The War on Terror Spectator
Redford’s Conspirator Fails to Delegitimize Military Tribunals
Bad news for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Last weekend, I had the unfortunate pleasure of watching Robert Redford’s latest political quixotic diatribe, this one veiled as a historic epic about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Story is as follows — Lincoln is assassinated, John Wilkes Booth is killed, co-conspirators are captured, one conspirator is a woman who receives the death penalty but should be set free because a military tribunal was used. What could’ve been an intriguing and insightful look at an event that forever changed America, Redford uses this opportunity as a not-too-subtle jibe against military tribunals.
The issue of military tribunals surfaced again last year as the Obama administration decreed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) — the al Qaeda mastermind behind 9/11 — be tried in a NYC public court as opposed to a military tribunal. This sparked uproar among NYC residents directly affected by the 9/11 attacks and other concerned legal officials since KSM was not a U.S. citizen, did not have the same rights as one, and should therefore be tried as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal. In addition, the publicity a public trial receives would assuredly provide aid and comfort to al Qaeda as KSM would have a public forum to list his grievances against the United States and no doubt embolden the enemy around the world.
The current debate about military tribunals started after the U.S. military needed to hold al Qaeda enemy combatants from on and off the battlefield, primarily from Afghanistan and Iraq. Many combatants were transferred to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Gitmo) where they were interrogated to extract intelligence and to determine a proper course of judicial action. The controversies surrounding the use of tribunals began after the infamous Abu Ghraib pictures surfaced and issues of “torture” and prisoner treatment became a part of the War on Terror debate.
So what exactly is a military tribunal? According to the U.S. Department of Defense, military tribunals or commissions are used to “try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war.” Military tribunals are part of the military justice system used primarily for non-U.S. citizens during times of war. Like our criminal or civil court system, there is a judge, jury, a lawyer representing both prosecution and defense, but the trial is not open to the public. While more discreet in nature, our military tribunals are certainly a far cry from what Taliban or al Qaeda leaders would offer our captured soldiers.
The purpose of the tribunals is to provide swift justice during military conflicts and to also keep sensitive military intelligence out of the public eye, if determined it would harm troops in the battlefield or threaten the ongoing military operation. Before President George W. Bush used them, FDR had used them in WWII, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and even George Washington used them during the Revolutionary War. Each president understood there was a necessity for such a court system as no president wanted to jeopardize the ongoing military operation or harm troops on the battlefield.
If this is the case, why all the hullabaloo over tribunals for people like KSM — someone who obviously has important intelligence and would affect an ongoing military operation? Ignoring history, Democrats have forgotten or have purposely chosen to ignore precedent from previous presidents, including their standard-bearer FDR. For purposes of political expedience they used this issue in their arsenal of attack on President Bush trying to paint him as a war-mongerer who championed the Patriot Act, Terrorist Surveillance Program, and Gitmo itself.
Ironically, it is these same programs that President Obama now embraces, or at least supports without much fanfare. Bowing under political pressure, President Obama ordered his Attorney General, Eric Holder, to recant their previous decision to try KSM in a NYC public trial and instead will now be tried at Gitmo by a military commission. A noted columnist eloquently stated that “President Obama will try Khalid Sheik Mohammed at a facility he vowed to close and by a process he harshly condemned.”
To be fair, the co-conspirator trial used in the movie was used against U.S. citizens. After this trial the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a year later that U.S. citizens could not be tried in a military tribunal. The argument could be made that Redford was only highlighting an abuse in this particular instance, yet it’s hard to separate the political parallel and message that stems from this movie let alone Redford’s well-known public record of supporting Democrat causes.
Unfortunately for Redford, he was too late to affect the national debate as the movie opened a week after the Obama Administration changed their mind about KSM. To add insult to injury, The Conspirator, in Hollywood’s great tradition of liberal propagandizing, has not fared well at the movies, taking in less than $4 million and didn’t even crack the Top 10 movies in its opening weekend. Rio the Movie, Scream 4, Soul Surfer, and the Arthur remake are movies that beat out The Conspirator. Ouch!
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles From The War on Terror Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/26/redfords-conspirator-fails-to
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dee See| 4.26.11 @ 6:38AM
Ad nauseum Lincoln retreading (Spielberg,
Tom Hanks, Sally Field).
MEANWHILE, even as Clint Eastwood and James Cameron serve up one dose of EUGENICS pre-progranming after another ---not a peep about
the Globalist RED China sellout-TREASON op.
---or the awesome, ever unfolding RED Chinese
'eugenics friendly' Halocaust.
Yeah! ---MORE Lincoln.
Just the thing!
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRight
Doctor Right| 4.26.11 @ 7:13AM
Robert Redford is like a child's wind-up toy that cranks out one failed, liberal movie after another...yet the idiots in Hollywood keep financing his ideas, despite his recent track record of losers ("Lions for Lambs", anyone?).
Liberal movies that denigrate America rarely succeed at the box office.
Seek| 4.26.11 @ 11:41AM
Having seen "Lions for Lambs," I can assert that it did not "denigrate" America any more than Ron Paul "denigrates" our country by calling into question the wisdom of the war.
Doctor Right| 4.26.11 @ 2:22PM
The "wisdom of war" is a tired, over-used cliche' of a term favored by tired old hacks like Robert Redford.
When one's nation is attacked, the "wisdom" of what to do is obvious except to those who prefer mental masturbation to action.
If weak, surrender.
If strong, fight back...hard...until your enemy is defeated.
Those who believe (like Redford) that our national security is grounded in the good intentions of others are fools.
mames| 4.26.11 @ 3:42PM
As a terminal Constitutionally Limited Republican I try to separate the skill of these lefties from their politics. The film was historically accurate and Redford is an excellent director. The acting was superb and even though I am aware of Redford's views about military trials the trial in this movie is applied to a citizen which was soon after struck down by the supreme court. Military Tribunals are absolutely necessary regarding enemies and combatants against the US but against citizens it is wrong. TRY, I know its hard, to view the movie in isolation of his political views and it will play much better. Full disclosure I have always found Redford to be both woefully misguided in his politics and at once a fine actor and an ever better director. His best work being A River Runs Through It. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are many willfully leftist films that deserve to be blasted but this is not one of them.
Appleby| 4.26.11 @ 7:18AM
In a time when real life is traumatic, people simply do not want to pay $50 for a night out to see depressing political nonsense. Someone in Hollyweird who can read should study what they were showing during World War II and get with the program.
tsd| 4.26.11 @ 8:22AM
Just because a person can act (or sing, make jokes or play a sport) does not give them any special ability to reason or access to great wisdom... proven by morons like Streisand, Hanks, Redford, Bono, etc. etc.
mames| 4.26.11 @ 3:52PM
The world is full of folks with more money than brains. Like Buffet, Trump, Gates...
Intelligent Design| 4.26.11 @ 8:37AM
Not to change the subject, but how many Muslim terrorists have already walked across our border with Mexico and are now here planning more attacks on American citizens? Among the millions of illegals, there must be at least a few hundred. So while we have troops chasing around in Iraq and Afghanistan looking for the bad guys, they are setting up shop all over the United States, probably using mosques and receiving funds from the Muslim Brotherhood.
WeMustResist| 4.27.11 @ 6:34AM
Funny you should mention this. After reading the story on Robert Redford I scrolled down and clicked on an Eric Blair story about Miranda rights. It was very sad to see how innocence and justice have been slain by the Left. The last paragraph was very topical, and it could fit into a good movie, if only Hollywood loved America. It goes like this:
"...Instead, the police must wait until a crime is being committed before investigating.
All this came home to roost in August 2001 when the FBI arrested Zacarias Moussaoui, a French national who had aroused suspicion when he was taking flight classes in Minneapolis. Moussaoui was held for having an expired visa. He also had a laptop computer. FBI officials in Minneapolis wanted to look into his computer and search his room but were told by supervisors in Washington that they lacked "probable cause." "All you've got is a guy with an expired visa taking flying lessons," was the response. "Where's the crime?" Minneapolis officials complained bitterly that "somebody better do something before this guy flies an airplane into the World Trade Center."
Moussaoui was the "20th hijacker." On his computer were contacts that could have led FBI officials to other members of the September 11th conspiracy. Because there was no "probable cause," however, his hard drive remained unopened and nothing was discovered...."
So there a gripping contemporary story which Hollywood and the Left ignore. In addition I read the comment by Intelligent Design which says that the current big threat to US security is being ignored by Washington, and we all know that this willful ignorance is at the request of the Left. Redford chases baddies from 14 decades ago and the next huge defeat and death are just blinked at. Wake up everyone! If you don't control your border you don't control your fate. You know that large numbers of people hate your guts and want to kill you and yet you dont know when they come to visit you. Do you think you are safe? Is it impossible for Iran and/or North Korea to assemble a nuclear device in the USA?
Hillel| 4.26.11 @ 9:17AM
Good grief,Mary Surat et al WERE guilty of treason. The eidence is good. It is also a victory for Women as she too was hanged. Redford has been anti-American for years. The supreme court decion was a dead letter and the military tribunals under reconstruction continued.
mames| 4.26.11 @ 3:54PM
Your historical perspective is incredibly certain given the uncertainty of many fine conservative historians.
