Former Reagan/Bush justice dept. appointees oppose civilian trials because they might find people not guilty

This is interesting. Two attorneys who served under Reagan and George H.W. Bush have a piece in the Wall Street Journal this morning about civilian versus military trials regarding terrorists and the like. They clearly support military tribunals but oppose efforts in Congress to prevent civilian trials by unconstitutional means.

But I had to laugh at their introduction: "Trying captured al Qaeda, Taliban, or allied terrorists in United States civilian courts is a bad idea." they write. And why is this one might ask? Well, they spell it out for the reader, "The near acquittal of Ahmed Ghailani--a key figure in the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania---in a New York federal court last month proves as much."

So what these two are saying is that they are opposed to civilian courts because in the instance they cite a civilian court almost found someone not guilty; someone they believe is a "terrorist". I think I am correct to deduce that they prefer military tribunals, but not only that, their reason is that they will find the person(s) they consider guilty, guilty. There were similar trials in the Soviet Union during the 1930's that these two lawyers would appreciate as everyone was found guilty. Some of the defendants were so sorry for their crimes they committed suicide.* The other point to recognize is the distrust these bourgeois have for the masses, for the working class.  The influence of workers and the middle class is too great in a civilian arena; the "people" cannot be trusted. A bunch of officers (and officers are from the ruling class) can be trusted to do the right thing.

We can trust these guys; can't we?

We should reflect on our own history regarding the right to a fair trial.  Blacks never got a right to a fair trial as they weren't citizens and even when they did become citizens they still didn't.  Women, Native Americans, poor people, never get fair trials; if you have money, you can get off, we all know this.  All workers, white workers as well, even when trial by juries were introduced were denied fair trials as there were conditions for being allowed to sit on a jury; owning property being one of them.  So all workers, as opposed to capitalists, were judged by white male property owners.

It was illegal in this country, like all countries, to form unions, to conspire with other workers with the intent of raising wages or improving working conditions. "Conspiracy" was a crime so workers were then tried in front of a jury consisting of property owners and businessmen.

Who are these people?

Even today, the judicial system is biased and we all know it.  But this does not mean we would oppose juries even in a capitalist regime.  We must favor civilian courts over military ones for the prisoners that are in the concentration camp in Cuba and that they be open.  Let's be honest, I have not a clue who is in Guantanamo.  Are they bad people?  Well we know that they have no rights. Some have been there for years without any evidence being produced against them.  Some were kidnapped, have since been freed and are suing governments for false arrest and torture. (See The Road to Guantanamo)
I do know the US offered Afghan tribesmen with 7th century mentalities $100 for every "terrorist" they brought in and, you know what, they went and found some.

The authors of this article also refer to the Taliban as "terrorists".  But what changed?  The US. as an earlier blog pointed out, had every Taliban official on its payroll for years.  They weren't the most progressive bunch back then either.

I am an average American. I probably read more current affairs and politics than most blue collar workers like myself do but I still know next to nothing about the people imprisoned in Guantanamo Cuba. (It serves us well to inquire as to how the US got a base in Cuba).  And the US prison system itself is a horror scene full of workers.  What do we know about what goes on there?  Nothing. I also do not trust the likes of the Pentagon generals and the politicians of the two corporate parties to keep me informed of the truth.  Individuals who are trying to keep me informed of the truth are either being hounded, being labeled terrorists or facing 52 years in jail like Bradley Manning.

The WSJ piece is solely about upholding the constitution and presidential power and the separate of powers.  But the authors have already decided as all of the mouthpieces of capitalism have, that military trials are better for them.  If they had their way, we wouldn't even have the set up we have now that pretends to be fair but at least gives the public a little more access to information.

Another positive aspect of the Wikileaks affair is it reveals the real nature of these bastards.  The diplomatic/democratic mask has been ripped off and the real nature of the system and its proponents has been revealed. 

* For an excellent account of Stalin's Trials see: 1937, Stalin's Year of Terror By V. Rogovin