Due process of law vs. no law: A slim difference?

Published Dec 09 2008, 05:03 PM by Harvey Silverglate

Every time I read something about the debate over whether captured suspected terrorists should be tried in one of President Bush's "military commissions" or in a regular federal court, I have to admit smirking a bit. As a practicing criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer, with considerable experience defending clients in the federal courts, I find that neither tribunal would do justice to, well, justice.

The latest such article to bring a smile and a frown, simultaneously, to my face, is Michael Gerson's December 8th Boston Herald piece, "Due process is delicate: No ordinary suspects at Guantanamo". Gerson seems to think that President-elect Obama is going to have to untangle this problem in the aftermath of President Bush's apparent failure to do so. Gerson repeats the oft-heard mantra that "Some detainees will be too dangerous to release but too difficult to convict in a normal court."

Well, has Gerson bothered to learn much about what a "normal" federal criminal trial is like these days, and why so many defendants plead guilty rather than take their chances with the system? There's a saying that a prosecutor can convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But in federal court, a prosecutor can get not only a grand jury to indict, but even a trial jury to convict a ham sandwich of just about anything!

Why? Well, a huge variety of seemingly ordinary activities can be squeezed into the definition of some vague or broad federal criminal statute. There's mail fraud or wire fraud or lying to a federal official (not even under oath). And, if all else fails, they can resort to that old stand-by, conspiracy to violate some federal law. If the feds can't put a suspected terrorist away in a regular federal court because the evidence was procured by torture and hence would be inadmissible, they can simply question the poor bloke and then indict him for lying. No torture there - just a little bit of old-fashioned Department of Justice or FBI trickery.

It's simply beyond the comprehension of this criminal lawyer that the feds, who can indict and convict just about any of us for something, cannot figure out how to convict a suspected terrorist in a real federal court. If they can jail Martha Stewart for false statements - even though she did not commit the securities fraud about which she was questioned - they surely can imprison a "terrorist" who has done nothing wrong, or at least against whom evidence of terrorism is too compromised to be admissible in a federal court. And that's because so many real federal trials today do not produce real justice.

I'll be discussing this recent (since the mid-1980s) diminution of real justice and true due process in the federal courts in my forthcoming book, Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent, being published in the third quarter of 2009 by Encounter Books. It's not a happy development. But it does make all of the talk about the difficulties of getting terrorism convictions in the federal courts somewhat irrelevant.

| More

From hackers to helpers

The Second Amendment: Much Ado about Little

Friends' Activity

Popular

Most Viewed

All Blogs

Laser Orgy (232)
Phlog (1,860)
On The Download (2,849)
Outside The Frame (447)
Talking Politics (1,840)
PageViews (322)
Dont Quote Me (583)

more by Harvey Silverglate

Supreme Judicial Court quashes cash-for-testimony | October 08, 2010

Tyler Clementi: What's hate got to do with it? | September 30, 2010

Burning the other guy's holy book | September 10, 2010

The degradation of the press, of the polity, of nearly everything | August 30, 2010

The FBI's spy problem | July 09, 2010

See all articles by: Harvey Silverglate

Follow the Phoenix

Latest Comments

Patronage Politics - What did O'Brien get out of it, anyway? Popularity with legislators?

By Farnkoff on 11-27-2010 in Talking Politics

Patronage Politics - Inchirieri de apartamente 2 camere la cele mai mici preturi. Alege imobiliare baesu. <a href= http...

By Lousiasiogamy on 11-25-2010 in Talking Politics

[Q&A] Dave Wyndorf of Monster Magnet on the '70s, rock star evolution, and smart dumb music - Great article! Brockman put together a very insightful interview here. I not only love Wyndorf and Monster...

By TastyGreens on 11-24-2010 in On The Download

World Premiere Video: Moe Pope + Rain featuring Reks - "Foolish" - TCs!!! Greatest little dive bar.

By Norah on 11-23-2010 in On The Download

Massachusetts Department of Corrections Commissioner Harold Clarke is leaving the state - A Curious Individual, just because they're inmates, doesn't mean they deserved to be abused by...

By Honeybee on 11-22-2010 in Phlog

Latest Comments from Free For All

Due process of law vs. no law: A slim difference?

Leave a Comment