Tweet
Does anyone think that Nuremberg trials or the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 or the war crimes trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others at the Hague advanced these mens’ causes? Or that, in retrospect, it would have been wiser to hold these trials in secret?
At the end of the day, what are we afraid these men are going to say?
Better than being afraid? Not being afraid. Being vigilant. Just off the top of my head.
3 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
1. Those war crimes trials were after the war was over; Telling secrets could not impact the results. The war against al-Queda (or against Islamism) is not over.
2. The issue isn’t secrecy of the trial, it’s the secrets of an ongoing war.
So Fred, your idea is that KSM has secrets that he’s going to disclose in open court that (1) he’s held on to while being detained for, what, six years?; or (2) he did disclose but we’ve not significantly exploited within those six years, so they’re still important; or (3) he picked up while being held in a box for six years.
If any of those is true, i’ll happily mail you a shiny nickel.
On the other hand, if we’re afraid that he’ll disclose (1) that he’s got strong opinions about the west or (2) that we illegally tortured him and didn’t give him the trial all detainees are legally entitled to, those aren’t secrets per se.
Yeah, FredJ, I’m going to have to agree with WarrenTerra. I don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t think you do, either.