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!
