Last week, the Alligator published contradictory views on whether trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York is the right move. Unfortunately, both pieces missed some of the most pertinent questions. Before addressing these, it must be said that I feel trying Muhammad in New York is the right decision. Don’t get me wrong, he in no way deserves the protections we are providing him.
He deserves little more than to be released in the middle of Times Square, after making sure everyone knows when and where. But trying him in open court is the right decision not only because it allows us to keep the moral high ground but because it sets a precedent for how to treat the remaining prisoners in American custody.
There is little doubt that Muhammad is guilty and deserves life in prison, at a minimum. But what about the remaining prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other military prisons like Bagram? It is true that some of these prisoners are terrorists who are committed to destroying the United States, but not all of them. There is a difference between Taliban and al-Qaida. Even Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, admits that there are no major al-Qaida factions remaining in Afghanistan. Should the United States be allowed to detain and imprison enemy combatants indefinitely without ever bringing charges against them?
No. But one major problem is that the CIA was allowed to take the lead in interrogations. Being much more restrictive in its definition of torture, the CIA uses techniques that are illegal in the U.S. This means it is very difficult to bring prisoners to trial because any evidence given under duress is inadmissible.
Some are also making the argument that we should not bring detainees to the U.S. because of the difficulty in obtaining guilty verdicts. This is a ridiculous argument. If we can’t prove these people are guilty, especially when considering the death sentence, we have no right to imprison them. There have already been several documented cases of imprisoning foreign nationals because of mistaken identity. These people were arrested, flown halfway around the world and imprisoned for months.
It’s been shown that there were innocent people held at Guantanamo, a place that President George W. Bush described as holding only the “worst of the worst.” One of these men, Akhtiar Mohammad, was arrested on information given to authorities by insurgents because he worked for the government. Given this history of imprisoning the innocent, we must ensure those in our custody are actually guilty.
Not everyone who opposes the United States is evil. In fact, very few are. We mock Muslims for calling us “The Great Satan,” but aren’t we guilty of similar demonization? We cannot treat all prisoners of the “War on Terror” as imminent threats to our security. We cannot imprison people indefinitely without ever bringing charges. We cannot steal people’s lives. If we do, we are no better than the petty dictators who we condemn for political prosecutions. If we cannot prove someone has committed the crimes he or she is accused of, we have no right to imprison him or her.
And for those who claim we can’t bring these people to trial because most of the evidence is inadmissible, here’s an idea: Don’t use illegal interrogation methods. This is the United States of America; we are better than that. Yes, it might mean letting an enemy soldier return to the fray, but abandoning our values and tarnishing our prestige will lead to the deaths of far more Americans in the long run. Plus if they do acquit Khalid Sheikh Muhammad then maybe we can get our wish, and they will release him onto the streets of New York.
Nick Miner is a UF political science graduate student.
