Some still want civilian trials for terrorist

NY Times:

The Obama administration on Friday said that it would make no decision on where to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks “for weeks,” following a flare-up in the debate about whether that trial should take place in civilian court or before a military commission.

In a statement, the White House sought to douse speculation that a trial decision may be imminent. That speculation was fanned by a report that aides to President Obama may recommend that he pull the prosecution out of civilian court and send it back to a military commission, where the Bush administration had planned to hold it.

Still, in a conference call with reporters, three retired military officers said that holding a Sept. 11 trial in a military commission would be a grave mistake. All three had supported Mr. Obama a year ago when the president signed an order calling for the Guantánamo Bay prison to be closed.

“I would be deeply saddened if this thing would be reversed,” said one of them, retired Army Major General William L. Nash. “It would give aid to our enemies. It would lessen our relationship with allies who have been extremely happy with the reversal of course we have taken. This is not the time to be scared.”

In addition, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, a group of more than 200 relatives of victims of the attacks, issued a statement saying they were “deeply troubled” by reports that Mr. Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the attacks, and four accused co-conspirators might not receive a civilian trial after all.

“Civilian trials in federal courts have resulted in hundreds of successful terrorism prosecutions whereas military commissions are an illegitimate system that undermines the rule of law,” said Donna O’Connor, a spokeswoman for the group.

...

O'Connor is just flat wrong on questioning the legitimacy of the military trials. Her statement demonstrates an ignorance of history and the facts in this case. There have been trials by military commissions from the beginning of this country and there were several in World War II involving captured Nazi saboteurs. They are in full compliance with the rule of law.

She may have other reasons for opposing the trials, but she should not rely on the bogus arguments she makes in this story. She also overlooks the problems with civilian trials such as giving the enemy information on our sources and methods of gathering intelligence. There is also a more important factor. These trials do nothing to deter attacks by terrorist. Many of the civilian trials she refers to happened before 9-11, but they did zero to stop the attacks.

The main problem with the lawfare approach to dealing with terrorism is that it places us on the strategic defensive and puts us in the position of responding to attacks with massive investigations rather than using those people to prevent attacks and gather information from those caught.