I can't believe the turn this thread took. Instead of discussing the details of the trial and the implications of it in the future, here we are debating whether show trials are a good thing.

ace, your acceptance and support of authoritarianism is a bit unnerving.

most authoritarian regimes justify themselves as being mostly about expedience.

Feynman perfectly explains the problem we have in this thread. Jump to 0m50s if the link doesn't.

If you're talking to someone who truly (and I never know with ace) believes that trials where the victor is already determined, or one where "everyone" knows the result before the trial begins, then you can't even begin to have a conversation about this trial in any sort of objective light. You're coming from entirely different assumptions, assumptions about what makes us America, about when the 'end justifies the means' (if ever), about whether being "at war" with someone should determine our actions, etc. The reason for this derailment is because ace made it a point to get his position addressed, and it's entirely a different topic than the OP's. You can't ever reach agreement on THIS issue if you don't even come from a similar set of assumptions about the rule of law or the nature of America.

I'll take a labyrinthine bureaucracy over an efficient authoritarianism any day.

ace, what risks were so great?

The Bush administration tried and convicted hundreds of "terrorists" in civilian courts sinjce 9/11:
Where was your outrage in these cases, ace? Where was the risk that concerns you so much?

The President of the United States, a lawyer, Constitutional law professor - stated that KSM, another Gitmo detainee, would be convicted and put to death when asked about the concerns of a civilian trial. His guarantee in light of the many concerns should be more disturbing than anything I post here. President Obama set the tone. We should not have civilian trials for enemy combatants. It is this administration that put the concept of "show trials" on the table. I think if we are going to have them, they need to turnout correctly.

Do you need me to find the President's actual quote or do you recall it?

---------- Post added at 12:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 AM ----------

I have no power in this regard, so are you directing your comment to the current administration that elected to conduct "show trials"?

I enjoyed a good roller derby match back in the day, so the issue of me wanting to see a good "show trial" should be put into perspective. I am not President, not the AG, not a Supreme Court Justice, not in Congress - I just want to see justice be done and I want to send a message to those who want to kill us and not a message that we are a joke.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 AM ----------

The risk that there is a judge or juror unwilling to do what is right for some reason.

This is an evolving matter. As we have gained more information it has become clear to some that many of these terrorist activities are not criminal matters and should not be treated as such, they are enemy combatants engaged in war.

My outrage is with a known guilty terrorist who killed innocent people not being found guilty for those deaths.

---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

If a mass murderer has been convicted of a crime and is scheduled to be executed and he was then connected to additional murders - would you conduct a trial? If so, why? What would be the point?

Answering those questions is the opening to understanding my position. I would conduct the trials, even delay the execution, and part of the reason would be to send a message. One, the family of the victims deserves closure. Two, to show that crimes will be solved. Three, to send a message to wanna be murderers. The trial would not so much be for justice but to send those messages, for the "show". In my mind, this has nothing to do with political persecution or fabricated justice.

I have no idea what you mean by an evolving matter, given that some of the most potentially dangerous terrorists were convicted in a federal court -- the so-called 20th hijacker Zacharias Moussaoui, the shoe bomber Richard Reid, the "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.

The risk? That a jury might demonstrate greater respect for the rule of law than those who are unwilling to acknowledge that torture and other questionable treatment of detainees in CIA black prisons is illegal under US law and treaty obligations... not to mention such testimony being highly questionable and unreliable.

I'm a big fan of justice. I really like the way our justice system works, where evidence is presented and adversaries, for and against, are charged with fulfilling their duty regardless of personal feelings. I especially like innocent until proven guilty. It's quite brilliant. I like most of all that its central aim is to convict the guilty and free the innocent.

We won't know who in Gitmo, or any other detention center (or whatever you'd like to call them), is guilty until they're tried in a court of law. The evidence should be presented for and against guilt and an impartial juror or jurors decide, based solely on the case, if the individual is actually guilty. The guilty should be necessarily sentenced and the innocent should go free.

I'm a big fan of justice.

I've heard of some folks who suffer from a condition in which a narcissistic conviction that they are right (and therefore the concept of justice does not apply to them exactly) is combined with a tedious preoccupation with their own honor and virtue. They call them qaida, qeada, qayda...something like that.

