Breaking Through MSM Wall

Feels good to get a letter published in the MSM (Chicago Sun-Times):

No trials for detainees

I read your Oct. 1 editorial* [''Bill setting rules for trying terror suspects is flawed''] hoping you'd outline the crime-scene processing procedures needed to ensure a fair trial.

Should soldiers roll out the yellow crime scene tape to preserve the evidence for trial? Who will interview the witnesses and ensure their appearance at the grand jury? You join the rest of the terrorist-huggers by citing the unique and rare case of Mahar Arar. His seems to be the only case of this sort.

This would be a good time for you to mention the protections that detainees enjoy. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Sept. 7 [in an opinion column by James Taranto]:

• ''Every detainee at Guantanamo (possibly excepting the 14 new arrivals) has gone before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, also known as an Article V hearing, to determine whether he actually is an enemy combatant. The Geneva Conventions require such hearings only in cases of doubt, and the U.S. Supreme Court has additionally mandated them (in the 2004 case of Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld) only for detainees who hold U.S. citizenship, of which none remain.

• ''Each detainee annually goes before an Administrative Review Board -- analogous to a parole board -- to determine whether he can be released without endangering U.S. security. This process is described in a July 2005 Pentagon briefing.

• ''Pursuant to Rasul vs. Bush (2004), all detainees have the right to retain lawyers and petition for habeas corpus.

• ''War-crimes trials for the four detainees who've been charged have been delayed only because Osama bin Laden's bodyguard was able to avail himself of American appellate courts to challenge the legality of the proceedings.''

I suppose this letter will prevent me from ever serving on a jury, which brings up the question: Who are the terrorists' peers?

Interesting blogpost from today about Maher Arar as the posterchild for U.S. abuses:

Well, it turns out we didn’t “render” Arar anywhere. We deported him under our immigration laws, meaning that we were done with him as a person of interest. Syria seems to have done what Syria does, or not.

Read the whole thing, even more on Arar here.

*The editorial in question:

Bill setting rules for trying terror suspects is flawed

October 1, 2006

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent, has spent the last two years trying to clear his name. In 2002, Canadian investigators wrongly told U.S. agents that Arar was a terrorist suspect and, as he traveled through New York, Arar was arrested by U.S. authorities and transported to Damascus, under the program of "rendition." In Syria, he was tortured and kept in a minute cell for more than one year. A hearing before a parliamentary committee in Canada revealed Canadian police told American authorities shortly after Arar's arrest that they had labeled Arar mistakenly, but by that time he was in Syria. On Thursday, the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police apologized to Arar.

What Arar's case illuminates is how difficult it is to ferret out and punish terror suspects: Sometimes innocent people get caught up in the net, and there needs to be a way for them to prove their innocence through the courts.

The Senate and House are to be commended for getting to work on this issue, but the bill approved by Congress last week setting new rules for the trials and interrogations of terrorist suspects remains flawed. It takes away a suspect's right of habeas corpus -- seeking redress in court for unlawful imprisonment -- something that has been enshrined since English common law came into practice in the 13th century and is the cornerstone of American jurisprudence. The bill also allows U.S. authorities to hold people in prison even after the charges have been dropped. Someone could conceivably stay in prison for the rest of his life. It also allows legal residents in the United States to be labeled as enemy combatants.

It is not certain the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold these provisions after they are signed into law by President Bush. The Senate and House are dealing with this issue because the court last spring struck down the military tribunals established by the Bush administration, saying they did not conform with the Geneva Conventions.

Even some Republicans acknowledge that the new bill -- a compromise between the White House and leading Republicans such as Arizona Sen. John McCain -- may not fly with the Supreme Court. "We should have done it right," lamented Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) who voted for the bill but opposed the provision that would bar habeas corpus.

There is improvement in the bill over the previous military tribunals: It prevents evidence obtained through torture or inhumane treatment; the accused will be given access to a military or civilian lawyer, and the defendant will have access to the evidence mounted against him. But it is unfortunate that the Senate and House rushed to pass their bills, pressured by the upcoming election. The Republicans want to tout their ability to fight the war on terror. Democrats who voted for the bill don't want to be labeled as weak on security issues. But it is disappointing that the election, not common sense, forced the House and Senate bills to be passed. "I think election madness has taken any remaining oxygen out of this place," Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) told the Wall Street Journal. Politics doesn't always mix with good sense.