And Justice For All... unless we decide not to.

I remember studying abroad in Europe during law school to study International Law (ok, and also maybe just to have an excuse to travel Greece, Italy and Spain, instead of accepting an unpaid summer internship) and realizing, for the first time, just how rare our American justice system is. Very few countries employ a jury system, and the American jury system is particularly unique. Even countries such as Israel have no jury system whatsoever.

I remember, after our professor explained the intricate systems of some Western European systems, he posed what should be a simple question:
"Why are juries better?"

While almost all of my classmates agreed that we were, without question, a part of the best legal system in the world, it was difficult for most to articulate exactly why that was. Maybe it's a bit of ethnocentricity - a sort of blind love of the only country we know - but something about the jury system just seems so right. And, I can honestly say (cheesy as it is), every time I see a jury sworn in, I get a little teary-eyed. There is just something fundamentally, well... cool... about 7 random people becoming a part of the justice system. It seems like the best example of democracy I can think of in practice here in the United States.

Ok, so... my point: why is everyone so upset about alleged terrorists being tried in federal (civilian) courts, and why is Obama teetering on breaking the promise to give them a fair trial? A little history (and you can check my research): Reagan (the regaled Conservative president - who, by the way, is slated by some to be the new face of the $50 bill) was the first President to try alleged terrorists in civilian courts. Even George W Bush (a man whose opinions/actions I would rarely cite as evidence of the right move, but nonetheless..) publicly supported this during his term. Shoe bomber Richard Reid was convicted in civilian courts in 2002 and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006. Both are not only currently serving life sentences for their crimes, but the world as we know it did not collapse as a result of their fair chance at justice.

Federal courts, where I believe these alleged terrorists should be tried, are the same courts where all alleged criminals face prosecution in our country, according to the Constitution (oh yeh, remember THAT thing?). Military commissions not only offer a sort of second-class justice, but also aren't incredibly effective in a case like this. First of all, a military commission has never been used to prosecute a murder, much less a complicated terrorism case. Also, since 9/11, they have only achieved three convictions. Two of those convictions resulted in sentences of less than one year (and we are talking ex-Guantanamo residents here). Because I assume the average proponent of a military commission in these cases would like to see these men hanged before they are even given a trial, I'd say they must not know the facts.

Aside from all practical matters, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CONSTITUTION? I realize that there are people so enraged by recent terrorist attacks and threats (beginning with 9/11 - and rightfully so) that they believe these people aren't entitled to trials, or to any of the rights of an American, and we should gas them and be done with it, trial or not. This reminds me of Singapore.

Let me explain... my mother is traveling a lot for her new job and will soon have to go to Singapore. She is terrified, and you might understand. For many, the word "Singapore" conjures up images of whips and lashes for so much as a cough in the wrong place. My mom said a colleague told her it is illegal to chew gum there and the offense is, I'm sure, harshly punished.

Or, what about Amanda Knox? The American college student was studying in what we probably all consider to be a slightly more "civilized" country than Singapore, yet there have been several complaints about the justice she received. Was there enough evidence, and would it fly in an American court?

These examples could make even the most avid world-traveler a little leery of their next destination; it might also make us reflect, "Wow, glad I live in America..." But why? If we also take the position that if the crime serious enough and the accused foreign enough, that all of our guaranteed rights are simply empty promises, what makes US any better???

I have been thinking of this a lot lately, not only because the ACLU (an organization I greatly respect) has publicly compared Obama to "Dubya" for his backpedaling to military commissions (quite an accusation, I'd say), but because of the recent Liz Cheney ads. If you haven't seen them, you should YouTube it. She is referring to the lawyers who have been hired to represent the accused terrorists; professionals who she has dubbed "The Al Qaeda Seven". The ad shows outlines of people, presumably these unknown lawyers, with photos of known terrorist leaders in the background and some line that asks where their loyalties, as American citizens, stand.

Obviously this advertisement upsets me as a criminal defense attorney, but also as an American. The thought that we should question the loyalties, the patriotism, of lawyers who are representing the Constitution is really sickening. Not that I should be surprised - at this point in my career, I represent mostly minor "criminals" - prostitutes, drug addicts, really bad drivers... and I face the same interrogation at every cocktail party: "How can you represent those people?" I can't imagine what it would be like to represent people who have alleged connections to 9/11. For this, I will refer you to the Constitution - something I'm proud to uphold every day. And, remember - when a "criminal" is released "on a technicality", it is the State, the PROSECUTION, the POLICE, who messed something up. Not me.

And, finally, one last amusing personal connection to this story. Apparently people in NYC are up in arms that these trials are supposed to take place in their great city. Apparently there are security concerns. Apparently people think there is a great likelihood that these people will escape and, I don't know, blow something up. Forget the fact that these people don't work alone, that they probably aren't capable of much on their own that would cause anyone in NYC any immediate danger. Forget the fact that they would be so high max security in FEDERAL prison, forget the fact that it has never happened before... And think about the local (in Osceola Cty Florida) gang leader who recently escaped a county facility, under maximum supervision, by digging a tunnel for days, unnoticed. Quite frankly, I have a much bigger problem with the possibility of a violent and armed GANG LEADER loose in my neighborhood than a would-be suicide bomber.

*Off soap box*