A response to some assertions about Matallab's prosecution
In a recent on line discussion about the attempted bombing this past Christmas holiday, a couple of posters made some claims I strongly disagree with. One person stated that he'd "...feel better if he [Obama] hadn't allowed the crotch-bomber to be read his Miranda rights so we could maybe get some intel from him." he went on later to say that he wanted "...him tried as a war criminal, by a military tribunal, not as simply someone who committed a crime, by a federal court, who is now all lawyered up and not talking". Another, in agreeing with the above mentioned poster, said that, "Allowing this guy to lawyer up and receive the full benefits of a culture he is trying to destroy, is perverse."
I truly believe in our system of justice, as it is, for the most part, the fairest and most reliable one in the world that is founded on the value of maximizing the chances of an innocent person retaining their liberty. Those who fundamentally disagree with this must first be willing to settle the issues of doing away with our Constitution and reassessing what values this nation should truly be founded upon if the credibility of their position is to be maintained. On the contrary, to employ methods that run contrary to the values of our culture in this struggle would be "perverse", or, at best, counter productive in this on-going struggle.
Military-style/international tribunals were mainly created for two reasons. One intended application is prosecution of those who committed acts that the civilized world considers wrong, yet said perpetrators are outside of an agreed upon jurisdiction of a civil justice system. The other application would be for those who acted under the color of their state in times of war or a government sanctioned action and need to have their actions judged in light of the special circumstances that come with the duties and rules they must act under.
Once convicted, there is nothing preventing civil, military, or special intelligence officials from thoroughly interrogating this, or any other individual at length. The 5th Amendment right to not give information against yourself would not be applicable, particularly once immunity against further prosecution based on said information had been granted. If there is valuable intel obtained from said investigation, the few years one might add to his original sentence via further prosecution would pale in value to that intel's value.
There are no "approved techniques" a military interrogator can use that differ from any available to civil authorities that would make any difference in this, or most any other case. The use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" is not available to our military forces, and is, in fact, less reliable and effective than other methods used by our military's professional interrogators. This fact is supported by, among others, the Colonel who was in charge of this sort of thing just prior to the previous administration’s policy change on the use of torture during interrogation. The Colonel stated that there were overwhelmingly far more cases successfully retrieving reliable and useful intelligence using previously approved techniques than with those methods that damaged our image among our friends abroad and gave aid, comfort, and recruiting assistance to our enemies.
Finally, from a standpoint of our long term success in this protracted struggle, we require the ability to demonstrate that the knickers bomber is given a fair assessment, judgment, and sentencing for his actions in the eyes both our supporters and those who are still “on the fence”. While a military court may, in the end, come to a just and proper result, relying on our courts and the values of our Constitution, which we hold up to the world as the gold standard, is a far better choice for this than a military tribunal.
I truly believe in our system of justice, as it is, for the most part, the fairest and most reliable one in the world that is founded on the value of maximizing the chances of an innocent person retaining their liberty. Those who fundamentally disagree with this must first be willing to settle the issues of doing away with our Constitution and reassessing what values this nation should truly be founded upon if the credibility of their position is to be maintained. On the contrary, to employ methods that run contrary to the values of our culture in this struggle would be "perverse", or, at best, counter productive in this on-going struggle.
Military-style/international tribunals were mainly created for two reasons. One intended application is prosecution of those who committed acts that the civilized world considers wrong, yet said perpetrators are outside of an agreed upon jurisdiction of a civil justice system. The other application would be for those who acted under the color of their state in times of war or a government sanctioned action and need to have their actions judged in light of the special circumstances that come with the duties and rules they must act under.
Once convicted, there is nothing preventing civil, military, or special intelligence officials from thoroughly interrogating this, or any other individual at length. The 5th Amendment right to not give information against yourself would not be applicable, particularly once immunity against further prosecution based on said information had been granted. If there is valuable intel obtained from said investigation, the few years one might add to his original sentence via further prosecution would pale in value to that intel's value.
There are no "approved techniques" a military interrogator can use that differ from any available to civil authorities that would make any difference in this, or most any other case. The use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" is not available to our military forces, and is, in fact, less reliable and effective than other methods used by our military's professional interrogators. This fact is supported by, among others, the Colonel who was in charge of this sort of thing just prior to the previous administration’s policy change on the use of torture during interrogation. The Colonel stated that there were overwhelmingly far more cases successfully retrieving reliable and useful intelligence using previously approved techniques than with those methods that damaged our image among our friends abroad and gave aid, comfort, and recruiting assistance to our enemies.
Finally, from a standpoint of our long term success in this protracted struggle, we require the ability to demonstrate that the knickers bomber is given a fair assessment, judgment, and sentencing for his actions in the eyes both our supporters and those who are still “on the fence”. While a military court may, in the end, come to a just and proper result, relying on our courts and the values of our Constitution, which we hold up to the world as the gold standard, is a far better choice for this than a military tribunal.