Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadsword2004
One question I have, that many on the Left point out, is that the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was tried via the Court system. How does this square with the enemy combatants not being entitled to civilian courts argument?
I agree with Krauthammer, but doesn't the Richard Reid argument undermine the argument that terrorists are not to be mirandized?  |
Good question Broadsword:
Initially, let me say that the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. soil---the people that live there all adopted the Constitution when they applied for statehood. Accordingly, folks on that dirt are, generally, bound by the Constitutions rights, privileges and duties.
Miranda warnings are Supreme Court-made law. The warnings stem specifically from a Supreme Court case concerning the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. The Court held that, in order to show that a confession is not coerced(and therefore admissible at trial), law enforcement must advise the defendant of his right to remain silent, etc. (Clearly this is not contained within the text of the Constitution, but again that rant is for another day).
The Constitution, our criminal laws, and rules of criminal procedure, were not designed to be martial---the idea when drafting those laws was that the person charged is a United States citizen, who is presumed innocent, and as a citizen should be afforded all of the rights due a citizen.
In contrast, the panty bomber and the shoe bomber were never US citizens. In fact, they had hardly any contacts with the US at all prior to their attempts at terrorism, in a plane, flying through US airspace.
Our criminal laws were not set up for such a situation, for good reason. How could a US law enforcement guy investigate the home where Mr. Panty Bomber got his explosives? Our law enforcement guys have no jurisdiction there, a US judge's search warrant wouldn't work there(Nigeria, Britain, or any other sovereign nation).
Our court rules would also be impotent in such a situation. We demand that the government prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a criminal committed the charged crime(the jury's vote must be unanimous). All evidence comes in, the press has full access to the trial, the defendant has constitutional rights to cross-examine all witnesses against him to the fullest extent. We set the standard that high because the system was designed to try US citizens.
Accordingly, this country, as most have done throughout history, generally sets up military tribunals to try war crimes(which are much akin to terrorism). These result from the reality that war is conducted far from home, and the goal of war is not to build an evidentiary basis for the prosecution of criminal cases. Evidentiary standards are more lax, appellate rights are abbreviated, etc. Although justice is served, history has never shown that a country that tries war crimes has given those defendants the same rights that it gives its own citizens.
The present administration has indeed been parroting that Richard Reid's case was handled in a US District Court. This is a true statement. What they do not discuss is that he pleaded guilty. There was no long drawn-out trial, no depositions, no problem of procuring government witnesses from somewhere overseas, no acts by the defendant during trial in front of the cameras, no worries regarding leaking classified information or sources, no chain-of-custody issues regarding evidence.
This is the same mistake Bill Clinton made. They approached war stuff like they were prosecuting cases. IMHO, it seemed they wanted proof beyond a reasonable doubt before they acted in many instances. The problem with that approach is if you want to get past "reasonable doubt" before fighting battles, launching missles, or doing counter-terrorist stuff, you often finally acquire your proof when its too late.
My apologies for such a disjointed, rambling, stream-of-consciousness response. I'm trying to keep this short, make an argument, and get ready for a long day manana.
Hybrid Mode
