Even the victims families are unhappy with the 9/11 tribunals

Now, it needs to be made clear that this only a tiny sample of the relatives of the victims.

33 relatives of those who died in the 9/11 attacks have written an open letter stating their opposition to these military tribunals, claiming they are illegitimate and politically motivated. This is a bold step from individuals who are no doubt seeking justie for the terrible tragedy.

Not everyone is as happy. Other relativies of the victims, those brought to witness the recent tribunal hearings have praised the tribunals or giving the accused some sort of a fair trial.

The statement, posted on the American Civil Liberties Union website is pretty broad and actually appears to criticize a lot of things about the process. Including, of course, the fact that the relatives brought to witness the tribunal hearings are chosen by lottery. These individuals are claiming that the relatives brought to Guantanamo (the ones who praised it as fair) were not representative of the rest of their views.

To be honest, I find this next statement the most intriguing:

We believe that the secretive and unconstitutional nature of these proceedings
deprive us of the right to know the full truth about what happened on 9/11.
These prosecutions have been politically motivated from the start, are designed
to ensure quick convictions at the expense of due process and transparency, and
are structured to prevent the revelation of abusive interrogations and torture
engaged in by the U.S. government. Unfortunately, any verdict borne of these
proceedings will lack legitimacy and leave us wondering if true justice has been
served. No comfort or closure can come from military commissions that ignore the
rule of law and stain America's reputation at home and abroad.

We here at Think Legal wholeheartedly support due process and access to justice. In fact, I strongly believe that a transparent and truly fair judicial process would do significantly more to improve the American image in the world than many other initiatives. It is a proud way of demonstrating this "freedom" that American likes to claim as their heritage. Further, it serves to reassure the families of the victims and the American people in general that the person charged truly did commit the crime.

This in no way should accuse the horrible crimes that were perpetrated, it simply means that extra care should be taken to ensure that the right person is indeed convicted. To paraphrase the old axiom at the core of many Western judicial systems: It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict one innocent one.

Again, the President-Elect has committed to closing this prison and bringing the accused to stand trial in civilian courts. This will help shore up the deplorable degredation of the rule of law in the last few years, and will hopefully yield a just result for all involved.

[Source: BBC News]

9/11 suspects plead guilty

The military tribunals set up to deal with prisioners held in Guantanamo have been contentious at best. In fact, these tribunals have been a major source of concern during the election itself, with Obama making Guantanamo's closure a campaign centerpiece.

Further, the US Supreme Court had decided in June 2008 that prisoners at Guantanmo should have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts, not just these military tribunals. Although this decision hasn't really taken effect yet, progress is being made. The ability to try these cases in civil courts is a huge step forward in terms of the rights of these 'unlawful combatants'. They would, essentially, receive many of the same constitutional rights that other foreign citizens receive in the United States. Although different court procedures may take place (perhaps similar to Canada's security certificate procedures), there would not be the same type of kangaroo court that the military tribunals have become.

Thus, it is interesting that some of the major 9/11 suspects (including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) have told a military judge that they wish to plead guilty to the charges against them. This would, in essence, guarantee their execution. Originally, Mohammed had entered a defence and appeared as if he wanted to contest his detention. Now, the new plea would withdraw these pleadings and enter a guilty plea, hastening his demise.

The fascinating aspects of this case include the fact that this change of heart may have to do with Obama's intention to close the prison and allow civilian courts. There is the possibility that the death penalty would no longer be an option, and therefore these suspects would be denied the martyrdom they claimed to be seeking.

[Source: BBC News]
---------------------------------------
UPDATE - Dec 9, 2008

It seems I was right in guessing that the guilty plea entered by the 9/11 plotters was a bit of a sham.

The guilty plea would have actually exempted them from the death penalty, something the five defendants were seeking so they could gain martyrdom. In fact, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed directly asked the court, when told about this, "Are you saying if we plead guilty we will not be able to be sentenced to death?"

And then the plea gets withdrawn, so it sounds as if they are looking to be found guilty the good old fashioned way. I am unclear if, under the current military tribunal, a guilty plea exempts you from the death penalty while a conviction makes you eligible for it. So far this is unclear.

More importantly, I guess, is the concern over what will happen now that Obama is trying to close Guantanamo. I am interested to see if the closure and subsequent dismantling of these military tribunals will happen before the full trial of these five plotters.

[Source: UPI]