Matthew Quigley| 4.26.11 @ 9:26AM
I have no doubt about Booth, Atzerodt, Herrold and the others, but I've had my doubts about Mary Surratt's culpability in the Lincoln Assassination Plot. Yes, the boarding house was hers, yes she was likely aware of the plotting, but she wasn't an active member of the Booth conspiracy. That makes me have reasonable doubt about whether she should have been hanged or simply spent time behind bars for being an accessory before the fact. I truly think prison time was in order, but hanging her was a bit much. Herrold, Atzerodt...string 'em up. Booth deserved getting shot in that barn, no doubt at all. But Mary Surratt, I believe, did NOT deserve what she got.
David T| 4.26.11 @ 9:49AM
Redford's such a disappointment. He's an intelligent, talented director, but his liberal bias and preachiness get in the way of his art.
Anthony| 4.26.11 @ 9:59AM
Redford's profound lack of knowledge about the history of military tribunals could fill volumes.
But he is of no consequence, he is a product of the Hollywood left, like so many of those vapid and vain fools looking for credibility.
Remember Tim Robbin's "chill wind" speech about the left's hysterical fever over allegations of Bush's control over free speech? This fool has remained silent over Obozo's desire to shut down the internet and the reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine", not suprising.
Or DeNiro, who apparently has seen all of Obozo's school records, passports, social security cards, including the one from Connecticut, and of course, the birth certificate, such that he is certain of Obozo's origin.
It's like the prospector said in "Butch Cassidy and the SDK", (when Newman and Redford are confused as to when the banditos will strike, after picking up the payroll, not before DUH!!!), "MORONS, I'M SURROUNDED BY MORONS."
Indeed we are!
Richard Baker| 4.26.11 @ 10:10AM
Quigley:
Is allowing a plot to assassinate the President to be planned in your house with your direct knowledge active enough for you? Mary Surratt deserved her fate.
Paul Windels| 4.26.11 @ 10:14AM
There's more to this movie than current politics, and I'm sorry that your reviewer does not focus more on these aspects, which to me made the film well worth seeing. First, I think conservatives should applaud the fact that Redford makes CLEAN movies -- whatever his political bias. I'd have no problem taking a 13-year-old to The Conspirator. Second, the movie is part of a project to reacquaint Americans with our history, another good idea in this era where our schools and colleges teach anything but that. We can disagree with Redford's take on the Surratt case, but having healthy debate on the subject is for the good of all. And I think it's valuable for people to look at our history and try to understand it as it occurred in order to make better judgments on current affairs, rather than to judge our history based on what is currently convenient for them politically.
I thought the film did an overall good job of portraying the issue -- albeit in more simplistic terms than an actual academic study would have, but that's the limitation of a 90-min. movie. It showed that there was circumstantial evidence against Mary (and her son was up to his eyeballs in the plot) but that it was open to impeachment (of the two main witnesses against her, one was a drunk and the other might have been a coconspirator). At the same time, I have a hard time swallowing Mary's tale that she didn't recognize Lewis Payne (Powell) in the darkness, since Payne was a powerfully-built giant who had boarded at her house. Might the result have been different in a civilian court? Certainly so with a Maryland jury that included southern sympathizers and Lincoln haters. Perhaps not with an unbiased one.
The question that the film leaves open, but which I would like to see discussed is this. As Matthew points out, Mary was probably not at the center of the conspiracy (and probably would have escaped hanging had her son John been apprehended), but how does the gravity of the crime affect our judgment of her conduct? This was no ordinary conspiracy. Not only was this the murder of the President and an attempt to destroy the entire government, but it was Abraham Lincoln who was murdered. Would history have been different had Lincoln lived to oversee the Reconstruction (as opposed to Stanton, who is brilliantly played by Kevin Kline, btw)? Might we have avoided some of the worst of the Jim Crow era? So should we, as a moral matter, hold Mary Surratt accountable for a share of all of the bad consequences of the death of Abraham Lincoln? If so, then her punishment does not seem excessive.
Petronius| 4.26.11 @ 10:23AM
Redford probably believes he is Stanley Cramer's ghost. Let him. I'll go see Atlas Shrugged.
His real crime is sponsoring lawsuits against utilities, mining, and oil companies through his Environmental Defense Fund. Then they settle out of court so long as EDF gets 15% and our cost of living gets driven higher. Rope, tree, eco-lawyers: some assembly required.
ABNCP| 4.26.11 @ 11:30AM
Intelligent Design you are right on. That stretch of U.S. InterState 8 from Casa Grande to Gila Arizona is interesting. InterState 8 is about 80 miles inside Arizona. On the south side of the highway there are signs warning people not to camp or hike in that area because it is dangerous.
Why is it dangerous? BECAUSE OF MEXICAN HUMAN AND DRUG SMUGGLERS. These people will bring anyone into this country that will pay them! Count on, it they have brought in terrroists. And yet the Obama administration sues Arizona for trying to do something about the situtation because they say it is the Fed's responsibility. Of course Obama and his Homeland Security bozo, Janet Incomptetano refuse to take any real action to stop this madness.
