On October 20,2009, The United States Senate voted to provide suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay with habeus corpus rights. Habeus Corpus rights entitle “any prisoner to hear the charges against him or her and to challenge them in court.” By granting terrorist suspects the right to be tried in civilian courts, the Senate also granted them the rights that go along with being a defendant in U.S. courts. People tried in U.S. civilian courts are guaranteed certain rights including the right to remain silent, protection from unwarranted search and seizure, the right to a jury of one’s peers, and Miranda rights. The Senate’s decision to extend the rights of U.S. citizens to suspected terrorists is highly controversial. The debate was intensified on November 13,2009, when Attorney General Eric Holder took advantage of the new policy and announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and four of his fellow terrorists, will be tried in a federal court in New York City.
In researching the opinions being voiced about the decision to allow suspected terrorists to be tried in civilian courts, I found that there were two opposing pervasive opinions. The argument being put forth by some, including a former FBI undercover agent and the American Civil Liberties Union, is that the Senate made the right decision. They contend that civilian courts are better equipped than military tribunals to insure that the right people are convicted, that the verdict will be arrived at based on the Constitution, and that there will not be long periods of detention without the prisoner knowing the charges against him. The idea is that the U.S. be perceived as a shining example that backs up its words with actions and extends human rights to ”friends and foes alike”.
The opposing argument being put forth by some, including a woman who lived the first thirty years of her life under Islamic Law in Egypt, numerous columnists and politicians, is that the decision by the Senate is a big mistake. By changing our laws to extend habeus corpus rights to suspected terrorists and allowing them to be tried in civilian courts instead of military tribunals, we are making a radical change in the way our country has dealt with war criminals for the last two hundred years. By trying terrorist suspects under the more stringent rules of civilian courts, we are running the risk of crucial evidence being thrown out as inadmissible, sensitive information being made public, and suspects being acquitted because certain procedures were not followed in their arrests or other technicalities. How can civilian rules pertaining to arrest procedure and the gathering of evidence be applied to battlefield conditions? The idea is not reasonable. In addition, many of the same people argue that terrorist trials in civilian courts will increase security risks. The debate is intense and will continue as the consequences of the Senate’s decision unfold. It will be interesting to observe how the new policy will affect the way our soldiers are able to wage war, take prisoners, and how those prisoners are tried.
