The Vaunted Effectiveness of Military Commissions

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Sunday, while defending the Obama administration’s move to try the 9/11 co-conspirators, Vice President Joe Biden said this:

There have been three people tried and convicted by the last administration in military courts. Two are walking the street right now.

That can’t be right! There’s no way the tough-on-terror Republicans want to try terrorists in a system with such a poor record for keeping them locked up! Except, of course, it is right. PolitiFact explains:

After consulting news reports and military documents, we discovered that Biden was correct. We also checked with experts who both support and oppose military commissions for various reasons, and no one disputed Biden’s numbers.

The three men who were convicted are David Hicks, an Australian; Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver; and Ali Hamza al Bahlul, a propogandist for bin Laden. Hamdan is free in Yemen; Hicks is in Australia.

When he was contacted by PolitiFact to rebut Biden’s point, the best the National Review‘s Andrew McCarthy could come up with was that the commissions’ “progress” has been “hampered” because they’ve been “constantly challenged by liberal attorneys,” according to PolitiFact’s paraphrase. “It is more than a little rich for the very people who moved heaven and earth to prevent the commissions from being completed now complain that we didn’t complete very many commissions,” McCarthy told the fact-checkers. But if the military commissions were less flawed, feared “liberal attorneys” would not be challenging them—let alone winning. McCarthy is blaming his political opponents for the fact that the military commissions he advocates for are riddled with problems. Those liberal lawyers were just too good! That’s more than a little rich.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend