One persistent media myth about Guantanamo Bay is that it is a prison or a
jail--that is to say, a criminal detention facility. This myth is seldom
stated explicitly, but it shows up in reporters' use of police-beat jargon:
describing detainees as "suspected" or "alleged" terrorists; noting that most
are "held without charge," etc.
But in an editorial yesterday, the New York Times stated flatly that
Guantanamo should be shut and the detainees either released or tried as
civilians, under "the time-tested procedures of the normal American legal
system."
What the Times proposes to do is reward America's enemies for abjuring
conventional warfare in favor of the wanton murder of civilians. Legitimate
prisoners of war do not enjoy the rights the Times wants to confer on Khalid
Sheikh Mohammad & Co.; they can be held for the duration of armed conflict and
need never be charged with a crime.
There's also something a bit rich about an outfit like the Times complaining
that Guantanamo is imperfect while extolling the civilian criminal justice
system. If we weren't so lazy, we'll bet we could dig up plenty of Times
editorials complaining that the justice system convicts the innocent, treats
defendants disparately based on race, punishes some crimes too harshly, etc.,
etc. The Times admires the criminal justice system only insofar as it is more
lenient than the military: Better, by this view, to prosecute criminals than
to prosecute a war.
The Associated Press, meanwhile, reports on one terror defendant who is being
tried in civilian court:
A significant number of potential jurors in the Jose Padilla
terrorism case say they aren't sure who is responsible for the
Sept. 11 attacks, including many who say they don't trust the
news media or U.S. government pronouncements.
"There are too many ifs, too many things going on," one male
juror said. "I don't know the whole story."
Others say they just don't pay close enough attention to
world events to be certain.
"I'm oblivious to that stuff," one prospective female juror
said during questioning this week. "I don't watch the news
much. I try to avoid it."
These are the people the New York Times wants to entrust with critical
decisions about American national security. The consequences could be dire.
.
|
