Rep. Cantor's Baseless Fear-Mongering About Terrorism Trials

Back in June, when Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani was transferred to New York City to face trial for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) falsely claimed that there were "no judicial precedents for the conviction of someone like this."

It was an absurd statement, particularly given that other participants in the same attacks had already been convicted in U.S. courtrooms.  At the time, the justice department noted that there were 216 inmates in American prisons with ties to international terrorism, while more than 30 such individuals had been successfully prosecuted this year alone. 

In short, Cantor was spectacularly wrong.  One would assume he knew as much -- it would be pretty embarrassing if he was totally ignorant of previous efforts to punish terrorists -- but that didn't stop him from fear-mongering about the Obama administration's supposed weakness on terrorism. 

Writing in yesterday's Richmond Times-Dispatch, Cantor was at it again, calling the administration's decision to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in criminal court a "failure in judgment" that "could wind up costing lives." According to Cantor, a military tribunal away from American soil would clearly be more fitting:

What has emerged is an updated military tribunal system that adequately safeguards sensitive U.S. national security information and doesn't tie the hands of the intelligence community and our military.

In reality, military tribunals have a better grasp of military intelligence and the facts surrounding the capture of suspected terrorists. They have the specialized knowledge to sort through and compare the cases to see where the evidence is strong and where it isn't.

However, as former Bush justice department officials Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith wrote last week, Republicans are putting "undue faith in military commissions as an alternative to civilian trials." Comey and Goldsmith explained that military commissions "have not worked well" as a setting for terrorism trials:

In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge.

One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century.

By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists.

Once again, Cantor is wrong about the efficacy of military tribunals, and it's probably safe to assume he knows it.  After all, it would be pretty embarrassing if he was totally ignorant of previous efforts to punish terrorists.  But, as we already know, the truth would never stop Cantor from fear-mongering about the Obama administration's supposed weakness on terrorism.