I will admit that I will let the lawyers decide this stuff and pay attention to the details. But, I'm wondering if military law is applied in Civilian court if these prisoners were captured by the military? If they were tortured, would that evidence be admissible? And shouldn't some parts of the testimony be classified and not put into public record for a set number of years?

And everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Now, it is debatable what the burden of proof is, but that needs be worked on.

For those whose guilt is in question, a trial is fine. The problem I have with a civilian trial is the expense for security and such. There were claims that one trial in NYC would cost $1 billion which I found absurd. So let them have a military trial at Gitmo.

For those who admit/brag they are guilty like the guy claiming credit for 9/11, or those who were caught in the act like the shoe bomber, why even bother with a trial. Just parachute them into a live fire military training exercise or something.

I used this example before and I will put more emphasis on it.

The Saddam Husein trial was a show trial.
There was absolutely no possibility that he was going to be found not guilty.
There was no possibility that he was ever going to be a free man.
Our government allowed the trial, because we knew these things.
The only point of the trial, was for the "show".

Yet, we play pretend here.

How about a Osama Bin Laden trial if he is captured, is there any possibility that we would allow him to not be convicted?

Would you have a trial for him? Why? Would you risk him walking the streets of NY a free man if he is found not guilty? Would you risk the message sent if a judge or a juror with an agenda cause an innocent verdict?

And it goes for some others - if all you see in the concept of "show trial" is Stalinistic justice, that is your limitation, not a problem with me.

I think you protest a little too much, Ace. So you misunderstood the concept of a show trial. So what?

I think he just "misunderestimates" the effectiveness of the American system of justice....that has resulted in the capturing of more alleged terrorists through legal criminal investigations than through detainment and torture in black prisons and prosecuting those alleged according to due process and with evidence that was gathered according to law.

Perhaps you're right.

Sadly, I expect he will continue to "refudiate"(dont you just love those Bushisms and Palinims) the rule of law and the concept of holding ourselves to higher moral standards than the enemy.

Hey "refudiate" is Oxfords "word of the year." Who knows maybe next years will be "ya'betcha?"

On the topic at hand- Data and facts have little to do with many people opinion of the world around them. For many it's much easier to watch "24' and think that's the way we should do things, it works so well. Myself I prefer to watch "The Family Guy" and think "yeah, that's pretty much the way things are."

What scares me is that it appears that some here would not know when a "show trial" is occurring. At first I simply expressed frustration over a trial that should not have been a civil trial, but given the responses to the concept of a "show trial" it is interesting. Now you state that I don't understand, there are different types of "show trials" - I described one type previously - here is another type - During the Jim Crow era in this country, there were often trials of KKK members - these were "show trials" where everyone knew a not guilty verdict would be obtained. Everyone knew it. Were those not "show trials"?

um, not to my understanding. There may be another term for trials that are slanted toward a pre-determined not-guilty verdict, but it's always been my understanding that 'show trials' were ones in which a guilty verdict was pre-determined and the court proceedings are played out in a way which makes possible no other conclusion. Kind of like Alice in the Queen of Hearts court, lol.

Not that it matters really. Quibbling.

I simply try to think things through to the logical conclusion. I can appreciate missing important points and some things that are obvious, it happens to the best. But, I don't run from my views and I defend them until I see a reason to change them. At this point I am not clear on what the disagreement is.

Do you think "show trials" are a perversion of justice in all cases?
Do you think the US Judicial system is too sophisticated for "show trials"?
Do you think our Constitution prevents "show trials"?
Do you think people don't get satisfation from "show trials"?
Is it that, it is distasteful to acknowledge what I present can be correct?
Do you need other examples of "show trials" to get beyond Stalin style "show trials"?

Restate the issue.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------

I think your definition is too narrow. I presented how I define the concept - and predetermination is key but in my mind it can be guilt or innocence. Also, to me the another important component is the goal of sending a message trumping justice.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

With new and more information we can make better decisions. For example given the results of this trial I suspect any non-US citizen being with at Gitmo will be given a military trial. There should be no more thought or consideration of trying high value known terrorists as if they are criminals in US courts.

...

Humor me once and answer some of the questions I present and I may walk away with a different view.

Was the Saddam trial a "show trial"?
Would an Osama Bin Laden trial be a "show trial"?


I gave my view, do you understand it and disagree? I tell you that I think there were "show trials" during Jim Crow involving innocent verdicts - what do you call those trials?

...

Silly me, of course you can not answer my questions - I must remember my questions are always rhetorical and I heard they often lead to headaches, so please be careful.

Now I am just piling on- you guys get me all worked up and then run away, what teases you are - but thinking of some other show trials, what about the Scopes Monkey Trial?

Scopes Trial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point of this trial was to obtain a guilty verdict (everyone knew the defendant, including the defendant was guilty) to challenge an unconstitutional law for the purpose of.....sending a message! What would you call that trial, if not a "show trial"?

So are you purporting that we set up kangaroo courts without allowing defendants due process or not? I can't quite get a handle on what your definition of show trial is.

...

No. However, I would not try non-US citizens who are enemy combatants in the US Court System. I would use military courts or establish legitimate courts outside the US for the purpose of trying non-US citizen terrorists.

Well, a start may be telling me if you think the Saddam trail was a "show trial"? Or, how or if you would try Osama Bin Laden?

Or, a start could be stating if you think we are in a war or not? If you see criminal activity where I see war activity we will never see eye to eye on the subjects that follow from that point.

in today's episode ace lets us in on his private language.

it's a bendy place, his private language, where words mean whatever ace says they mean.
that makes ace the decider.

sometimes he doesn't like what words come to denote.
he puts them on the witness stand and asks them lots of questions.

so mister bad word, why do you mean this thing and not that?
why?
why?
why?
why?

stop meaning this thing. mean that thing.

why?
why?
why?
why?
why?
why?

stop meaning this thing. mean that thing.

the guilt of words is determined in advance of course. but it's the theater that's important.

once he's demoralized the words with his penetrating line of questioning, he takes the bad meaning downstairs and shoots it in the head.
just like beria used to do except of course not like beria because he was a bad man. a stalinist.
bad.


after ace has shot the conventional meanings of word in the head and buried them in his basement, he replaces them with special ace-meanings that make the whole world do exactly as ace-the-decider thinks it should.


now let's return to our regularly scheduled programming in which ace works to make the term show trial mean whatever he wants it to mean.

...

That would actually help, I actually appreciate the effort people put into analogies. I also think they are very effective and they make communicating fun. If you have one please share.:thumbsup:

Look at it this way, given my personality, if you can get me to change my mind when I get entrenched, as I am now, everyone else you interact with with be like a piece of cake.

If I am missing substantial responses to the points presented, rather than complaints about me, my style, etc., perhaps I need to re-read this thread. Can you give me an example of a post that I may need to re-read?

Look at it this way, I am not mainstream America, I am cutting edge. It is not that I don't understand, I don't agree - there is a difference. If Webster defines the term the way you show - can we change it? I think we should.


Yes, yes, it is all about me and my problems. I am not going to change, my style is not going to change - if you want to improve the discourse I am more than happy to stick with the substance in each post, how about it?

Was the Sddaam trial a "show trial"? Would you try Osama Bin Laden in US courts risking that he go free?

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

What do you call some of those KKK trials during Jim Crow where everyone knew they would be found innocent?

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

Like I wrote what scares me is when people are witnessing something that they think is something other than what it really is - it suggests the ease in which some can be manipulated.

When the President guaranteed a guilty verdict and execution of KSM, you thought that there is going to be a legitimate and fair trial where KSM might walk??????

Much of the evidence against the defendant was obtained with the understanding that the man would have been tried as an enemy combatant. When it was moved to the civil courts essential evidence was deemed inadmissible. Had this been declared a civil issue from the start the methods of interrogation would have, no doubt, been different. Perhaps the same incriminating information would have been gleaned from that. As it stands it's the lack of admissible evidence that saw the dropping of the charges.

The tragedy is that changing the rules of the game only served to negate bodies of evidence that had been gathered and prevent key witnesses from testimony. It's not on the weight of evidence but by the explicit lack of admissible evidence that the verdict was reached.

The tragedy is that Obama didn't understand this would happen when a previously military tribunal is suddenly transferred to a civil court.

The tragedy is that Obama wanted to use this case to prove to the world that such a case can be tried in a civilian court with clear convictions in, what his administration deemed to be a clearly guilty individual i.e. a "show trial." The administration's embarrassment over the verdict makes it all the more poignant.

The tragedy is that a case like this sets a precedent for other cases to follow - and that, should further civilian trials of terrorist suspects from Guantanamo continue, similar outcomes and even outright acquittals can be expected.

Regardless of what you might think of how suspects were treated at Guantanamo this particular case would have been better served in military tribunal.

In the long run you can argue that this outcome will improve the treatment of suspected terrorists in the future. I grant you that. But here and today we run the risk exonerating many people who remain a potential threat to the US and the world. And that is clearly a tragedy.

...

Good post.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<SHOW TRIAL DEFINITION: THE END>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, anyway, about this trial: it seems that the key evidence against this guy was a witness, whose name was discovered through unlawful interrogation. The fruit from the poisonous tree can not be admitted as evidence. This is a fundamental principle to our legal system.

This appears to be the first real consequence of harsh interrogations. While they might yield information which prevents other terrorist attacks (some would say that makes them worthwhile), the information they yield can not be admitted at a trial as evidence.

I would say this also makes a civilian trial for KSM impossible, since his confession was post-interrogation, no? I don't know what to make of this. I can't say I want him walking around, but what choice do they have?

horseshit.

if "tragedy" there is in this, it all follows from the bush administration's actions. it follows from their bad legal and political decisions. it follows from the bush administration's decision to allow torture to be used as a "harsh interrogation technique." there was and is and can be no excuse for any of that. and i think it's a good thing that the infotainment extorted from people by these appalling means is not admissible in court.


and there are no national security arguments that should allow for the basic rules that prevent civilized countries from sliding back into the pathological muck.

it amazes me that there are conservatives willing to indulge the paranoia game so thoroughly as to result in condoning torture.

that's the tragedy.

You fail to recognize that more alleged terrorists have been caught as a result of good police work (primarily civil investigations with international cooperation) and by legal means than by snatching them off the streets of Baghdad or Kabul tossing them in a CIA black prison and coercing confessions (often unreliable in their very nature) ...and they were provided due process and tried and convicted in federal courts by the rules of law.

You also ignore the fact that the Supreme Court also declared the military commissions w/o providing some level of due process to be unconstitutional.

I think maybe you're conflating a show trial with a showy trial.

I don't know that much about Saddam's trial, other than it was an Iraqi trial and prob. not one I'd want us to emulate. His execution was showy if I remember correctly.

I would imagine that an Osama bin Laden trial would be very showy.

And no, I don't believe that we are in a 'war on terror.' I believe that the 'war on terror' is a figure of speech that denotes a network of ongoing covert operations to protect American interests.

The "tragedy" is that the previous administration wasn't happy with the limitations that both a military model or a civilian one present. They opted to make up the rules as they went and leave it to someone else to clean up.

The sentence isn't 20 yrs, it is 20 to life in a federal system that doesn't allow parole. We'll see; but I'd be surprised if he receives the minimum sentence.

We're a nation of laws and process. This sets a precedence for rules of evidence and process that will carry forward. It's hard to claim moral superiority when you violate your own rules.

StanT,

You got it right. If he gets, say, 40 years for this, I'll be fine with the outcome. I'm actually surprised they managed a conviction considering the rules of evidence they had to play under. I haven't located a detailed description of how they managed to get this charge to stick. Has anyone else seen that? Why was this charge different?

Unless they've been convinced already, all of their guilt is in question. You can't just assume the evidence against someone demonstrates their guilt. That goes against our understanding of justice.
They're not under military jurisdiction. They're not soldiers, they're (accused) criminals. Anyway, it wouldn't cost $1b multiplied by however many detainees there are. That $1b number is based on a show trial in NYC where one or a few detainees are tried publicly in what I would imagine would be an OJ Simpson kind of circus.

Military trials mean secret evidence and closed doors. Do you want the world to see that the United States doesn't kidnap and hold innocent people? You do that with trials on the public record.
You can't possibly believe this. At least let them plead guilty in court and then be properly sentenced. It won't cost $1b to have them take 5 minutes to plead and maybe a day in sentencing.