A Question for Human Rights Watch
In today's Washington Post, Peter Finn has an excellent story on the comparative leniency of sentencing in military commissions to date compared with sentencing in federal court. In it, he reports the following comment from Human Rights Watch:
Human rights activists said the length of sentences has no bearing on their objections to military commissions.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
In today's Washington Post, Peter Finn has an excellent story on the comparative leniency of sentencing in military commissions to date compared with sentencing in federal court. In it, he reports the following comment from Human Rights Watch:
Human rights activists said the length of sentences has no bearing on their objections to military commissions. “It’s not about any individual case,” said Andrea Prasow, a counterterrorism specialist at Human Rights Watch who attended the Khan proceeding. “It’s about a principle: You can’t get a fair trial in a military commission.”Prasow's comment interests me, because I watched the same proceeding she did and I frankly struggle to identify the unfairness done to Majid Khan in his military commission. So here's my question to Prasow and Human Rights Watch: Did Khan get a fair proceeding in a military commission? If not, what was unfair about it? And if so, isn't the principle too sweeping? I'll happily post any response.
Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books.
