The organization that I work for likes to use the occasional code phrase -- words that mean more than the literal phrase. One is 'the story that we can tell', which is used as a succinct summary of something like 'the message that we want to communicate should make the following points'. Sometimes it comes out as 'whats the story' or 'what story do we want to tell'. When I first would encounter that, it sounded fake to me, as if they were saying 'what string of half-truths can we bunch up so that it sounds good to the gullible'. And, truth to tell, there is some of that. We don't lie, but we don't always tell the absolute truth, either. (One of the novels that I like, one in the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, has an exasperated admiral telling the captain something like 'Its not that I want you to lie in your report -- never that. Just don't indulge yourself in your apparent desire to shout 'stinking fish for sale' at every opportunity.') We don't shout stinking fish. A tad ripe, perhaps, but no more.
What brings this to mind is an article I read part of, this morning, from this past weekend's New York Times, about the trial of the person who is supposed to have been bin Laden's driver. I admit that when I had heard of this, I was a bit exasperated myself, thinking 'Is this the best they can do? What next, his grocer, barber, personal trainer?' Reading the article made it clear that the point is not so much this guy as the circumstances of his arrest -- to wit, that he was arrested and is being treated as an enemy combatant, and that his trial is intended to be within the stricter, less accused-friendly, military-oriented tribunal system. Now, I spent eight years in the military, and though I didn't get to pal with the powerful, sipping aged scotch as we contemplated global affairs, I did get a sense of what the military is generally like. I don't think there is anything wrong with treating terrorists, or those legitimately believed to be terrorists, in a less liberal environment than the average corporate criminal or double-parker. (Though the thought of Bernie Ebbers in a military tribunal setting does have a certain delicious feeling to it. Take that!) I think that the military is not overwhelmingly likely to execute first, think second, as some might feel. To put it another way, I am not opposed, and in fact somewhat in favor of the idea.
But the message of this trial, and the underlying tribunal system, isn't being told well. I get the impression that the system is being pushed as a way of ensuring a win -- that the Bush crew are saying that if they can just strip away enough of the effete liberal effect that's permeated the American judicial system, then by god -- literally, perhaps -- we will finally be able to try these people as they ought to be tried. And there is a certain deliciousness in that, too, considered the care and sensitivity that the Iraqi militants show in their own activities. The thing is, that's the wrong message. I think that the message ought to be that the tribunal system is not a faster path to conviction but one that is just as fair than the standard -- but bows to the exigencies of the environment. In other words, unlike the civilian equivalent, it doesn't get derailed when certain facts cannot be proven, certain witnesses cannot be identified. It's not as protective -- but its not vindictive. I think thats the message that needs to come across.
Of course it would help if that were true, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment