circuit had a “kill them all – let god sort them out” kind of philosophy?

- posted by Thomas @ 11:20 AM 0 comments

 
Ok, I know a second post took a while but here it is.

The big news this weekend, of course, is the capture of Saddam Hussein. There are two big questions in the news right now. The first is what he will disclose in questioning; and the second is where should he be tried.

Any reporting on what he will tell his questioners is, obviously, pure speculation. It is reasonable to suspect that he has information about how Iraq was run prior to the war (he was it's ruler after all). He may choose to talk and give accurate answers, he may choose to talk and give false answers, or he may choose to remain silent.

The issue of his trial is linked to what he says in questioning. His refusal to cooperate will probably lead him to be turned over to the Iraqis for a quick trial and then an execution.

What is more intriguing is the possibility that he will choose to talk in a bargain for his life. This would be very similar to the kind of plea bargain serial killer Gary Ridgeway (aka the Green River Killer) recently cut with the King County Prosecutor. Such a deal would presumably require Saddam to give verifiably correct answers and agree to withhold nothing in questioning.

A deal of this kind could be very tempting to the coalition. Saddam may be able to disclose the location of any weapons of mass destruction. He could reveal secret deals with other governments. He could sell out terrorist networks. The list of possible benefits goes on from there.

The coalition should not make such a deal, however. The benefits of Saddam's cooperation would be temporary. The benefits of executing him after a public trial would be much longer lasting.

It is pretty much a given that the goal of the United States is to transform the Arabic Middle East into a more moderate, secular democratic society. The idea is that modernity will eliminate the sociological forces that produce terrorism in general and attacks on the United States specifically.

The two biggest losers in this new Arabic Middle East are the corrupt political elites that run the countries in the region, and the extremist religious figures who incite the masses. The first group wants nothing to do with democracy and the second group wants nothing to do with a secular society.

Allowing Saddam to plea bargain out of a death sentence would only make it harder to push out the corrupt political elites. They would reasonably conclude that the worst that could happen to them if they voluntarily let loose their power would be execution by a angry mob. If the held on to power until pushed out, however, they could still personally survive.

If Saddam is executed, however, the calculus changes. The corrupt elites see that holding on to power could lead to early death. Cooperating with reform could lead to comfortable retirement. Consider the point of view of the Baathists in Syria or the many Saudi princes.

We should think of the next few years and decades, not weeks and months, and make no deals with Saddam.

- posted by Thomas @ 8:38 PM 0 comments