I'm sorry, but I really must inflict a rant on you.
As you may know, President Obama has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, should be tried in a civilian court in New York rather than facing a military tribunal. What is frankly frightening in my view is the backlash that this has provoked in both the political arena and the media.
The argument being put by many otherwise rationally-mind people is that if any alleged terrorists are tried in a civilian court and subsequently acquitted, they would be released onto the streets of cities like New York, where they would be free to act on the anti-American tendencies they were always suspected of harbouring.
What no-one is mentioning is what exactly the subtext of this argument is: that what they are demanding is a system which guarantees that anyone who is tried is indeed convicted. In other words, that all those sent for trial are found guilty.
This is a gross violation of the principle of justice and the notion that, no matter how much damning evidence there may be against someone, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. What is being suggested here is that simply because these people have been detained in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, they must perforce be guilty.
The 9/11 attacks were cowardly and deplorable. But the desire for revenge or retribution should not tip the scales of justice one way or another. I have little doubt that prosecutors have enough evidence against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to lock him up for all eternity. What I want is a fair trial which shows that America truly believes in justice and the rule of law.
And that means the theoretical possibility that a defendant is found not guilty.
As you may know, President Obama has decided that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, should be tried in a civilian court in New York rather than facing a military tribunal. What is frankly frightening in my view is the backlash that this has provoked in both the political arena and the media.
The argument being put by many otherwise rationally-mind people is that if any alleged terrorists are tried in a civilian court and subsequently acquitted, they would be released onto the streets of cities like New York, where they would be free to act on the anti-American tendencies they were always suspected of harbouring.
What no-one is mentioning is what exactly the subtext of this argument is: that what they are demanding is a system which guarantees that anyone who is tried is indeed convicted. In other words, that all those sent for trial are found guilty.
This is a gross violation of the principle of justice and the notion that, no matter how much damning evidence there may be against someone, they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. What is being suggested here is that simply because these people have been detained in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, they must perforce be guilty.
The 9/11 attacks were cowardly and deplorable. But the desire for revenge or retribution should not tip the scales of justice one way or another. I have little doubt that prosecutors have enough evidence against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to lock him up for all eternity. What I want is a fair trial which shows that America truly believes in justice and the rule of law.
And that means the theoretical possibility that a defendant is found not guilty.
2 comments:
Get outta my country, you commie frog! ;-)
I did 10 years ago, you goose-stepping kraut-muncher! :-P
Post a Comment