Enemy Combatants or Criminal Defendants? (Takedown of Michael Kinsley)

National Review Online ^ | 1/6/2010 | David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

[mojito]

Writing in the New York Times, Michael Kinsley defends treating Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the al-Qaeda operative who recently tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit) as a criminal defendant rather than an enemy combatant. He argues that, since any line to be drawn between waging war and engaging the criminal-justice system is going to be arbitrary, the U.S. border is as good a line as any. That is, al-Qaeda terrorists captured abroad are enemy combatants while those captured at home are criminal defendants, entitled to all the rights provided by our Constitution and statutes.

The problem is that the lines between law enforcement and war are not arbitrary (but rather well defined by law and tradition) and that choosing the U.S. border as a nice, bright line is not driven by military strategy, logic, or law. There is nothing sacred about American territory. Indeed, at least two major wars — the Revolutionary War and Civil War — and numerous military conflicts with Indian tribes were prosecuted on American soil. This war can be (and has been) fought here as well as in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Yemen. In fact, the United States is the enemy’s favored battleground, because this is where al-Qaeda’s most desired targets — American civilians — are most heavily concentrated. This is why the victims of 9/11 died in New York, Washington, and the fields of Pennsylvania, rather than at American facilities and installations abroad.

Nor, in fact, is the line Mr. Kinsley proposes arbitrary; it is ideological. Adopting a war-abroad/law-enforcement-at-home rule is nothing but an exercise in political triangulation. It indulges the Left’s fundamental disdain for the use of military force, while permitting the Obama administration to claim that it actually is trying to protect the American people by taking the fight to the enemy.

[mojito]

Yes, sad to say, another leftist terror-appeaser takes it in the teeth.

[hsalaw]

Making terrorists criminal defendants when they attack on American soil just encourages further attacks on American soil. If the terrorists know they’ll get Gitmo and waterboarding if they attack our troops overseas, but will get all civil rights, free counsel, and a platform for their insane propaganda if they attack civilians here, the incentive is for them to attack civilians here at home. This is absolutely stupid.

[OrioleFan]

Michael Kinsley has been irrelevant for years.

[DManA]

Barry and the gang see absolutely no irony in their position that

a. Giving Islamic terrorists full civil rights and a criminal trial proves what a wonderful country this is

and

b. Don’t worry, they are guilty and we’ll convict them and lock them up.

If our chief law enforcement officer isn’t even going to pretend there is a presumption of innocence why go through the charade of a trial? This kabuki dance cheapens the value of civil rights for all US citizens.

[swain_forkbeard]

The not-so-arbitrary line that I like is:

If you’re a US citizen, you’re a criminal defendant with rights.

If you’re not a US citizen, then we can do what we like with you, so step carefully.

[Political Junkie Too]

He argues that, since any line to be drawn between waging war and engaging the criminal-justice system is going to be arbitrary, the U.S. border is as good a line as any.

Did we really have to do this because he was on American soil?

Couldn't he have been kept in the International Zone of the airport, in the area before he would go through customs and immigration? While there, would he be considered to NOT be in the United States? I'm not saying that he should have been sent back to the Netherlands on the next plane out, but he could have been immediately sent to Guantanamo Bay, where we could then say that he was never legally in the United States at all, and so USA rights never entered into the picture at all.

Would that be a correct assumption?

-PJ

[Sherman Logan]

Indeed, at least two major wars — the Revolutionary War and Civil War — and numerous military conflicts with Indian tribes were prosecuted on American soil.

1812. Duhh.

Also part of Mexican War, depending on how you define "American soil."

Not to mention WWII, which featured attacks on or invasions of American territories AK and HI.

[mojito]

Yes, you’re absolutely right.

Leftist like to use the state to provide all sorts of incentives to alter behavior. Since the left hates America (while loudly claiming to love it), they see no reason why the state shouldn’t provide terrorists with plenty of incentives to attack Americans on American soil, rather than overseas.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

It is good to remember a historical comparison to when the US Navy was fighting the Barbary Pirates, from 1801–1805, and then again in 1815. US federal judges actually wanted pirates captured off the coast of Africa, to be taken care of for perhaps six months by the US Navy, while being returned to the Untied States to face criminal trial and hanging.

At the same time, and in the same waters, if the British navy captured pirates, the ships’ Captain would try, convict, and order their execution on the spot. They would then be returned for hanging to their own ship, so that they would not soil the deck of the British ship, and the pirate ship would be given an unrepairable slow leak and set adrift. This was so that if any other pirates happened to discover them, they would serve as a stern warning of the still hanging pirates, yet the pirate ship would sink in any event.

Confronted with this nonsense, US ships’ Captains soon discovered the remarkable coincidence that each and every pirate they captured had been taken in British waters. So properly they had to be turned over to the nearest British ship for disposition, instead of taken back to the United States. Sorry, your honor, but them’s the rules.

Now move this circumstance forward to today. Under what circumstances are enemy combatant terrorist prisoners to be returned to the US to face trial?

And to the US commanding officer responsible for capturing the enemy combatant terrorist prisoners, “Why?”

[dumpthelibs]

Wouldn’t it be great if a radical Muzzie took out Kinsley? What fun watching the other libtards spin that. Problem will be that when the next Muzzie blows himself up (another isolated incident), it will take some worthwhile people with him.

[Tolsti2]

One must think.. Is there any personal or national or any attack upon them that they’d feel needs a military reaction?

It’s clear that even a massive nuclear strike from Russia that destroyed the USA is a criminal matter to them. It would be held in Somalia, and Russia found innocent.

That’s just how the world is now.

[Mr. Lucky]

In June, 1942, Germany landed eight saboteurs in the US. All were caught in civilian clothing on US soil and were held in custody in the US.

All eight were tried by a military tribunal and six were executed. (we won that war, as I recall)

[marron]

Its a war, so it doesn’t matter if he’s taken on US territory.

But, as it happens, he was on an international flight. No reason to check him through immigration just to give him constitutional rights. But these are the same people who want to bring people in from Guantanamo and give them constitutional rights.

Be very clear. We’ve elected people into office who think we deserved 911. They are in sympathy with our attackers. Even as they continue to prosecute the war, they are in sympathy with the enemy and it is going to show up in many different ways, again and again.

[Cicero]

Also, the French and Indian War.

[Sherman Logan]

There were a whole series of wars fought in the colonies. But they weren’t “the US” at the time, of course.

[Hacklehead]

The panty bomber should be considered an enemy agent out of uniform, aka a SPY or saboteur. He should be given a military tribunal and EXECUTED according to the rules of war.

[Republic]

I certainly agree with you!

You bet we should treat them ALL as terrorists!

Since the enemy no longer WEARS a uniform, being of the radical islamic cowardice variety found in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabic, and on and on or upon foreign soil, ie America it is impossible to draw ANY line of recognition....racial PROFILING is the ONLY way to sort of equalize the threat of terror. Since many muslims are recruited here in America, from prisons and from the less educated folks {who are prey to the islamic lifestyle - you know, beat your wife when you need to and kill your kids if they dishonor you, etc) racial profiling will not always work, but it is a beginning!.

Terrorists don't wear uniforms because they are cowards. All wife beaters are. They need to kill unsuspecting, innocents because that is the only way such cowards can succeed.