From the Editor's Desk — A good debate

ADVERTISEMENT

Both people reacted emotionally: They should be shot. Plain and simple. No fan fare, no trial, execute them, both individuals said.

Upon further reflection, though, both conceded there is a real attraction to upholding the rule of law, American law. Still they seemed uneasy, and one was at least downright angry, that these terrorists would be able to enjoy the benefits of the American court system.

At least on the surface, Obama’s decision to bring them into the American court system is a lose-lose situation for him politically. The case will generate more publicity than you can shake a stick at, and, whichever way it goes, his administration will be in the crosshairs of every critic in the country. So why do it?

Good question, and it’s a good enough question to ask average readers. Should these people, people connected to the deadliest domestic attack in our history, be allowed to sit in a federal courtroom and go through trial just like any other criminal? Or should they simply be taken out somewhere and shot? The question resonates because Americans like to believe, for lack of better analogy, we are the good guys. The guys in the white hats. The guys who ride into town, root out the outlaws and set things right. We have history and a huge amount of case law to prove that we are a fair nation, a nation that seeks to adhere to the rule of law. We don’t torture people; we don’t line POWs up and shoot them; we don’t take people off the streets and round them up in concentration camps because of their religion or because they are political dissenters.

We’re the good guys.

Except, of course, none of the above is true all the time. We rounded up millions of Japanese-Americans during World War II and put them into camps and, for the most part, didn’t bat an eye. At times and in far away places, our soldiers have been guilty of excessive force. We’ve made mistakes.

But through it all there has always been the recognition that those who commit crimes, who torture or kill and trample human rights, will one day be held accountable in a court of law.

Does the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed fit that bill? Should he and his co-conspirators be allowed to try their luck in our court system? Or should they be transported somewhere far away and then shot? Further, would a trial for someone like Mohammed even be considered “fair?” After all, there is a mountain of evidence linking him to the 9/11 tragedy. So would it be just a “show trial?”

These are good questions and queries we’ll try to answer during out regular Editorial Board meeting this next week. But if you have an opinion, go on to our Web site and log an opinion on our online poll. Or blog this column and give an opinion.

I have not formed a complete opinion yet, and I don’t think the members of our Editorial Board have either. So all the input we can secure from readers would be a big help.

Pat Caldwell is the editor of the Argus Observer. He can be contacted at PatC@argusobserver.com. The sentiments expressed in this column are not necessarily those of Wick Communications or the Argus Observer.