The Big Question: Will Gitmo detainee trials resonate with voters?

Some of the nation’s top political commentators, legislators and intellectuals offer their insight into the biggest question burning up the blogosphere today.

Today’s question:

Will the issue of prosecuting Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian courts be a big campaign issue in 2010?

Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First, said:

Unfortunately, some interest groups are already suggesting that the Obama administration’s decision to prosecute Guantanamo detainees is “soft on terror” and should cost lawmakers who support it their seats in 2010. The criticism makes no sense, however, given that the Bush administration itself prosecuted more than 200 terrorists in those same civilian courts after the September 11 attacks. By contrast, the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay have a terrible track record: they’ve convicted only three people, and two of those have already been freed.

Former federal prosecutors, judges, and military leaders have repeatedly endorsed the criminal justice system as the most effective, appropriate and lawful way to bring terrorists to justice, exhibit our confidence in American institutions and emphasize the importance of the rule of law.

We welcome a healthy debate over how to address terrorism and best ensure our national security. But we hope that the key facts about the effectiveness of our criminal justice system and the precariousness of the military commissions don’t get lost in this important national discussion.

Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said:

Some conservatives will try to make it a campaign issue, but concerns about the economy will probably drown it out. Sadly for many years now, a key part of the conservative playbook has been to politicize national security in attempts to create divisions among Americans — just the sort of reaction terror groups seek. Conservatives who seek to politicize these issues are playing into the hands of the bin Ladens of the world. 

Justin Raimondo, editorial director of Antiwar.com, said:

Yes, especially if KSM and the Undie-bomber trials are still going on.

The American people are unclear on the concept of why every foreigner who is interdicted in the process of committing an act of terrorism is treated like an American citizen who has simply transgressed the law. Was every captured German during WWII granted all the rights of an American citizen and tried? No, of course not.

Yet this administratoni seems to be pursuing that course. A lot of it is due to liberal guilt, albeit a new variety. American liberals think they can Mirandize terrorists, and then go off to bomb, say, Pakistan, without telling the American people what our military is doing: that they can grant KSM the “right” to a multi-million dollar trial, and then feel good about escalating a war way beyond its original purpose
and parameters.

It’s not at all clear how we should treat detainees in our eternal “war on terrorism,” but then again, if we changed our foreign policy of global intervention, then perhaps we’d have a lot less detainees –and a lot less terrorism — to begin with.

Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, said:
    
Yes. Americans are interested in dealing fairly with enemy combatants. But the idea that they should receive panoply of constitutional protections is anathema, alas absurd. Those Democrats -— an increasingly rare breed — who still believe apprehended enemies should be tried in civilian courts, will have this issue used against them quite effectively — in my judgment — during the 2010 election cycle.

Brent White, professor of Law at the University of Arizona, said:

Subjecting Guantanamo Bay detainees to military tribunals — where the rules are stacked against them and outcomes are essentially predetermined — violates fundamental values of due process. It also means that innocent people are likely to held in detention indefinitely. On the other hand, civilian trials may mean that some Guantanamo Bay detainees are let go, including a few that maybe shouldn’t be. The question should be how much, as Americans, we value our Constitution and the rights of all people to a fair trial before being deprived of their liberty — not whether one party or the other can score more political points by exploiting this issue.