Yeah, now they're talking about having the trial here in New Haven!! As if that's a reasonable alternative. The courthouse is 2 blocks from the Yale campus! Talk about your media circus. Nah, that won't disrupt anything, will it? /sarcasm

For someone who was sold to us as quite the Ivy League intellectual (as opposed to, say, that dumb Texas hick Bush), Obama and his administration sure make a lot of stupid, illogical decisions. Could it be that book learning doesn't equate to common sense? Or maybe he's not really as smart as everyone said?

Terrorist suspects *should* be tried like common criminals. Giving them a special status just glorifies their alleged deeds.

And the policy instituted by Bush and continued by Obama of indefinite detentions for people who have not been convicted of any crime shreds the ideals we say we are fighting for. The shoe bomber was tried with regular criminal proceedings. Other countries use their regular unmodified legal systems for terrorist suspects. We are giving in to terrorism and letting it change not just how we operate, but who we are as a nation.

Check out Glenn Greenwald's latest column on this topic over at Salon.com.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/05/lynch_mobs

And read his earlier columns on this topic as well.

Terrorist suspects *should* be tried like common criminals.

Not if the conflict is actually a war. Terrorism is a strategy. Shooting someone or blowing someone up is a tactic. Shooting someone or blowing someone up for criminal reasons is criminal, and that's what the civilian court system is for, but shooting someone or blowing someone up because you are at war with their nation is different. In WW2 we didn't put German POW's on trial for fighting in the war, but we did have special tribunals for those accused of breaking the laws of war, as we accuse terrorists of doing. The question in those trials is not "Are you an enemy combatant?" but "Did you, who we know to be an enemy combatant, break the laws of war?"

The civilian court system is suitable for treason trials, but that obviously doesn't apply to people who never had allegiance to us to begin with. Foreigners in civilian clothes caught red-handed fighting for the enemy, such as the underpants bomber and the shoe bomber, are allowed to be summarily executed, but it's usually more practical to promise to instead incarcerate them in exchange for information. When the illegal combatant is a citizen of an ally it's polite to let that country do the executing.

And the policy instituted by Bush and continued by Obama of indefinite detentions for people who have not been convicted of any crime shreds the ideals we say we are fighting for.

Not so: in a war, the warring parties are allowed to (and rightly should) hold captured enemy soldiers as long as hostilities are ongoing, though they are also allowed to exchange prisoners, typically with an oath of parole (the promise of a freed prisoner to not take part in that particular conflict, for example by being assigned to a different front) that, if violated, would result in summary execution upon recapture.

The Bush administration treated the War on Terror as an actual war, declared by Congress. Thus the hubbub about "illegal combatants": the Geneva Conventions allow non-uniformed combatants to be summarily executed, but for domestic political reasons Bush didn't want to do that, so he treated them like a cross between POWs and criminal prisoners. Not much is required to constitute a "uniform"; a colored armband would suffice.

When Patton's armored division entered Germany, if someone wearing civilian clothes shot at them and then surrendered, that person wouldn't be put on trial to determine if they really were one of the enemy, and they wouldn't be put in a POW camp. They'd be executed. Similarly, it was not illegal for German soldiers to execute captured members of the French resistance. This did lead to false accusations, which in my opinion should themselves be prosecutable in civilian courts, unless the occupying power determines that the false accusation itself was an attempt to collude with the enemy, and summarily executes the accuser.

Since our terrorist enemies do not wear uniforms, when they're captured they claim to be innocent civilians. This makes it hard to tell when a captured person actually is an innocent civilian. I don't know how to solve that problem, but putting people you reasonably believe to be non-uniformed enemy combatants in a humane prison like Guantanamo is more than the laws of war require.

Abdulmutallab was Mirandized after just 50 total minutes of interrogation and he, having probably seen more than his share of "Law & Order" episodes, promptly shut up.

Cohen is either ignorant of the facts or is intentionally misleading his readers. The pantybomber has been providing valuable information to the FBI who used traditional interrogation techniques, not the torture tactics that so delight many on the right.

Terrorist suspects *should* be tried like common criminals. Giving them a special status just glorifies their alleged deeds.

Yep. We've convicted lots of them that way. The military tribunals, 3.

Right. George Orwell wrote a novel where this reasoning formed the basis of government. By creating a climate of interminable war, government can get by with interminable abuses.

I'd like to see a quick trial and execution at Gitmo... Obama has really bungled this one.

Whatever, I read the article you linked to, and I don't see where in there he has disclosed anything particularly valuable. Of course, I'm sure the FBI isn't releasing all the details yet, so we'll see. But the CIA and NSA guys already knew where he was trained and who he worked for; none of that has been a revelation. I will admit that bringing his family over seems to have helped, although that isn't going to work in a lot of cases.

And we have yet to hear about what kind of deals the prosecution is offering him. Remember, most of the "non-combat" detainees released from Gitmo have subsequently been re-captured or killed while fighting American soldiers. We owe it to our guys to not make their job harder by letting an enemy have do-overs.

One other note: Richard Reid had to be tried as a criminal because he is an American citizen. Why he wasn't charged with treason is still beyond me.