Andy_Krow| 4.26.11 @ 12:51PM
Anyone who likes to read and enjoys a good thriller might be interested in "Term Limits" by Vince Flynn...
This comment is an aside to the topic, but involves assination(s) and is readily believable.
Andy
Padoux| 4.26.11 @ 2:00PM
Redford sees himself as some sort of mental giant as do many other, mostly left wing actors. In reality, he is a giant ego, devoid of perspective, true intelligence and common sense. To boot he is an over rated actor who has not aged well.
J.C.Eaton| 4.26.11 @ 2:23PM
Redford's political interference with some arguably good entertainment IS annoying, and I hesitated seeing this movie for that reason. He is wont to be very preachy aand predictably liberal. Having said that, this is a pretty fair movie. The technical aspects are first-rate; period buidings, dress, sets, dialogue are top-notch. His history is supplied by some very able advisors, chief among them professor James McPherson[himself albeit a lib]. I think the film only obliquely criticizes tribunals; it wholeheartedly criticizes Surratt's. I always thought Lew Wallace was the president of the Board but if McPherson says it was Gen. Hunter, so be it. But in all events, the character is portrayed as a total martinet, completely indifferent to Surratt's guilt or innocence. Stanton is portayed as worse. All in all,an alleged traitor and her patently gutsy lawyer are shown very sympathetically, but on balance, I've seen lots worse historical hatchet-jobs, and gobs of far poorer movies.
jean allen| 4.26.11 @ 6:10PM
Haven't seen the movie yet; but intend to. Surratt shouldn't have been hanged. And John Wilkes Boothe is a hero. Ape Lincoln could have bought every slave and set them free; but instead
chose to authorize war crimes against my ancestors and my homeland. He caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of
people. Deo Vindice and FSI!!!
Jean Allen.....Tuscaloosa
Tina B| 4.26.11 @ 6:59PM
Yes, gobs of lousy movies, and many beautifully made but horrible stories, and Redford is an expert craftsman, if only, if only he was a conservative? is that allowed in Hollywood or Sundance, or if only he was a Christian? That's not a Mormon, BTW.
I wish, I wish that Christian, and or, Conservative people made better films. I've seen many decent ones, a couple of very good ones (Blindside, The Trilogy of the Ring, Chariots of Fire- excellent really) but most truly excellent films, it seems to me, are always of the Lib bent, and thus the stories and the ideas proposed are anathema to me.
However, I want that same cinematic quality in my Christian flicks, ya know?
I guess I am speaking here of Redford's baliwick: great photography, timing, camerawork, editing, music, humor, love of the medium itself. He graces the screen, and I want him to make good movies, not just great films.
Joe R| 4.26.11 @ 10:48PM
Redford's fate on an episode of The Untouchables appeals to me. Frank Nitti bumped him off, doused his body with wood alcohol, and then dumped the corpse on the doorstep of Eliot Ness.
Catherine Windels| 4.27.11 @ 8:16AM
You write, "Unfortunately for Redford, he was too late to affect the national debate as the movie opened a week after the Obama Administration changed their mind about KSM." Unfortunately for your theory that this movie was made to influence this debate, the fact is that the script was written 18 years ago. I had the pleasure of attending one of the premieres, which was packed with members of Civil War groups and re-enactors' societies. The film was made at last because of the establishment in 2008 of a film company dedicated to making serious films about American history. The fact that a bunch of idiotic, cartoonish films have beat this one at the box office tells me that there is a crying need for more investment in films like "The Conspirator," not less. I hope Spectator readers will not let this review keep them from seeing this fine movie.
Sincerely,
Catherine Windels
Ben Hudman| 4.27.11 @ 1:43PM
I saw this movie thinking that it might be interesting considering the historic significance of the event. At one point I had almost considered leaving because I had an overwhelming sense that my time was being wasted. It is tragic that our history is being revised and recorded in the form of motion pictures for the future generations that will never read the real accounts of actual events. Our children will have no alternative but to take at face value what they see on film since the printed word will have long since been erased from documented fact.
shipley130| 4.27.11 @ 3:48PM
I have concluded that Robert Redford is full of **** right up to his d*cklicker and I will not knowingly watch anything he is involved with.
PsychoDad| 4.27.11 @ 7:34PM
Who the he// ever told this junk-jewelry screen gem he had ANY intellectual capacity, let alone the sophisticated thought processes necessary to offer critique on profound and important international affairs? Actually, how deep an intellect does it take to figure out what we need to do with trash like this?
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 3:57AM
The current debate about military tribunals started after the U.S. military needed to hold al Qaeda enemy combatants from on and off the battlefield, primarily from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 9:48PM
is good