Sunday, February 10, 2008
Punishing War Criminals
In the past few weeks, Guantanamo detainees Ali Hamza Ahmad Suliman al Bahlul, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, aka “Abu Khobaib al Sudani,” and Mohammed Jawad are facing charges. The first two are charged with general 'being a terrorist' or terrorism support charges and the like, but the last is a bit of a mystery. He's charged with attempted murder for throwing a grenade into a passing army vehicle. Since when is fighting with hand grenades a war crime? If it's a crime only because he wasn't in uniform, then we're back to the question above, why only 80 and not each and every one?
The accused will get free lawyers, don't have to testify, are presumed innocent and must be found guilty by the highest standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, in an open trial. They are in front of military tribunals, as is appropriate, and most importantly don't get to see the evidence against them (although their lawyers do--not exactly iron clad protection of sources there considering the general type of person who will be eager to defend these detainees--recall the horrible traitor, Lynn Stewart, and the wrist slap she received for helping her client communicate with the terrorists back home). Still, if it makes sense to do this at all, this seems an appropriate way to do it, if way too sensitive to the terrorists' 'human' rights. No one will be too happy with the results, I believe. The left will probably, collectively, have the vapors over each conviction.
This morning I heard that 6 detainees including Khaled Sheik Mohammed will be charged w/ terroism stemming from 9/11. Prosecutors will seek the death penalty.
My quesytiuon is why not ry them in NYC and Washington DC?