A Military Trial Won't Scratch 'Hang 'em' Itch

Much of the criticism of the Obama administration's decision to bring criminal charges against the failed Christmas Day bomber is ill-informed, ill-intentioned or both.

The move to file a criminal case does not reveal the administration's supposed law enforcement-only mindset. It does not show President Obama "trying to pretend we are not at war," as former Vice President Cheney alleged.

The clamor to have Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab declared an enemy combatant and hauled before a military tribunal ignores several inconvenient facts.

Only two individuals seized on American soil — Jose Padilla and Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri — have been declared enemy combatants, and both ended up having that status dropped and their cases tried in federal court. Even enemy combatants, the Supreme Court has said, have the right to have a federal judge decide if their detention is lawful.

A military tribunal would provide many of the same protections about which critics complain: the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, access to counsel. The string-'em-up itch is understandable, but a military tribunal won't soothe it.

Indeed, the biggest difference between a federal trial and a military tribunal is that the court trial would probably take place sooner. And with less legal risk: In federal court there would be no argument about whether the court had jurisdiction over Abdulmutallab.

From the FBI’s history websight

http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/nazi/nazi.htm

Shortly after midnight on the morning of June 13, 1942, four men landed on a beach near Amagansett, Long Island, New York, from a German submarine, clad in German uniforms and bringing ashore enough explosives, primers, and incendiaries to support an expected two-year career in the sabotage of American defense-related production. On June 17, 1942, a similar group landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, near Jacksonville, Florida, equipped for a similar career in industrial disruption.

The purpose of the invasions was to strike a major blow for Germany by bringing the violence of war to our home ground through destruction of America’s ability to manufacture vital equipment and supplies and transport them to the battlegrounds of Europe; to strike fear into the American civilian population, and diminish the resolve of the United States to overcome our enemies.

By June 27, 1942, all eight saboteurs had been arrested without having accomplished one act of destruction. Tried before a Military Commission, they were found guilty. One was sentenced to life imprisonment, another to thirty years, and six received the death penalty, which was carried out within a few days.

A military tribunal would have been a good idea in all cases, but the Dems started objecting early on that this was not terrorism conducted as an attack on the US, but just the work of misunderstood little sweeties acting out because they hated that evil George Bush.

Now we’re stuck with these people, they’re in our jails and busy filing appeals (Reid just filed one, and so did Moussaui) and they’ll be happy jailhouse lawyers until they break out or are released early by some dim bulb judge.

"A military tribunal would have been a good idea in all cases"

My personal belief is that they are still good ideas with the exception of those who are captured that are American citizens. I think Padilla's citizenship status demands that he be tried in Federal court. People picked up on the battlefield (to include the "domestic" battlefield) who aren't US citizens shouldn't enjoy the protection of the Constitution. But, US citizens - while in the custody of the US government, must be treated in accordance with the US Constitution, at all times.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.