We duly offer up the WSJ editorial quotation here:
The trial also underscored the limits of the criminal justice system as a tool of war. Moussaoui was charged in December 2001, so disposing of the case took nearly 4 1/2 years. For a time he represented himself, turning the courtroom into a circus. Later his court-appointed attorneys demanded to put detained al Qaeda leaders on the stand. The Supreme Court said no, but there's no guarantee that future prosecutors won't be forced to choose between revealing national-security secrets in open court and letting a terrorist go free. While the courts--which must also deal with ordinary crime--can handle one Moussaoui circus, hundreds of such cases could cripple the justice system.
Then there are the "mitigating factors" that led the jury to reject death. According to news reports, three of the 12 jurors agreed that Moussaoui, of Moroccan ethnicity, "was subject to racism as a child" in his native France. Nine jurors agreed that "Moussaoui's father had a violent temper and physically and emotionally abused his family." America is at war with a relentless enemy, which observes no rules of war and wantonly murders innocent civilians. Fretting over whether enemy agents had dysfunctional childhoods is no way to win that war.
We know of no better explanation as to why prisoners will be kept more or less indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay. Yes, that's bad. But war is bad. It's just that every other alternative is worse.
Yes, gentle readers, you are welcome to post your alternatives. But we'll bet that they won't obviate any of the obvious problems of which the WSJ reminds us.
1 comment:
The use of military tribunals is currently tied up in civilian litigation. I love this country!
Post a Comment