...And Justice For All
Justice
can be a complicated and messy
business, as we may soon
discover...
There
is precedent for the prosecution
of international killers with
both military tribunals as well
as civilian courts, and,
interestingly, both venues have
been employed for proceedings
against the same group of
defendants. Following the end of
World War II, the Nuremburg War
Crimes trials were convened, as a
military tribunal, to mete out
justice to captured Nazi war
criminals. Most were convicted,
and many executed for
"crimes against
Humanity". Military
jurisprudence brought justice and
closure to humanity's most sordid
chapter, and the decision to use
a military venue has, rightly so,
never been seriously questioned
(except by the defendants
themselves). Fifteen years later,
Israeli commandos apprehended top
Nazi fugitive Adolph Eichmann in
South America, spirited him away
to Israel, where a civilian court
convicted and executed him for
"crimes against
Humanity". That trial,
likewise, proved to be an
international showcase of
Humanity's victory over
Inhumanity, further demonstrating
the inevitability of Good
vanquishing Evil. Different
courts, with different
procedures, came to the same
conclusion for the same group of
criminals. So which is it?
On
the one hand, secret military
trials, though efficient, have an
intrinsically sinister and
undemocratic sound to them, and
what once worked at Nuremburg,
may not work now. On the other
hand, a high profile civilian
terrorist trial would give
defendants an unencumbered world
stage as a showcase for fiery
fundamentalist rhetoric, a
platform upon which to build
political and ideological
support, turning the proceedings
into a mocking circus, all the
while served up as surreal
entertainment in the bright glare
of international media. There are
also procedural, standard of
proof, and exclusionary
differences between the two. A
civilian trial would, with the
help of "Dream Team"
defense attorneys, proceed to
turn justice on its head by
putting the U.S government
"on trial", and we
could end up with the judicial
equivalent of a plane crash.
Conversely, a military trial
would keep much tighter control
over proceedings, but at the cost
of an appearance of impropriety
regarding judicial standards and
fairness, and the perception by
the Muslim world of a rigged
inquisition.
So
what will it be? An international
show-trial of ideological
theater, or a secretive, sober
and unscrutinized venue that
makes many of us uneasy?
Whichever way it goes, hopefully
the end result will serve up the
justice and closure we seek,
without too much confusion and
messiness.
|
