The latest crazy Republican talking point floating around concerns the decision of the Justice Department to try some high profile terrorism suspects in the federal courts in New York. Their concern is that the suspects could be acquitted (and there wouldn’t be any danger in that would there wingnuts if Bush/Cheney didn’t have so much tainted evidence from toture, would there?). I think it’s a good decision because it helps show the world that we have confidence in our own justice system – a system that has tried terrorists before without incident. The Republicans have chosen a really odd talking point IMO, that our justice system is incompetent and that we can’t successfully incarcerate dangerous people. If there’s one thing the U.S. is good at, it’s putting people in prison.
Rest your fears, wingnuts. Most of us (the reality-based community) know that the Justice Department wouldn’t dare try terrorism suspects in federal courts unless they felt confident they had enough evidence to convict them (despite Bush/Cheney’s tainted evidence). However, if common sense isn’t enough to reassure you, the Washington Post has looked at the myths and debunked them.
— One: Mohammed’s lawyers are going to rely on the fact that he was waterboarded to get his case dismissed. Fact: Ain’t gonna happen. Depending on who is running the show (Mohammed wanted to represent himself at his military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay), it’s likely that the government’s post-capture treatment of Mohammed will be a factor in the trial. But it won’t determine the outcome, especially if the government does not seek to introduce any of Mohammed’s post-torture statements to jurors. The fact that the feds are bringing him to New York to stand trial indicates that they have plenty of other evidence that they can use to get their conviction.
[…]
— Four: The transfer of Mohammed to a federal civilian court is a concession of defeat by the government and a soft-on-terror approach to suspects. Fact: The Bush administration tried to prosecute these people in military tribunals but wasn’t able to come up with a set of rules that were deemed constitutional. As a result, six years after Mohammed was apprehended, he still hasn’t been convicted. A civilian trial is the best chance of ensuring conviction and sentencing. I don’t consider that a defeat. I consider it progress. We are one step closer to the end of this guy’s story. Remember, too, that the Republican senators who are crying loudest now about this civilian trial were the ones who precluded the use of military tribunals by insisting that they be constitutionally unfair to defendants.
— Five: Mohammed will be acquitted on some technicality endorsed by a federal judge. Fact: After eight years of reporting on terrorism law, I am not aware of any judge, anywhere, who is eager to pervert the law to give Mohammed a break. The idea that the federal courts are soft on terrorism is unfair to the hundreds of jurists who have repeatedly endorsed government policy on terrorism, both before and after the 2001 attacks. Capital murder suspects get off on “technicalities” (read: constitutional rights) far less often than you see in prime time. And even if Mohammed is somehow acquitted, which isn’t going to happen, the feds will then immediately pick him up and put him back in the military brig.
Do you feel better now wingnuts or is your criticism really just to score political points?