...And Justice For All

  Justice can be a complicated and messy business, as we may soon discover...

     There is precedent for the prosecution of international killers with both military tribunals as well as civilian courts, and, interestingly, both venues have been employed for proceedings against the same group of defendants. Following the end of World War II, the Nuremburg War Crimes trials were convened, as a military tribunal, to mete out justice to captured Nazi war criminals. Most were convicted, and many executed for "crimes against Humanity". Military jurisprudence brought justice and closure to humanity's most sordid chapter, and the decision to use a military venue has, rightly so, never been seriously questioned (except by the defendants themselves). Fifteen years later, Israeli commandos apprehended top Nazi fugitive Adolph Eichmann in South America, spirited him away to Israel, where a civilian court convicted and executed him for "crimes against Humanity". That trial, likewise, proved to be an international showcase of Humanity's victory over Inhumanity, further demonstrating the inevitability of Good vanquishing Evil. Different courts, with different procedures, came to the same conclusion for the same group of criminals. So which is it?

     On the one hand, secret military trials, though efficient, have an intrinsically sinister and undemocratic sound to them, and what once worked at Nuremburg, may not work now. On the other hand, a high profile civilian terrorist trial would give defendants an unencumbered world stage as a showcase for fiery fundamentalist rhetoric, a platform upon which to build political and ideological support, turning the proceedings into a mocking circus, all the while served up as surreal entertainment in the bright glare of international media. There are also procedural, standard of proof, and exclusionary differences between the two. A civilian trial would, with the help of "Dream Team" defense attorneys, proceed to turn justice on its head by putting the U.S government "on trial", and we could end up with the judicial equivalent of a plane crash. Conversely, a military trial would keep much tighter control over proceedings, but at the cost of an appearance of impropriety regarding judicial standards and fairness, and the perception by the Muslim world of a rigged inquisition.

     So what will it be? An international show-trial of ideological theater, or a secretive, sober and unscrutinized venue that makes many of us uneasy? Whichever way it goes, hopefully the end result will serve up the justice and closure we seek, without too much confusion and messiness.