George Orwell wrote a novel where this reasoning formed the basis of government. By creating a climate of interminable war, government can get by with interminable abuses.

Preventing government action is one way to prevent government abuse, yes. Preventing government abuse via wartime powers is not, however, best accomplished by abolishing wartime powers.

I agree that it was a mistake for Congress to declare an open-ended war on "terror". It would have been better to pass a law (or sign an international treaty) that clarifies how nations declare and conduct war against nonstate actors, and then use those procedures against the various nonstate actors who have declared war on us. However, I expect that, like war, such a treaty or law would not make people who like civil liberties such as myself happy.

POWs are held until the end of the conflict and they are then repatriated to the government of their country which is then responsible for ensuring that they no longer engage in military activities against the repatriating country (unless another war is declared).

Criminals are held until the end of their sentence and are then released into society. They are then responsible for ensuring their conduct conforms to the laws of the society in which they live. Continuing bad behavior is met with harsher sentences for future crimes.

A terrorist's loyalty is to radical Islam and not to a country or a society. They are not POWs who, when released, will return to their countries and settle into civlian life because the war is over. They are not criminals who, when released, will (hopefully) have been convinced that any gain from crime is not worth the penalty and so will obey the law to avoid another prison sentence. Familial and societal reinforcement of societal norms is also key to reform.

That means their treatment is not as black-and-white as the "civilian trials vs. military tribunals" debate makes it seem.

The loyalty of these terrorists is to an ideology - the idea of a permanent jihad. They will attempt to harm Americans again if released. Their countries, societies, and families will not attempt to restrain their behavior (as they would with POWs or criminals).

Back home, they are being celebrated as heroes. Parents are sending their children out to be like them and become suicide bombers. Streets are named after them. Releasing terrorists into their own countries would be like releasing a mass murderer into the custody of the Manson Family.

Releasing terrorists into America would be like putting a wolverine in your child's crib. No matter how tame the wolverine, eventually your kid's gonna rub it the wrong way and the aftermath won't be pretty.

Re: The underwear bomber. Does anyone know when the 50 minutes of interrogation occurred ?

I ask because some say the interrogation began soon after taking him into custody. But the guy had started a fire IN HIS LAP ! That means his genitalia were badly burned, perhaps so badly burned that they had to be surgically removed. No one can be interrogated soon after that.

So I am curious about the timeline.

A terrorist's loyalty is to radical Islam and not to a country or a society.

Great post, but I would generalize this particular sentence to say that a terrorist's loyalty is to their ideology. There are terrorist groups organized around ethnic, environmental or political causes too. The Tamil Tigers even use suicide bombers.

>>I didn't like George Bush, but he at least knew better than to treat terrorists like car thieves

You, on the other hand, treat car thieves like terrorists!

(Just been reading "Rude People" -- fun fun.)

Great post, but I would generalize this particular sentence to say that a terrorist's loyalty is to their ideology.

Tru dat.

Bah. Foolishness Axman.

Who we are as a nation has been changing since Washington refused to seek reelection for a third term. When you say "other countries" What countries, pray tell, are you refering to? France has special tribunals for terrorism, seperate from standard criminal courts, Israel certainly doesn't do business the same way we do either, and lets not even get started on how terrorism & terrorists are handled by our former Soviet rivals.

There is a BIG goddamned difference between:

I. A punk holding up a liquor store to get money for drugs.
&
II. An Islamic fundamentalist planning to blow up a plane in a suicidal move who happens to be backed up by major nongovernmental organizations spread across a multitude of countries and yes, covertly harbored by nations hostile to our own.

The first guy you can just put in jail and throw away the key for a few years, and he's done for awhile. The second, is a whole lot worse and is part of something much larger and more dangerous. If you don't adapt the system to the circumstances, then sooner or later the circumstances may just end up deciding what system is ok.

The first guy, you get means, motive, and opportunity and prove he did it, your job with him is done. The second guy...you need intel, you need to know what he knows because not finding out could mean two or three of his buddies pick up right where he left off...and being "done" means being done confirming the identities of whatever is left of the dead.

They shouldn't be treated like common criminals because the fact is...they're not common criminals. They're a paramilitary force hellbent on war.

They feel quite glorified already, finding out we'll be treating them like terrorists isn't going to give them a new warm fuzzy feeling. And if it does, so what? I don't mind if they feel better about us having a better way to put bullets in their brains.

-----------------------------------------------------

Um...Axman...Orwell was writing his story (the one you are thinking of is 1984) in reference to the SOVIET UNION, after he grew disillusioned with communism. The U.S. government did not create Islam, it did not create that vile crap that calls for and yes, has produced our present conflict. it did not produce Ossama bin Ladin and it certainly did not produce the repeated attacks which have taken place against our nation from Islamic nations since our nation became independent.

All this is dodging the issue.

What do you want to happen to someone caught in the act of attempted mass murder?

What do you want to happen to someone caught in the act of attempted mass murder?

If they are a non-citizen, summary execution.
If they are a citizen, trial by jury. If they had political or religious motives for their attempt (i.e. terrorism), death by firing squad upon conviction, else LWOP.