- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Did you read the 1935 case, where the Supreme Court overturned murder convictions of African-American defendants because the confessions were obtained through beatings? Was justice served in that case?
I just finished reading Brown, and yes, I agree with its holding and I think justice was done.
And I freely admit that I'm not eager to distinguish that case from the problem Obama has, lest it be mistaken that I think torture is ever right. It's not. It wasn't in Brown and it's not today.
But the cases are distinguishable - the confessions in Brown were the only state eviednce and it appears on the merits that the defendants were innocent. Obama appears to be talking about confessions that were coerced, but nonetheless true - and I would add, probably would have been freely given without coercion, which only makes the Bush decision to torture that much more galling and incomprehensible.
(Again, I'm not saying that's the case for all Gitmo detainees, it seems many may in fact be innocent, my concern is for the really bad actors, as we need a solution that works for all cases.)
Also, in Brown there is not the problem Obama's DOJ will face of investigations begun outside this country in a military setting under the assumption that they were extra-constitutional suddenly, after 7 years, being shifted to US court and the attendant windfall for the defense, and extreme disadvantage to the prosecution.
But I think I understand your position, that all those cases should be tried in regular US court and damn the consequences, even if it means people responsible for over 3000 homicides walk free. It's principled, and I admire it, but I think the idea of setting KSM free at this point is outrageous, and would not serve the interests of justice.
We just disagree on this, and I don't think we are going to change each other's minds.
