The wrong debate

The debate over yesterday’s verdict in the terrorism trial of Ahmed Ghailani, which resulted in the Guantanamo detainee being convicted on only one of nearly 300 charges, is ignoring a basic precept of American democracy. The conviction on a charge related to a 1998 bombing of the American embassy in Africa — a conviction that has Ghailani facing between 20 years and life in prison — has conservatives renewing their call for those facing terror charges to be tried by a military tribunal and not in civilian criminal courts.

The verdict has been discussed within a context of effectiveness, using the assumption that failure to convict is a conviction of the system itself, one that requires us to suspend the basic rule of law and to move to an extra-judiciary measure.

“This is a tragic wake-up call to the Obama Administration to immediately abandon its ill-advised plan to try Guantánamo terrorists” in federal civilian courts, said Representative Peter King, Republican of New York. “We must treat them as wartime enemies and try them in military commissions at Guantánamo.”

No one, however, is asking the question that needs to be asked. Were the acquittals due to the system itself, which is designed to defend the rights of the accused (a goal at which the system too often fails, but that is a topic for another post), an indictment of the system or did they occur because of a failure to collect the necessary evidence?

There is something more than a little disturbing about a mindset that demands we change the rules for a subset of people because we did not get the result we want, a mindset that endangers all of us because it chips away at the rights not only of Guantanamo detainees, but of everyone accused of a crime. It flips the basic premise of American justice — everyone is presumed not guilty until proven otherwise — and allows the presumption of guilt to become the standard.

This is far more of a threat to our country than anything threat we face from terrorism.

Unknown's avatar

Author: hankkalet

Hank Kalet is a poet and freelance journalist. He is the economic needs reporter for NJ Spotlight, teaches journalism at Rutgers University and writing at Middlesex County College and Brookdale Community College. He writes a semi-monthly column for the Progressive Populist. He is a lifelong fan of the New York Mets and New York Knicks, drinks too much coffee and attends as many Bruce Springsteen concerts as his meager finances will allow. He lives in South Brunswick with his wife Annie.

One thought on “The wrong debate”

  1. Oy vay, the two Kings. Gop Rep. Steve King of Iowa and Rep. Peter King of NY. How to express the revulsion I feel for these two far right wing Neanderthals. Steve King is a malignant cancer upon the very essence of humanity. Peter King is this very angry, very bitter, very belligerent perpetually bug eyed shouting, spritzing, frothing at the mouth scold and male version of a virago.It's like asking what's worse, a steaming 60 foot pile of elephant dung or a 60 foot high pile of rotting 5 month old pig carcasses.If I had to chose, and I wouldn't, I would say that Steve King is probably worse by a nose.

Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply