Reruns from the White House

I just believe that as a matter of principle that you don’t unnecessarily share classified information with terrorists in the course of a military tribunal.

- Senator John Cornyn

The White House has submitted its "new" proposal for trial procedures for so-called "enemy combatants," and - whouda thunkit - the "new" rules are are practically, to the letter, the old ones which the Supreme Court (and civilized people everywhere) rejected as unconstitutional, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and in general barbaric.

If at first you don't succeed, right?

I can't help but marvel at the doublespeak of people like Sen. Cornyn, speaking in favor of allowing prosecutors to present evidence that neither the accused nor their attorneys are even allowed to see.

At first it sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Of course you don't just share classified information with a terrorist! Who on earth would be stupid enough to argue for that?

Except:

1. The whole point of the trial is to determine whether the accused is a terrorist! Most accounts suggest that the vast majority of people being detained in US prison camps are not terrorists at all - and none of them has been accused successfully in a court. You might as well arrest the lady down the road and accuse her of plotting to blow up the Mall of America... and then refuse to share any of your "evidence" against her with her and her attorney, because who in their right mind would reveal to a "terrorist" the methods the authorities are using to catch terrorists? It's a catch-22, which is just how the Bush administration appears to want it.
2. Second objection - and this is just as basic, even if it appears slightly paranoid: How confident are we that the classification of evidence would be used fairly? The same people who are prosecuting the detainees are the ones who get to make the decisions about what is and is not classified. The Bush administration has a remarkable zeal for classifying things just for the sake of keeping them out of the public eye (old Cold War statistics about Soviet military capabilities that have been declassified and known to scholars for years are now being reclassified by the Bushies, just because). It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that if classifiying a bit of hearsay (also allowed as "evidence" by the Bush rules) keeps the accused from showing why the rumor against him is ridiculous, and allows prosecutors to get the conviction they're after, that the system of classification can and will be abused to manipulate trial outcomes.

"But these are bad people!" some folks object. "They aren't the lady down the road."

And how do you know that these are "bad people"? Because the authorities tell us so. And don't you suppose that if that neighbor lady were hauled in for her "terrorist plan" that you'd be hearing all about what an evil person she was?

If we're willing to accept that everyone the Bush administration claims is "evil" actually is evil, then it's really silly to waste all this time with trials in the first place - just shoot 'em dead and be done with it... another evildoer leaking brains on the floor, and good riddance.

But if we care at all about justice, that's nowhere near good enough.

Justice depends on those with the power of the state proving their accusations before an unbiased third party. That raises high standards for the state. It isn't easy to to follow these standards if we intend to convict someone... nor should it be.

But it is just.

It is right.

It is American.