[Marxism] Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be Set Free? (Yes, says M. Whitney, and I agree)

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with everything here except the proposal that Mohammed wear an ankle
bracelet. But if I were his lawyer, I would definitely recommend taking this
proffered plea bargain.
Fred Feldman

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney04082008.html

counterpunch
Apri1 8, 2008 

Abducted, Tortured and Deprived of His Rights 
Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be Set Free? 
By MIKE WHITNEY 

"This is the time to demonstrate to the world that the United States need
not abandon its principles even as it seeks to ensure the safety of its
citizens." 

-- Janet Reno, former Attorney General and member of ACLU Guantánamo Defense
"Dream Team" 

Should Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be set free? 

It's a difficult question, but it deserves a serious answer. Here's why. The
only reason the Bush administration has decided to conduct a trial for
Mohammed, the alleged terrorist mastermind of the attacks on September 11,
is because they feel confident in the outcome. It's a slam dunk. There's no
chance that the perpetrator of the biggest act of terrorism in American
history (against America, that is) will be found innocent. Bush thinks a
Mohammed conviction will be a vindication for his kangaroo courts (Military
tribunals) at Guantánamo Bay as well as reinforce the belief that the
president has the inherent right to arbitrarily imprison anyone he chooses
if he brands him an enemy combatant. It is a cynical power-play meant to
increase presidential authority while further undermining fundamental legal
protections. That means that the so-called tribunals will be choreographed
by the Bush public relations team to rehash 9-11 in as frightening terms as
possible invoking the same, worn demagoguery we've heard for the past six
years. 

On the other hand, the ACLU, which has courageously decided to defend
Mohammed, will try to demonstrate the basic unfairness of the proceedings
(which provide defendants with fewer rights than civilian trials or
courts-martial) and how the Bush administration has violated the law at
every turn by denying Mohammed due process and by using harsh interrogation
techniques, including torture, to extract a confession. 

Bush is no friend of civil liberties or justice. Since he first took office
in 2000, he's waged a persistent and systematic no-holds-barred attack on
the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions. Last week, a 30-page memo
authored by senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo surfaced, showing
that the Bush administration worked assiduously to create a legal framework
for justifying the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees in their
custody. 

"Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner's eyes poked out? Or,
for that matter, could he have 'scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic
substance' thrown on a prisoner? How about slitting an ear, nose or lip, or
disabling a tongue or limb? What about biting?" 

According to Yoo's 81-page memo, which was declassified last week, the
president had the legal authority to order any of these acts of barbarism
because, as Yoo says, "Federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other
crimes by military interrogators are trumped by the president's ultimate
authority as commander in chief." The memo also repeats the Yoo's assertion
that an interrogation tactic cannot be considered torture unless it results
in "death, organ failure or serious impairment of bodily functions." 

The memo proves that Bush was aggressively seeking legal justification for
the cruel and degrading treatment of prisoners and deliberately
circumventing the law. Yoo was paid to dignify Bush's coercive detainee
policies with legal flim-flam. He was fully aware of what he was doing; he
was a willing accomplice to a crime. As conservative pundit, Andrew
Sullivan, pointed out on "Hardball" this week, "The latest revelations on
the torture front show the memo from John Yoo...means that Don Rumsfeld,
David Addington and John Yoo should not leave the United States any time
soon. They will be, at some point, indicted for war crimes." 

Yoo worked in the Office of Legal Counsel, which means that his written
opinions had "the force of law within the government because its staff is
assigned to interpret the meaning of statutory or constitutional language."
(Washington Post) In other words, Yoo was the "go-to" guy. The memo proves
that the treatment of terror suspects was premeditated and criminal. 

But what does Yoo's memo have to do with the trial of Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed? 

Everything. 

It shows that the government was intentionally carrying out war crimes while
conducting its so-called war on terror. It shows that the military tribunals
have nothing to do with establishing the guilt or innocence of the
defendants. They're just politically-motivated show trials designed to
enhance executive powers and further savage civil liberties. The
administration hopes that by trotting out the so-called "worst of the worst"
they can scare the pants off the public and weaken their commitment to the
rule of law. But whatever hatred or rage Americans may feel for the
perpetrators of 9-11, it is not worth destroying the laws that protect us
all from the long arm of the state. If Bush is allowed to create his own
parallel justice system, with its own courts and procedures, what's to stop
him or a successor from using that same model at home? Does anyone seriously
think that Bush would hesitate to use the military tribunals on alleged
eco-terrorists, protestors at the School of the Americas, or antiwar
activists like the Irish member of the Pitstop Ploughshares who was just
barred from the US for his efforts to stop Bush's bloodbath in Iraq? 

No way. 

Bush has done everything in his power to place himself above the law,
particularly when it comes to deciding issues of life and death. These are
not matters that should be left to the flawed judgment of one man. By
ignoring the flagrant violations of the law in the imprisonment and
subsequent torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we further reinforce the
precedents that Bush is setting. That's a blueprint for dictatorship. 

The law is our only refuge from would-be tyrants like George W. Bush. Thomas
More summed it up like this in "A Man for all Seasons": 

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where
would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with
laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down
do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow
then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake!"


However horrible he may be, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed poses no threat to our
system or our freedom. Bush does. We'd be better off letting one guilty man
free than than destroying the laws that protect all of us from liberty's
greatest enemy; the State. 

Mohammed has been abducted, tortured, and deprived of his rights. Give him
an ankle bracelet, and let him go. 

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at:
fergiewhitney@xxxxxxx

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu