SIGN IN to access the Harper’s archive
ALERT: Usernames and passwords from the old Harpers.org will no longer work. To create a new password and add or verify your email address, please sign in to customer care and select Email/Password Information. (To learn about the change, please read our FAQ.)
Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Create a login here. Forgot password? Forgot email? More help here.
Among those who are most engaged with them, there is a general consensus that the military commissions created by the Bush Administration were a huge embarrassment. The question is whether they can now be salvaged and turned into something respectable. A leading practitioner, Major David Frakt, says “no.”
Why, with the entire resources of the Department of Defense, the Justice Department and the national intelligence apparatus at their disposal, were the military commissions such an abysmal failure? The answer is simple: They were built on a foundation of legal distortions and illegality. The rules, procedures and substantive law created for the commissions were the product of, or were necessitated by, the abandonment of the rule of law by the Bush administration in the months after 9/11. In the United States of America, any such legal scheme is ultimately doomed to fail…
Among the 200 plus detainees still at Guantánamo, there are perhaps a few dozen who have committed serious offenses. I have yet to hear any compelling reason why any of these men could not be prosecuted under existing law in federal court. Of course, if the only evidence of criminality by an individual was obtained through torture and coercion, then that person is unlikely to be convicted in a federal court. But if that is all the evidence we have, then we shouldn’t be prosecuting anyway, whether in a civilian court or a military commission. If the abandonment of the rule of law that resulted in the egregious abuse of detainees may mean that a few “bad men” cannot be prosecuted, perhaps that will serve as a deterrent to such deviations from our core values in the future. The bottom line is that there are simply no advantages to military commissions and no compelling reasons to keep them. Military commissions are not faster, more efficient or less costly than the alternative. Military lawyers have no special expertise in prosecuting or defending complex international terrorist conspiracies. Try the terrorists where they should have been tried all along, in U.S. District Courts.
More from Scott Horton:
No Comment — April 12, 2013, 11:11 am
A new report from Seton Hall University exposes government surveillance of attorney-client conversations
No Comment, Six Questions — March 18, 2013, 9:00 am
Rashid Khalidi on how the United States sustains the failure of the Israel-Palestine peace process
No Comment, Six Questions — February 4, 2013, 9:00 am
Alex Gibney on his documentary investigating the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of child sex-abuse cases


Minimum number of baboons forced to smoke crack in a 1989 study testing the efficacy of cigarettes as a drug delivery device:

A reduction in distrust toward atheists was documented among pious Canadians who are reminded of the Vancouver police.

A Missouri cinema apologized for hiring an actor dressed in body armor and carrying a fake rifle to appear at a screening of Iron Man 3.
Winner of the 2012 Olivier Rebbot Award for best photographic reporting from abroad in magazines or books