Trying terrorists

There's been a decision that certain people being held at the prison at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will be tried in a criminal proceeding in Federal court in New York. By "certain people" I mean, of course, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who will reportedly be tried for the little matter of conspiracy to ram airplanes into buildings on US territory in September, 2001 which he, reportedly, admitted to while incarcerated.

Recent news reports state he will plead "not guilty". The President and Attorney General of the United States have expressed confidence that he will be convicted and either incarcerated for the rest of his life or put to death.

Now, I am not a lawyer (I know a few lawyers, but that's neither here nor there) and have no special knowledge of the law. Most of what I know of the law comes from what I read in the newspapers and from a high school civics class. However, here are some measures I expect the defense to take:

1. Argue for a change of venue on the basis that they can't possibly get a fair trial there in the former shadow of the World Trade Center.
2. Argue that the US has no jurisdiction over a foreign national performing acts in a foreign country.
3. Demand that all statements collected from the defendant before being read his rights under the US Constitution be suppressed.
4. Call as witnesses as many people who were on staff at the Guantanamo Bay prison as possible to discuss the conditions at the prison and how the defendant was treated. Following this, the defense will state that any evidence collected at the prison either from the defendant or from other prisoners is hopelessly compromised and demand it be suppressed. The defense may suggest that charges be pressed against the personnel of Guantanamo.
5. Call as witnesses the policemen in Pakistan who captured and detained the defendant in order to prove that at every step of the way he was abused and mistreated.
6. Call for a complete examination of every Truther conspiracy theory, the goal being to shift the blame from the defendant to, well, anyone. Israelis, CIA, Cubans, little green men - all will get their day in court. Perhaps even Pat Robertson's statement that this was God's retribution for tolerating homosexuals and Ward Churchill's essay that the "little Eichmanns" had it coming will get brought into the mix.

And if all that fails and it appears they can't shed responsibility, the defendant will claim to be a soldier in asymmetric warfare fighting back with the only weapons at his disposal and, thus, not subject to one nation's criminal courts. Did the US try Tojo in criminal court? Hirohito? Goering? Mussolini (well, maybe that's a bad example)? And was he not, based on his view of American foreign policy, justified in striking back at the oppressor?

Circus, anyone?

A Ration of Words

There are a few words that are used in the news these days that I do not believe what they think they mean. Here are some examples.

Rationing: In the current health care debate there are claims that a government run system will necessarily lead to reationing health care. This is countered on the other side with the notion that health care is already rationed in two ways: insurance companies deny claims under certain circumstances leading to no service being performed, and people who can't afford health care don't buy it. While there is a point to the former, in the common usage of the word "rationing" the second isn't a valid example. the common view of rationing is that it involves someone limiting how much you can buy. Taking World War II as an example, the ration stamp system limited how much of particular commodities you could buy regardless of whether you could afford them and regardless of availability in the store. There's a difference between deciding not to pay the price for something and being told that you are not allowed to buy it.

Responsibility: Frequently terrorist groups are quoted as taking responsibility for acts such as murders and bombings. And, golly, isn't it great they stood up and showed such responsibility! English has a better word - it's called blame.

Execution: The news has taken to calling acts of murder, particularly ones performed with a pistol at extreme close range, as "executions" or as "execution style". This conflates an act of murder with an act performed by the State as punishment for a crime. We wouldn't say a mugger fined his victim; we don't say a kidnapper incarcerated his captive until the bail was paid. I'm unaware of any state in the US that uses a pistol at close range as the chosen method of execution. It's time to move "excecution" back to the legal realm (unless you're talking about executing a process, which is different).

The big questions

Something people often complain about science is that it doesn't deal with the really hard questions. Scientists are busy with trivia like figuring out what the universe is made of and the human genetic and epigenetic code, but don't pay attention at all to questions like:

• Where did I come from?
• Why am I here?
• Where do I go when I die?

I think with science we can certainly answer those questions to a reasonable degree of precision, and the answers are along the lines of:

• Your mommy's belly. You see, when two adults love each other very much...
• Because the wave equations that describe every particle in your body have the greatest probability density at your current location.
• If you're like most Americans, a cemetery.

Cemeteries have been much in the news this year. Several have been accused of selling occupied graves to new customer which has created outrage - especially since these cemeteries catered to historically oppressed minorities. Other stories involved cemeteries that were no longer maintaining their site, either because they could no longer afford to or because the cemetery had long since been abandoned. And naturally, there were pre-Halloween articles of teen vandalism causing a surprising amount of damage - valued in the tens of thousands of dollars.

However, the entire concept is suspect and built on what appears to be an unsustainable business model. The buyer of a cemetery plot believes that they're paying for exclusive use of the ground along with gardener and maintenance services - forever and free of property taxes. Their descendants in 10 or 100 or 1000 years will be able to walk through the well manicured, park-like site to visit the grave with its marker only slightly worse for wear due to weathering.

Historically, only the outrageously wealthy and well connected (think "pharaoh") have been able to get this kind of treatment when they die - and even they can have their corpses dug up and shown in exhibitions worldwide after their civilization transforms to something completely different, their religion vanishes, and their writing becomes unknown and cryptic. For most people, graves historically were temporary locations. The body rotted in the earth or in a tomb and within a few years when the space was needed again the bones were either shoved aside or preserved in some manner. Hence the ossuaries all over Europe and the catacombs of Paris. Alas, poor Yorick indeed!

In some of America's oldest and most historic cemeteries the markers don't match the graves. Church cemeteries are abandoned when the church leaves or goes under; municipal cemeteries are abandoned if the town dies. Private cemeteries, which gain their funds from selling graves and other services, have no viable business model when they fill up. The notion that ones corpse will rest in peace eternally without company in a spot in the ground is becoming non-viable, and it's time for a new - or perhaps old - model.

Penalties - death and otherwise

One of the arguments that's used against the death penalty is that an innocent person could be put to death by the state. This, of course, is why there are so many appeals in the process, so many checks, and so many last moment stays of execution from either the governor or the Supreme Court. The thought of executing an innocent person in error should give us all pause, and it's reasonable to make every effort to determine guilt before carrying out a death sentence.

But is that sufficient reason to eliminate the death penalty? If so, what about a life sentence? Is it acceptable to keep an innocent person in prison for 25 years or more? What if the prosecutor and police actually withheld evidence of innocence in order to make the case?

According to a case now before the Supreme Court, this very scenario occurred and, according to Iowa law, the State can deprive an innocent person of liberty for 25 years (or more!) and once they let that person go, why, no harm, no foul. The freed person goes along his/her way and just starts over where they left off, 25 years ago.

Of course, he might never have won the appeal to prove his innocence before dying in prison because as a person only serving a life sentence without parole there's no real urgency, right?

Some would argue that an innocent person could be paid reparations for the prison time. Apparently not in Iowa, even in the case of prosecutorial misconduct.

So why is the chance of killing an innocent person so heinous that it's a conclusive reason to eliminate the death penalty if it's perfectly acceptable to deprive an innocent person of his/her liberty - and quite possibly let him/her die in prison?