I can understand the argument that Khalid Sheik Mohammed should be tried in a civilian court. I can even understand that this should be done as part of an overall project for returning to a criminal-prosecution model instead if a war model in our conflict with al Quaeda. But for the White House to say, as it has done now more than once, that the defendant will be convicted, and then executed, is the worst of all possible strategies. If the point here is to assure that Mohammed has his day in court and a chance to defend himself, then saying beforehand that conviction is expected transforms the entire enterprise into a show trial that will serve as a propaganda coup for America's enemies, and alienate those who, though supporting America, believe the criminal-trial method more fair and effective. (True, convictions were a foregone conclusion at the Nuremburg trials--a fact Robert Jackson addressed in his opening statement--but this trial isn't being advanced on that precedent. This is a simple criminal trial rather than an international reckoning.)
I just cannot imagine what the administration is thinking by this. Are they trying to allay the criticism if their criminal-trial strategy by assuring people not to worry because it won't be a fair trial anyway? And if it isn't going to be a fair trial, what possible advantage is there to this than to indefinite detentions or military tribunals?
Update: Here's the actual video. If anything, Gibbs' comments are worse than I thought.
Comments policy