If I argued that those arrested for online child p-rnography deserve a fair trial, would anyone accuse me of being an apologist for child p-rnography?
If I suggested that a former senior cop charged with drug importation deserved a fair trial, would anyone accuse me of being an apologist for drug trafficking?
But if I suggested that the five men charged with being responsible for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington deserve a fair trial, I’d be labelled by some as an apologist for terrorism.
Indeed, some would look at the name my parents gave me, the city I was born in and other factors completely beyond my control and cast a host of aspersions.
It’s as if no-one having the same combination of ethno-religious factors died on that fateful day in New York or Washington.
What would these people say if someone named Stephen David argued that the al-Qaeda five deserve a fair trial? In fact, Colonel Stephen David is Chief Defence Counsel for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, Wallid bin Attash and Mustapha al-Hawsawi. David says that the process used to try these five defendants “is a fundamentally flawed process … Our nation deserves better than this”.
David should be glad I’m not one of the judges. I’m convinced of the guilt of at least 2 of these men, having read the masterful work of journalists Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding called Masterminds Of Terror: The Truth Behind The Most Devastating Terrorist Attack The World Has Ever Seen.
Fouda was chief investigative reporter with Al-Jazeera who spent 48 hours with both Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in a secret Karachi location. Fouda includes in the book the full transcript of his interviews with RB & KSM as well as RB’s own written justification for the attacks.
These men followed a demented politicised theology that was more anarchic than monotheistic. Some may wonder why it is that more Muslims than non-Muslims die from attacks by terrorists like KSM. Why don’t these men make exceptions for their own kind?
The reason is simple – according to al-Qaeda theology, virtually all Muslims are infidels, and the blood of an infidel (including my blood) can be spilt with impunity. Unless Yosri Fouda is making it all up, these men are guiltier than sin.
Yet still they deserve a fair trial. Evidence should be obtained without the use of torture in secret locations. Due process, not kangaroo court process, must be applied. If fair trials can be granted to suspected war criminals, surely they can be granted to terror suspects.
We hear it time and again from chest-beating politicians – the terrorists hate us because of our values. By denying terror suspects a fair trial, we are showing we hate our values at least as much.
I agree entirely with Mr Yusuf’s comments.
If the defendants are eventually permitted an appeal to the US Supreme Court, if the correct question is posed, I would feel confident the military trials will be found invalid for a number of reasons.
The only place to try these men is in a US court and with all tainted evidence witheld to reduce the opportunities for appeal.
“If I argued that those arrested for online child p-rnography deserve a fair trial, would anyone accuse me of being an apologist for child p-rnography?” Almost certainly, yes. Apart from that I agree with your sentiments.
Is this the rhetorical question and answer session or the Crikey FAQ page?
Have we just wasted time reading that all accussed should have rights to fair trail and due process when it is, i believe, comrehensively accepted by our society?
Isn’t all this taking place in another country, separate from Australia’s legal conventions?
While I agree that prisoners should not be tortured, these cases present difficult issues for those entrusted with the administration of justice and the security of civilian populations. If there is not a formal declaration of war, how can these indivduals be charged as “war criminals’? And if they cannot be charged with such, with what can they be charged? Do the provisions of the Geneva declaration apply, since these men are not representatives of a regular army and were not in uniform at the time of their alleged activities nor are they acting on behalf of a sovereign state.
What are the differences between the prisoner of war camps used by combatant nations in time of war in which captured combatants were presumably held until the end of hostilities, even if that meant several years, and the current arrangements for these Islamists? Clearly,there was no obligation on the part of combatant nations to pursue a legal process in order to intern combatants and even non combatants as was seen with Italian and german Australians and japanese Americans during WW 2.
Finally, there can be a difficulty in defining what constitutes ‘torture’ and interrogation. While I agree that water boarding is torture, I would not have any hesitation in supporting sleep deprivation as a legitimate interrogation technique, especially if the information I was seeking would prevent the type of multiple mid air plane bombing that was apparently thwarted recently by British Intelligence.