The “Mastermind” Trials

Tim Johnston (14/11/09)

There have been mixed reactions to the prospect of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged “mastermind” behind the attacks on 9/11, in New York City.  Unsurprisingly, however, the majority of opinion falls in favour of this – as it should.  All peoples in Guantanamo deserve a fair hearing given, even on the most basic of levels, their human rights and civil liberties; and the revocation thereof for the past several years.

Not only has America arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed unlawfully i.e., for no stated reason whatever, ensuring the absence of all human rights, but the US has also insisted in pursuing the investigation unjustly (as they’d been doing when they water boarded Mohammed 183 times in March of 2003).  How is it that any confession of his can be taken seriously after having been drowned and suffocated over six times per day?  Christopher Hitchens was waterboarded (on a voluntarily basis) to determine whether waterboarding was indeed torture or simply an “enhanced interrogation technique”, as the Bush administration so eloquently put it.  Hitchens lasted no more than two seconds and proceeded to write an article entitled “Believe Me, It’s Torture”, concluding that “if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.”  CIA officers who have subjected themselves as Hitchens did lasted an average of fourteen seconds i.e., no time at all.  That the BBC can even talk of the fact that such torture could ”potentially [render] some evidence inadmissible” is beyond reason.

A trial whereby waterboarding is considered as only a “potential” – a maybe, a possibility – and that the systematic torture that Mohammed endured may not count against his “confession” is a far cry from justice.

John Boehner (the Republican Leader of the House) is firmly against Mohammed’s trial in New York given that “the possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found not guilty due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause [for thought]”.  In saying so he has conveniently stated that his mind is made up – that Mohammed is guilty; “Mohammed and his co-conspirators” (italics mine) and that he holds the unreasonable belief that his not being found guilty is a likely unfolding. Mohammed will almost certainly receive the death penalty.  Obama couldn’t get away with not ensuring that Mohammed was executed – the people wouldn’t tolerate a sentence that excludes the death penalty, given that it would seem as though Obama was “soft” on terrorism.

Most objections to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial in a civilian court are that it could jeopardise the security of the United States.  This is, obviously, ridiculous; if they can keep him locked up for several years they can do it for another few months.

There are calls for Mohammed to be tried at a military tribunal.  However, the 9/11 attacks, as Amnesty International has stated, were crimes against Humanity.  For these acts to qualify as acts of war they have to fit certain criteria – which they do not do (insofar as the attacks were terrorist atrocities and not the act of a clearly determined enemy i.e., not a uniformed organisation or state.

A civilian trial does, however, pose some serious problems.  They are as follows: that a jury made up of citizens from New York City is likely to be far from unbiased.  That there will be significant pressure from both citizens and others in positions of power within the US government and the peoples of the court to find Mohammed guilty.  Americans have what is an often unhealthy appetite for justice and, by way of such an appetite, the compulsion to overrule justice completely.  For example, after 9/11, persuading the US population to invade Afghanistan wasn’t very difficult as they felt that some sort of retaliation was needed – almost deserved.  There is likely to be a similar feeling in court and across the country, and we’re beginning to see evidence of this.  There is also the problem of, if found guilty, the implementation of the death penalty – a sentence which would serve only to martyr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and not to exact justice.

Whatever the outcome of the trial, we can be safe in the assumption that the problems both preceding, during and post-trial will be far from over and, in all realism, will find themselves only to have been exacerbated.

To exaggerate this by enforcing such an irrevocable act as the death penalty serves only for the short-term appeasement of the ignorant majority, and fails to provide a fair and decent resolution.

Why there will be no deal in Copenhagen

Patrick Hogan

         In New York in late September, President Obama stood before nearly 100 global leaders at the United Nations’ one-day Summit on Climate Change and declared that ‘no nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change’ and announced that the US was ‘determined to act’ at home and abroad in order to ward off the worst effects of global warming. 

            It was a speech long on rhetorical flourishes and short on concrete action, but nonetheless managed to revive, however slightly, the flagging hopes of those who believed that the election of Obama as president would usher in a new age of American climate activism. 

The UN is hosting a conference in December in Copenhagen, the goal of which is to produce a successor to the soon-expiring Kyoto Protocol.  If there is to be any chance of a viable, binding pact resulting from the Copenhagen conference, the US must first pass comprehensive climate change legislation.  As the Council on Foreign Relation’s Michael Levi put it, ‘what we put in an international agreement is in some sense aspirational.  What matters is whether it’s reflected in domestic law’.

Using this metric, the situation looks grim.  In fact, meaningful domestic climate change legislation was probably dead in the water the moment Obama chose to devote his efforts and eye-watering amounts of political capital on health care reform.  Now, with that debate mercifully winding down, the ever-present war in Afghanistan has come to fill the vacuum and is back at the fore thus leaving little room for environmental legislation to make any headway in the public consciousness.  True, back in June the House (narrowly) passed a bill calling for 17% cuts in carbon emissions by 2020, the Senate will soon consider a bill mandating a 20% cut by that same year, and the public nominally support efforts to tackle climate change.  But Obama lacks leverage given his consistently sinking approval ratings, which means his bully pulpit no longer has the same clout. 

In any case, does he really want to fight for a bill now?  Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe captures the likely tenor of a climate change debate when he said the new Senate bill ‘will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers’.  The incredible salience of this argument at a time of economic distress only adds to its lethality.  I reckon this is a fight Obama hopes to avoid, perhaps waiting until next summer to finally bring about legislation.

So America will likely fly into Copenhagen with no template for action, likely preferring symbolic calls for cuts or else spurning a broad international agreement to instead work towards regional or national frameworks for action. 

As the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, American acquiescence to a robust climate regime is absolutely necessary if one hopes to blunt the more catastrophic effects of global warming.  It is farcical to think that other nations will be willing to shoulder the climate burden and agree to drastic cuts in their emissions if the US is not a party to an agreement.  Without demonstrable progress towards meaningful, achievable goals in America, however, it means the chance of an equally meaningful agreement being reached in Copenhagen is slim.

Despite Obama’s best intentions, America once again stands in the way of progress.