We should be seeking justice not revenge

One cannot help but wonder why some whose attachment to democracy cannot be seriously called into question are so afraid of justice, preferring revenge instead.
Granted, the latter is certainly much more satisfying, emotionally.
In a democracy however, everyone has the right to a fair trial, even those suspected of having committed the most heinous crimes.
That simple feature-the fair trial- is precisely what differentiates (among other democratic trappings) a civilized society from all the others.
Naturally, it would have been far more convenient to dispose of Mr. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Guantanamo, and execute him there after an ersatz of a trial that would have reached the preordained guilty verdict in an expeditious manner.
This unsavory procedure would have been conducted with limited media exposure, another significant advantage to the Guantanamo trial location.
Hence, many do indeed regret the fact that Mr. Mohammed will be treated like a human being, and, as such, granted rights that he does not deserve.
But that is precisely what a civilized society does with its enemies: it tries them not according to who they are, but according to its laws.
It does not devise laws of exception; create ad hoc courts, the aim of which is to obtain the guilty party’s conviction while denying him all of his fundamental rights.
What, exactly, would a military commission trial achieve, apart from creating additional martyrs for the al-Qaeda cause?
Yes, yes, we are told, but a public trial in a civil court would provide an ideal target for publicity-seeking al-Qaeda terrorists.
Maybe, but so would the Statue of Liberty or the Brooklyn Bridge.
Should we shut those down until further notice?
Zacarias Moussaoui was tried in a civil court in Virginia.
No bombs went off, no Islamic fanatics attempted to behead the judge or the jurors.
In addition, should we allow ourselves to be intimidated or cowed into submission, into betraying our principles and ideals because our enemies could potentially resort to violence?
Yes, yes the supporters of expeditious justice retort, but what if the trial concludes with a verdict of not guilty?
Considering the evidence available, that is highly unlikely unless, and let us, for our part be candid here, this is the very reason why military commissions enthusiasts are so reluctant to allow a civilian trial, the evidence against the accused is so tainted that it may be declared inadmissible.
For, Mr. Mohammed was the hapless recipient of the Bush and Cheney enhanced interrogation techniques, and was water boarded 183 times…
Abu Zubaydah received the same treatment a mere 83 times.
The Bush and Cheney torture program may be exposed for the entire planet to see, further damaging America’s standing and reputation.
Without legitimate evidence, evidence not obtained through abuse and torture of the detainee, a conviction may prove problematic.
If we resort to the expedience of kangaroo courts in Guantanamo however, whose judges, juries, lawyers and prosecutors are all provided by the US military, we have nothing to worry about…
Yes, yes our seekers of perfect justice reply, but we shall have to tolerate Mr. Mohammed’s defense of the glory of jihad when he testifies.
What will the jurors, and the world retain, the glory of jihad, or the monstrosity of the crime, and the magnitude of the pain suffered by those personally affected by the tragedy, and to a lesser degree, by all decent human beings everywhere?
Publicity will not promote Mr. Mohammed’s barbarian cause, but expose its vile and nihilistic nature.
Al-Qaeda has much more to lose from a public trial than a civilized society does, for its motivations, actions and fanaticism will be publicly dissected and disseminated across the planet by the international media.
In essence, we have captured these terrorists abroad, held them in secret prisons as ghost detainees, abused them while they were there, and transferred them to Guantanamo where they underwent further torture, violating all of their basic human rights.
Moreover, because we did so, we cannot try them in our courts, that is to say in our genuine courts, those presumably reserved for upstanding citizens such as ourselves.
And since we cannot, then we shall continue denying them their rights as human beings, which as civilized men and women we should feel bound to protect, by trying them in kangaroo courts, or simply detaining them forever if we have no evidence, tainted or otherwise, against them.
Some may consider this justice, their quest for revenge satisfied.
This writer is not among them, and cringes with shame at the very prospect.
The opponents of civilized justice however, have a point when they criticize Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri (another water boarded detainee), alleged organizer of the attack on the USS Cole, in a military tribunal.
One is at pains to discover the logic behind that decision.
What we have been attempting to do here is defend the universal principle of justice, of justice for all, not justice for some, excluding those we loathe the most, such as Mr. Mohammed, to the point that we betray every principle we hold dear while detaining, interrogating and judging them.
Military commissions, extra-territorial prisons and judicial shortcuts should not be tolerated.
They have no place in a civilized society.
The crucial issue at stake is the following: we can be faithful to ourselves, to our own history, our principles, our conception of justice, to what we teach our children in our schools, and what a civilized society is, for surely that is what we purport to have erected.
We can try Mr. Mohammed and his accomplices and ensure that our laws, and the rights of all involved are respected, and that at the conclusion of a fair trial, he will receive the sentence he deserves.
Or, we can make concessions, exceptions and argue that Mr. Mohammed’s case is an extraordinary one demanding extraordinary courts and rules.
Yet, can we do all that in the name of democracy and justice, in order to defend both more effectively?
Can we truly betray our concept of justice in the defense of a democratic society?
Can injustice truly serve the interests of a democratic society?
Can a society resorting to such means long remain democratic?
We can try, and run the risk of undermining that which we claim to defend, but we shall also expose ourselves to the damning accusation that al-Qaeda and other enemies have been making about Western democracies for years: that we are nothing but hypocrites whose high morals, principles and values are reserved for the chosen few, namely people like ourselves, and are dispensed with at will, whenever it suits us…
(the photograph of KSM is by Reuters)