Editorial. “A Return to America Justice.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 13 November 2009. Web. 16 November 2009 <www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/opinion/14sat.html?scp=1&sq=editorialandopinionskhalid&st=cse>.
Read this article
In the New York Times, an editorial entitled “A Return To American Justice” promotes the idea that Attorney Genera Holder’s decision to prosecute the 9/11 terrorists in federal court was a “principle step” in cleaning up the mess that President Bush made with his policy for handling Guantanamo detainees. The editor claims that Bush’s policy was characterized by torture and unreasonably long periods of detainment. He sees this decision as a return to the rule of law and enthusiastically regards it as a move towards closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He believes that Bush’s policy of using military tribunals reflects a lack of confidence in the America court system and claims that, if the tribunals had not been formed, the terrorist would have come to trial much earlier. The editor criticizes the senators who have objected to the decision, calling them “self-promoting” and their criticisms “absurd.” He has confidence that the federal courts can handle the trial without giving away secrets that would threaten national security. The editor concludes that the decision does not do enough because there will still be suspects tried in military tribunals, but he believes it is a step in the right direction.
The article is worth reading because it raises questions that call for further investigation. What is the truth about military tribunals and the policy for handling detainees at Guantanamo? Is the editor right that they were tortured and unfairly detained or are those right who say that water boarding is not torture and that tribunals are the most effective way to try the prisoners? It is good to listen to all sides, gather as much accurate information as possible, and then decide for oneself.
