Please update your browser

You're using a version of Internet Explorer that isn't supported by Questia.
To get a better experience, go to one of these sites and get the latest
version of your preferred browser:

We Have the Right to an Attorney: Both the U.S. Government's Resort to Military Tribunals and the Church's Reluctance to Turn Pedophile Priests over to the Legal System Stem from the Same Misguided Belief That Their Noble Goals Should Exempt Them from Due Process of the Law. (Culture in Context)

By McCormick, Patrick | U.S. Catholic, June 2002 | Go to article overview

We Have the Right to an Attorney: Both the U.S. Government's Resort to Military Tribunals and the Church's Reluctance to Turn Pedophile Priests over to the Legal System Stem from the Same Misguided Belief That Their Noble Goals Should Exempt Them from Due Process of the Law. (Culture in Context)


McCormick, Patrick, U.S. Catholic


EVERY WEEK ON NEARLY EVERY PRIME-TIME COP show there comes a moment during the interrogation scene when the suspect or perp turns to our heroic police officers and utters that most unwelcome of phrases: "I want to see a lawyer."

Grimaces spread across the faces of the detectives of NYPD Blue or any of the Law & Order franchises, knowing as they do that even the most inept defense attorney is going to impede their crime-fighting process. The interrogation will grind to a halt, and any hoped-for confession will be stillborn or tossed on a technicality. The very thought of a lawyer coming into the room threatens to spoil the party. And, because we watch these shows through the eyes of cops and prosecutors, most of us are secretly pleased when a clever detective maneuvers the perp into withdrawing this demand.

Recent events indicate that it's not just TV cops and prosecutors who don't want a lawyer coming in the room and mucking up their process. Neither the White House nor the church seems too eager to have an attorney looking over their shoulder, making certain they're following due process or acting in everyone's best interests.

Last November President Bush announced that Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay would be tried and sentenced by a special military tribunal operating outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. In this tribunal defendants would be stripped of a number of the rights, protections, and safeguards granted those facing trial in a criminal court or even in an ordinary court martial. Now the press is inundating us with stories of cardinals and bishops who for decades decided not to report or hand over accused pedophiles to civil authorities, but to investigate and resolve these cases under a shroud of secrecy and silence.

Both the executive branch and the bishops seem to prefer handling these delicate matters as in-house affairs, with no outside parties criticizing the way they punish or prosecute the guilty and protect the innocent. That's not good news for us as citizens or Catholics.

On November 13 the president issued an executive order calling for military tribunals that would try and sentence prisoners of the war in Afghanistan, and though America's war on terror was to be an international affair, these special tribunals would not be. Even as the U.S. pressured Bosnia to hand over war criminals to the United Nations' war-crimes tribunal in the Hague, the White House announced it would tolerate neither international nor domestic oversight of its prosecution of the captives being held in Cuba. Neither the international community, Congress, the courts, nor the constitution was going to impede the swift and deliberate justice the White House had planned for the men the president had publicly branded as "killers."

Only the executive branch would have the authority to determine whether they were prisoners of war or war criminals, and only the executive branch would act as their judge, jury, and executioner. And if anything went wrong, the former governor of the capital of capital punishment--a man convinced that no innocent person was ever executed in Texas--would serve as the detainees' only and last court of appeal.

IN THE MONTHS THAT FOLLOWED, A CHORUS OF JURISTS, governments, and international organizations attacked the president's decision, criticizing it as a violation of the very freedoms supposedly being defended by America's war on terror. Mary Robinson, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, called upon the U.S. to recognize the detainees in Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war and hand them over to a competent international tribunal. This challenge was echoed by the vast majority of European governments and the Organization of American States. Human rights groups have blasted the decision to deny prisoners any appeal to civilian courts. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, this policy does "not respect basic American or international notions of fairness and justice," while Amnesty International has argued that these "military commissions threaten to severely undermine, rather than reinforce, confidence in the administration of justice and the maintenance of the rule of law.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

We Have the Right to an Attorney: Both the U.S. Government's Resort to Military Tribunals and the Church's Reluctance to Turn Pedophile Priests over to the Legal System Stem from the Same Misguided Belief That Their Noble Goals Should Exempt Them from Due Process of the Law. (Culture in Context)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.