The Courage Not to Prosecute?
Lt. Col. V. Stuart Couch seemed like a great choice to prosecute Mohamedou Ould Slahi, a Guantanamo Bay prisoner believed to be connected to the 9/11 attack.
Col. Couch, a Marine Corps pilot and veteran prosecutor, lost a close friend in the attack. Former Marine Michael “Rocks” Horrocks was the copilot on the second plane to strike the World Trade Center in 2001.
An al Quaeda member said Slahi was involved in the recruitment of those who committed the 9/11 attack.
The other evidence against Slahi consisted of his own statements.
But after nine months of preparation, Col. Couch, 41, declined to prosecute Slahi.
The reason, detailed in a full-page account in the Wall Street Journal: Col Couch concluded that Slahi’s confession came as the result of torture — beatings and death threats — and was therefore inadmissible under both U.S. and international law.
According to Bill Wilder, director of educational ministries at the Center for Christian Study in Charlottesville, Va., Couch “...wanted to be a good soldier and yet on the other hand felt his duty to his God to be the greatest duty that he had.”
It was Couch’s belief that, according to Wilder, “...human beings are created in the image of God and as a result we owe them a certain amount of dignity.”
Slahi, 37, remains in Guantanamo. Col. Couch finished his three-year term as a prosecutor and took on a new assignment as a judge on the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. He says he continues to hope for “some nontainted evidence” to bring Slahi to justice.
Upon leaving his prosecutor post, Col. Couch received the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and a citation that referred to his “moral courage.”
Do we praise Col. Couch for that moral courage, or condemn him for failing to prosecute an alleged 9/11 conspirator?
posted by Joe Zelnik @ 7:17 PM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
Is there any question?
Freedom from torture is a central tenet of our constitution. A prosecutor is intended to be a sword and shield. Knowing there are prosecutors who treasure the rule of law restores a modicum of respect for our system.
Is this a serious question? Can you criticise a man for following his conscience despite a compelling personal motive for vengence?
Our real security in this country does not come from knowing that our leaders will sanction any tactics to root out terror. It comes from knowing that our Constitution forbids the use of torture.
There is no doubt that if Couch thought he could successfully (and righteously) prosecute Slahi, he would have done so. His moral courage is a breath of fresh air and a shining light of hope in this putrid and very dark war.
In a matter related to this topic, the Justice Department has asked the courts for tighter restrictions on lawyers who represent detainees at Guantanamo.
The department wants to limit lawyers to three visits with clients and to limit access to evidence, according to a story in the New York Times today.
Justice is quoted as saying, “There is no right on the part of counsel to access to detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country.” Guantanamo is in Cuba.
See the Times for more information.
I find it hard to believe that we can't monitor those that would use the cover of the military to torture and hurt others.
I take very little at face value. Some have replied to this question with absolute statements, such as, "There is no doubt..." and "...there are prosecutors who treasure the rule of law..."
Really? You know this officer and this incident well enough to state these as facts?
I cannot look into the Colonel's mind. Couch's agenda may not be so altruistic. What evidence does he give for citing "torture?" Is the torture described? Who administered the torture and does he (did he) intend to prosecute them for their actions? I think the questions I'd most like answered are, how is Couch registered, and for whom did he vote in 2004. Sometimes there's a less complicated answer to seemingly complicated circumstances.
I'll give anyone the benefit of doubt--whether accused terrorist or accused inquisitionist. Using an old military precept: There are three sides to this story--Couch's, that of those he accuses, and the truth.
Anonymous, I'll answer your questions. I voted for President Bush in 2004, 2000, and every Republican candidate since I was old enough to vote.
Most of the evidence I reviewed was described in the article; the rest of it is classified. I did not consider any of the detainee's allegations when I opined that he, in fact, had been tortured.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home