.
Here’s an interesting perspective on the 9/11 New York trials.
A pure low-quality system (military commissions only) suffers from credibility problems. People will not believe that all the people who are convicted are guilty. A pure high-quality system (civilian courts only) would result in too many acquittals. People who the government believes are dangerous will be back on the streets. The two-tiered system allows for credible convictions when credible convictions are possible, and (non-credible) convictions when credible convictions are not possible. The two-tiered system produces higher overall credibility without sacrificing the incapacitation of dangerous (or supposedly dangerous) people.
The main criticisms of Holder’s approach are that KSM and others will take over proceedings and use them for propaganda purposes, that secrecy will be compromised, and that the approach signals insufficient seriousness about the terrorist threat. The first two concerns are actually irrelevant. The DOJ will decide on a case by case basis, and if those concerns in any particular case are serious, it will opt for military commissions. The last concern is harder to evaluate, but it boils down to the claim that a blunderbuss system that results in outcomes that people distrust is better, on symbolic grounds, than a surgical system that produces the same pattern of convictions but with higher overall credibility. Why would the more intelligent approach signal lack of seriousness about terrorism?
___
To receive email notifications of new posts from MarioPiperniDotCom, click on Subscribe.
.
